Notebookcheck Logo

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T Review - Smartphone with the small difference

Jolly good. We are testing the sister model of the Redmi Note 8 for the western markets. The equipment is nominally identical, but in addition to NFC, there are also other adaptations to keep the customer satisfied. But the smartphone also has a surprise of the unpleasant kind in its luggage.
Android Touchscreen Smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T (Redmi Note 12 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Graphics adapter
Qualcomm Adreno 610
Memory
4 GB 
Display
6.30 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, Corning Gorilla Glas 5, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 56 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD bis zu 256 GB (FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Proximity sensor, Ambient light sensor, Acceleration sensor, Gyroscope, Digital Compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1,800 and 1,900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (bands 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8), LTE (bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38 and 40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.6 x 161.15 x 75.4 ( = 0.34 x 6.34 x 2.97 