Notebookcheck

Breve análisis del Smartphone Wiko WIM

Marcus Herbrich, Tanja Hinum (traducido por Francisco García), 08/20/2017

Clase alta francesa. Ha llegado el momento para el fabricante francés Wiko de ir un paso más allá. Anteriormente conocido por producir sólo teléfonos de bajo precio, ahora con el WIM, se atreven a competir en un nivel premium. Hemos revisado el smartphone para averiguar si es un verdadero competidor.

Wiko WIM (WIM Serie)
Adaptador gráfico
Qualcomm Adreno 506
Memoría
4096 MB 
pantalla
5.5 pulgadas 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixels 401 PPI, Capacitiva, AMOLED, On-Cell, Corning Gorilla Glass 3, lustroso: si
Disco duro
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 51.4 GB libre
Conexiones
1 USB 2.0, Audio Conexiones: jack de audio de 3.5mm, Card Reader: MicroSD de hasta 128 GB, 1 Lector de Huellas Digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: sensor de aceleración, giroscopio, sensor de proximidad, brújula, USB-OTG, Miracast, Status-LED
Equipamento de red
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2, 4G LTE B1 (2100)/ B2 (1900)/ B3 (1800)/ B5 (850)/ B7 (2600)/ B8 (900)/ B12 (700)/ B17 (700)/ B20 (800)/ B28A (700)/ B38 (2600)/ B40 (2300) H+/3G+/3G WCDMA 850/ 900/ 1900/ 2100 MHz GSM/GPRS/EDGE 850/ 900/ 1800/ 1900 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamaño
Alto x ancho x profundidad (en mm): 7.9 x 156.2 x 75.3
Battería
3200 mAh Litio-Polimero, Duración de la Batería (según el fabricante): 309 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 7.1 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix doble cámara, f/2.0 flash de doble LED, 4x zoom digital
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix flash frontal
Características adicionales
Altavoces: Mono, Teclado: virtual, Luz de Teclado: si, Adaptador de corriente, auriculares, cable micro USB, manual de instrucciones corto, Wiko OS, 24 Meses Garantía, Valor de SAR: 1.49W/​kg (cabeza), 1.25W/​kg (cuerpo), fanless
Peso
160 g
Precio
400 Euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size comparison

162.4 mm 79.9 mm 8 mm 170 g156.2 mm 75.3 mm 7.9 mm 160 g152.7 mm 74.7 mm 7.35 mm 158 g148.9 mm 71.9 mm 7.9 mm 163 g146.5 mm 72.7 mm 7.8 mm 158 g146.1 mm 71.4 mm 7.9 mm 159 g145.2 mm 70.5 mm 7.5 mm 168 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 6
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
574 MBit/s ∼100% +64%
Wiko WIM
Adreno 506, 626, 64 GB eMMC Flash
351 MBit/s ∼61%
LG G6
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
325 MBit/s ∼57% -7%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
257 MBit/s ∼45% -27%
HTC U Ultra
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB eMMC Flash
247 MBit/s ∼43% -30%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
Adreno 506, 626, 64 GB eMMC Flash
242 MBit/s ∼42% -31%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
Mali-T830 MP3, 7880, 32 GB eMMC Flash
214 MBit/s ∼37% -39%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 6
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
500 MBit/s ∼100% +81%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
313 MBit/s ∼63% +13%
Wiko WIM
Adreno 506, 626, 64 GB eMMC Flash
276 MBit/s ∼55%
HTC U Ultra
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB eMMC Flash
259 MBit/s ∼52% -6%
LG G6
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
220 MBit/s ∼44% -20%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
Mali-T830 MP3, 7880, 32 GB eMMC Flash
167 MBit/s ∼33% -39%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
Adreno 506, 626, 64 GB eMMC Flash
148 MBit/s ∼30% -46%

Comparación de Imágenes

Elige una escena y navega dentro de la primera imagen. Un click cambia el nivel de zoom. Un click en la imagen aumentada abre la original en una ventana nueva. La primera imagen muestra la fotografía escalada del dispositivo de pruebas.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click para cargar imágenes
354
cd/m²
341
cd/m²
336
cd/m²
364
cd/m²
344
cd/m²
345
cd/m²
372
cd/m²
363
cd/m²
356
cd/m²
Temperatura del cuarto
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 372 cd/m² Médio: 352.8 cd/m² Minimum: 64.5 cd/m²
iluminación: 90 %
Brillo con batería: 344 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Negro: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.7 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 5.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.73
Wiko WIM
AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
BQ Aquaris X Pro
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
HTC U Ultra
SLCD 5, 2560x1440, 5.7
LG G6
IPS LCD, 2880x1440, 5.7
Xiaomi Mi 6
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.15
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
Super AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.2
OnePlus 3T
Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
-14%
3%
33%
31%
56%
-8%
Brightness middle
344
458
33%
470
37%
646
88%
620
80%
539
57%
421
22%
Brightness
353
473
34%
445
26%
611
73%
586
66%
542
54%
430
22%
Brightness Distribution
90
88
-2%
88
-2%
89
-1%
89
-1%
93
3%
84
-7%
Black Level *
0.51
0.22
0.23
0.28
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.7
7.1
-25%
5.5
4%
4.5
21%
4.8
16%
1.6
72%
7.1
-25%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
12.2
14.5
-19%
11.9
2%
8.3
32%
8.8
28%
2.6
79%
15.3
-25%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.1
10.5
-106%
7.6
-49%
6
-18%
5.3
-4%
1.5
71%
6.8
-33%
Gamma
2.73 81%
2.28 96%
2.2 100%
2.27 97%
2.25 98%
2.28 96%
2.23 99%
CCT
7407 88%
8951 73%
7454 87%
7996 81%
7473 87%
6422 101%
7866 83%
Contrast
898
2136
2809
2214
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
67.74
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.05

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Para atenuar el brillo de pantalla algunos portátiles están encendiendo y apagando la retroiluminación muy rápidamente. Esto se hace a una frecuencia que no debiera detectarse a simple vista. Si la frecuencia es demasiado lenta, la gente sensible podría experimentar problemas visuales, dolores de cabeza e incluso ver parpadeos.
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM no detectado

Comparación: 51 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 9447 (mínimo: 43 - máxmo: 142900) Hz.

Tiempos de respuesta del display

Los tiempos de respuesta del display muestran lo rápido que puede cambiar la pantalla de un color al siguiente. Tiempos lentos de respuesta pueden llevar a imágenes persistentes alrededor de objetos en movimiento o a displays borrosos. Particularmente los aficionados a los juegos 3D frenéticos deberían usar una pantalla con tiempos de respuesta rápidos.
       Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco
26 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada↗ 21 ms subida
↘ 5 ms bajada
La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta relativamente lentos en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones.
En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 46 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es similar al dispositivo testado medio (25.2 ms).
       Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris
10 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada↗ 5 ms subida
↘ 5 ms bajada
La pantalla mostró buenos tiempos de respuesta en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones competitivos.
En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 636 (máximo) ms. » 7 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Esto quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta medido es mejor que la media (40.2 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados.
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
67000 Points ∼24%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
66226 Points ∼23% -1%
HTC U Ultra
139017 Points ∼49% +107%
LG G6
151751 Points ∼54% +126%
Xiaomi Mi 6
181909 Points ∼64% +172%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
60603 Points ∼21% -10%
OnePlus 3T
159866 Points ∼56% +139%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
4660 Points ∼39%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
4915 Points ∼41% +5%
HTC U Ultra
5217 Points ∼44% +12%
LG G6
5152 Points ∼43% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6686 Points ∼56% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
4060 Points ∼34% -13%
Work performance score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
5621 Points ∼29%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
5886 Points ∼30% +5%
HTC U Ultra
5217 Points ∼27% -7%
LG G6
5703 Points ∼29% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 6
7548 Points ∼39% +34%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
5035 Points ∼26% -10%
OnePlus 3T
5664 Points ∼29% +1%
BaseMark OS II
Web (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
933 Points ∼46%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
806 Points ∼40% -14%
HTC U Ultra
907 Points ∼45% -3%
LG G6
1073 Points ∼53% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 6
1263 Points ∼62% +35%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
659 Points ∼32% -29%
OnePlus 3T
891 Points ∼44% -5%
Graphics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
965 Points ∼3%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
1012 Points ∼4% +5%
HTC U Ultra
4591 Points ∼16% +376%
LG G6
5138 Points ∼18% +432%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6206 Points ∼22% +543%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1528 Points ∼5% +58%
OnePlus 3T
4444 Points ∼15% +361%
Memory (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
1007 Points ∼13%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
1046 Points ∼14% +4%
HTC U Ultra
1581 Points ∼21% +57%
LG G6
1930 Points ∼26% +92%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4054 Points ∼54% +303%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1508 Points ∼20% +50%
OnePlus 3T
1954 Points ∼26% +94%
System (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
3549 Points ∼22%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
3492 Points ∼21% -2%
HTC U Ultra
2834 Points ∼17% -20%
LG G6
3646 Points ∼22% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 6
5857 Points ∼36% +65%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
2593 Points ∼16% -27%
OnePlus 3T
3130 Points ∼19% -12%
Overall (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
1339 Points ∼16%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
1314 Points ∼16% -2%
HTC U Ultra
2078 Points ∼25% +55%
LG G6
2496 Points ∼30% +86%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3694 Points ∼44% +176%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1408 Points ∼17% +5%
OnePlus 3T
2218 Points ∼26% +66%
Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (ordenar por valor)
LG G6
7080 Points ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
3002 Points ∼7%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
4562 Points ∼13%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
4369 Points ∼12% -4%
LG G6
4369 Points ∼12% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6714 Points ∼19% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
4104 Points ∼11% -10%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
939 Points ∼15%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
928 Points ∼15% -1%
LG G6
1831 Points ∼29% +95%
Xiaomi Mi 6
1938 Points ∼31% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
773 Points ∼12% -18%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
2106 Points ∼49%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
2132 Points ∼49% +1%
HTC U Ultra
1763 Points ∼41% -16%
LG G6
1955 Points ∼45% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3007 Points ∼70% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1713 Points ∼40% -19%
OnePlus 3T
1728 Points ∼40% -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
381 Points ∼6%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
379 Points ∼6% -1%
HTC U Ultra
2405 Points ∼38% +531%
LG G6
2980 Points ∼47% +682%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4072 Points ∼64% +969%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
710 Points ∼11% +86%
OnePlus 3T
2418 Points ∼38% +535%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
466 Points ∼8%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
464 Points ∼8% 0%
HTC U Ultra
2225 Points ∼39% +377%
LG G6
2669 Points ∼47% +473%
Xiaomi Mi 6
3775 Points ∼66% +710%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
816 Points ∼14% +75%
OnePlus 3T
2221 Points ∼39% +377%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
2140 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
2127 Points ∼48% -1%
HTC U Ultra
1646 Points ∼37% -23%
LG G6
1961 Points ∼44% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 6
2921 Points ∼66% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1752 Points ∼39% -18%
OnePlus 3T
1452 Points ∼33% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
742 Points ∼7%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
725 Points ∼7% -2%
HTC U Ultra
3807 Points ∼36% +413%
LG G6
4121 Points ∼39% +455%
Xiaomi Mi 6
6231 Points ∼59% +740%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1053 Points ∼10% +42%
OnePlus 3T
3310 Points ∼31% +346%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
868 Points ∼11%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
849 Points ∼11% -2%
HTC U Ultra
2947 Points ∼38% +240%
LG G6
3282 Points ∼42% +278%
Xiaomi Mi 6
4978 Points ∼64% +474%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
1155 Points ∼15% +33%
OnePlus 3T
2577 Points ∼33% +197%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
16939 Points ∼20%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
17044 Points ∼20% +1%
HTC U Ultra
21263 Points ∼25% +26%
LG G6
22335 Points ∼26% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 6
20330 Points ∼24% +20%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
13057 Points ∼15% -23%
OnePlus 3T
22426 Points ∼26% +32%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
13241 Points ∼2%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
13277 Points ∼3% 0%
HTC U Ultra
33446 Points ∼6% +153%
LG G6
32128 Points ∼6% +143%
Xiaomi Mi 6
58228 Points ∼11% +340%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
13314 Points ∼3% +1%
OnePlus 3T
34494 Points ∼6% +161%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
14074 Points ∼6%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
13963 Points ∼6% -1%
HTC U Ultra
29668 Points ∼13% +111%
LG G6
29276 Points ∼12% +108%
Xiaomi Mi 6
41172 Points ∼18% +193%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
13256 Points ∼6% -6%
OnePlus 3T
30810 Points ∼13% +119%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
23 fps ∼0%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
23 fps ∼0% 0%
HTC U Ultra
74 fps ∼1% +222%
LG G6
75 fps ∼1% +226%
Xiaomi Mi 6
119 fps ∼1% +417%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
34 fps ∼0% +48%
OnePlus 3T
91 fps ∼1% +296%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
23 fps ∼1%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
22 fps ∼1% -4%
HTC U Ultra
46 fps ∼1% +100%
LG G6
46 fps ∼1% +100%
Xiaomi Mi 6
60 fps ∼2% +161%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
33 fps ∼1% +43%
OnePlus 3T
59 fps ∼2% +157%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
10 fps ∼2%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
9.8 fps ∼2% -2%
HTC U Ultra
26 fps ∼5% +160%
LG G6
38 fps ∼7% +280%
Xiaomi Mi 6
63 fps ∼11% +530%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
15 fps ∼3% +50%
OnePlus 3T
46 fps ∼8% +360%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
10 fps ∼3%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
9.6 fps ∼3% -4%
HTC U Ultra
23 fps ∼6% +130%
LG G6
27 fps ∼7% +170%
Xiaomi Mi 6
56 fps ∼15% +460%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
15 fps ∼4% +50%
OnePlus 3T
45 fps ∼12% +350%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
6.4 fps ∼0%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
6.4 fps ∼0% 0%
HTC U Ultra
12 fps ∼0% +88%
LG G6
29 fps ∼1% +353%
Xiaomi Mi 6
43 fps ∼1% +572%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
9.1 fps ∼0% +42%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼1% +400%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
6.4 fps ∼0%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
6.3 fps ∼0% -2%
HTC U Ultra
12 fps ∼0% +88%
LG G6
16 fps ∼0% +150%
Xiaomi Mi 6
42 fps ∼1% +556%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
9 fps ∼0% +41%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼1% +400%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
3.8 fps ∼1%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
3.5 fps ∼1% -8%
HTC U Ultra
15 fps ∼4% +295%
LG G6
20 fps ∼5% +426%
Xiaomi Mi 6
26 fps ∼7% +584%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
5.2 fps ∼1% +37%
OnePlus 3T
20 fps ∼5% +426%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (ordenar por valor)
Wiko WIM
3.5 fps ∼2%
BQ Aquaris X Pro
3.5 fps ∼2% 0%
HTC U Ultra
8.4 fps ∼5% +140%
LG G6
11 fps ∼6% +214%
Xiaomi Mi 6
26 fps ∼15% +643%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
5.2 fps ∼3% +49%
OnePlus 3T
20 fps ∼12% +471%

Leyenda

 
Wiko WIM Qualcomm Snapdragon 626, Qualcomm Adreno 506, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris X Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 626, Qualcomm Adreno 506, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
HTC U Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG G6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 Samsung Exynos 7880, ARM Mali-T830 MP3, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3T Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
70.453 Points ∼100% +161%
LG G6 (Chrome 57)
56.628 Points ∼80% +110%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
54.526 Points ∼77% +102%
HTC U Ultra (Chrome 56)
45.084 Points ∼64% +67%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44))
32.222 Points ∼46% +19%
Wiko WIM (Chrome Version 59)
26.965 Points ∼38%
BQ Aquaris X Pro (Chrome 59.0.3071.125)
26.837 Points ∼38% 0%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
11909 Points ∼100% +157%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
9798 Points ∼82% +112%
LG G6 (Chrome 57)
9113 Points ∼77% +97%
HTC U Ultra (Chrome 56)
5511 Points ∼46% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44))
5256 Points ∼44% +14%
Wiko WIM (Chrome Version 59)
4625 Points ∼39%
BQ Aquaris X Pro (Chrome 59.0.3071.125)
4424 Points ∼37% -4%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Wiko WIM (Chrome Version 59)
8781.2 ms * ∼100%
BQ Aquaris X Pro (Chrome 59.0.3071.125)
8741.5 ms * ∼100% -0%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44))
6442.4 ms * ∼73% +27%
HTC U Ultra (Chrome 56)
4141 ms * ∼47% +53%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
2719.3 ms * ∼31% +69%
Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58)
2667.5 ms * ∼30% +70%
LG G6 (Chrome 57)
2464.2 ms * ∼28% +72%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
135 Points ∼100%
LG G6 (Chrome 57)
122 Points ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44))
89 Points ∼66%
BQ Aquaris X Pro (Chrome 59.0.3071.125)
86 Points ∼64%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Wiko WIMBQ Aquaris X ProHTC U UltraLG G6Xiaomi Mi 6Samsung Galaxy A5 2017OnePlus 3T
AndroBench 3-5
-6%
35%
34%
145%
-25%
191%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.4
49.77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-19%
67.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
10%
53.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
55.98 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-9%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.8
78.69 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-6%
82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-1%
77.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-7%
73.71 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-12%
Random Write 4KB
13.34
12.07
-10%
13.7
3%
16.58
24%
25.19
89%
12.13
-9%
74.39
458%
Random Read 4KB
38.1
37.97
0%
84.2
121%
95.19
150%
143.49
277%
22.41
-41%
123.57
224%
Sequential Write 256KB
136.67
139.63
2%
164.7
21%
122.85
-10%
196.7
44%
77.1
-44%
165.3
21%
Sequential Read 256KB
272.08
270.46
-1%
423.9
56%
428.67
58%
728.2
168%
182.03
-33%
436.43
60%
Carga Máx.
 30.2 °C30.4 °C29.9 °C 
 31.6 °C31.2 °C30.4 °C 
 31.8 °C32 °C31 °C 
Máximo: 32 °C
Médio: 30.9 °C
29.8 °C31 °C30.8 °C
30.8 °C31.5 °C30.9 °C
31.1 °C32 °C31.5 °C
Máximo: 32 °C
Médio: 31 °C
Conector de corriente  31.5 °C | Temperatura del cuarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-350
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.5 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs202831.128252832.228313429.9344036.83536.85031.629.631.66331.726.131.78027.232.727.210027.532.727.512535.236.535.216039.123.539.120047.922.547.925053.322.953.331558.620.958.640061.619.861.650065.821.865.863069.118.569.180072.618.472.6100074.418.274.4125072.816.972.8160075.116.575.1200076.416.776.4250078.416.378.431507816.178400078.416.278.450007416.174630068.71668.7800067.416.167.41000064.616.164.61250062.915.962.91600052.81652.8SPL873087N65.71.465.7median 67.4median 16.9median 67.4Delta10.23.510.230.929.330.926.229.126.228.627.828.629.832.629.828.826.728.82628.8262424.92424.824.724.830.722.130.729.220.829.236.120.136.141.719.841.748.72148.753.321.753.357.420.557.462.62162.662.118.462.165.71765.767.717.367.766.915.266.970.315.570.371.21571.27314.97378.515.178.581.314.681.373.914.673.973.114.673.17214.6726014.66048.214.648.28628.88657.31.257.3median 62.6median 17median 62.612.2312.231.63725.434.125.333.632.932.533.630.531.631.828.428.42724.920.829.62242.221.352.620.859.721.260.419.459.919.56217.766.617.96717.866.117.368.117.468.816.771.617.271.618.270.417.970.317.667.917.762.217.856.717.953.518.15118.238.13080.41.345.9median 17.9median 621.39hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseWiko WIMHTC U UltraLG G6
Wiko WIM audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HTC U Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 77% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 85% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

LG G6 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.35 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 25% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de corriente
Off / Standbydarklight 0.12 / 0.18 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.93 / 1.28 / 1.37 Watt
Carga midlight 2.39 / 4.25 Watt
 color bar
Clave: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Wiko WIM
3200 mAh
HTC U Ultra
3000 mAh
LG G6
3300 mAh
BQ Aquaris X Pro
3100 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6
3350 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
3000 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Power Consumption
-94%
-53%
-34%
-34%
6%
-75%
Idle Minimum *
0.93
1
-8%
0.62
33%
0.67
28%
0.45
52%
0.64
31%
0.61
34%
Idle Average *
1.28
2.41
-88%
1.43
-12%
1.7
-33%
1.67
-30%
1.36
-6%
1.77
-38%
Idle Maximum *
1.37
2.46
-80%
1.48
-8%
1.78
-30%
1.69
-23%
1.4
-2%
1.81
-32%
Load Average *
2.39
6.8
-185%
5.52
-131%
4.42
-85%
4.07
-70%
2.53
-6%
6.67
-179%
Load Maximum *
4.25
8.9
-109%
10.47
-146%
6.3
-48%
8.54
-101%
3.63
15%
10.98
-158%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Tiempo de Ejecución de la Batería
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
8h 12min
Wiko WIM
3200 mAh
BQ Aquaris X Pro
3100 mAh
HTC U Ultra
3000 mAh
LG G6
3300 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6
3350 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017
3000 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Duración de Batería
WiFi v1.3
492
730
48%
546
11%
692
41%
739
50%
843
71%
494
0%

Pro

+ Pantalla AMOLED
+ Superficie y diseño
+ Wi-Fi y GPS
+ Almacenamiento dual-SIM + expansible
+ Sin parpadeo PWM

Contra

- Botones temblorosos
- Alto valor SAR
- Bajo máximo brillo de la pantalla
- Almacenamiento eMMC
- Rendimiento web
- calidad de imagen
En análisis: Wiko WIM, modelo de pruebas cortsía de Wiko Alemania.
En análisis: Wiko WIM, modelo de pruebas cortsía de Wiko Alemania.

El Wiko WIM nos deja con una buena impresión. Teniendo en cuenta el precio de alrededor de $470, los clientes potenciales pueden esperar un smartphone de gama media sólido con doble SIM y posibilidad de ampliar el almacenamiento interno y una buena duración de la batería.

Los competidores en esta gama de precios suelen ofrecer generalmente un paquete mejor. Especialmente en lo que respecta a la calidad de la cámara, el rendimiento de navegación y la velocidad del almacenamiento interno, Wiko WIM no es demasiado convincente. El rango de brillo y la precisión del color de la pantalla AMOLED, por lo demás muy buena, se suman al potencial perdido del dispositivo.

Comprar el Wiko WIM no hará ningún daño. A la luz de la competencia y debido a su PVR, sin embargo, no recomendamos este teléfono tal cual está.

 


Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.

Wiko WIM - 08/15/2017 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Acabado
86%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 89%
Ratón
90%
Conectividad
50 / 60 → 84%
Peso
91%
Battería
91%
Pantalla
81%
Rendimiento de juegos
29 / 63 → 45%
Rendimiento de la Aplicación
52 / 70 → 74%
Temperatura
94%
Ruido
100%
Audio
63 / 91 → 69%
Cámara
70%
Médio
74%
83%
Smartphone - media ponderada

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análisis y pruebas de ordenadores portátiles y móviles teléfonos > Análisis > Breve análisis del Smartphone Wiko WIM
Marcus Herbrich, 2017-08-20 (Update: 2017-08-20)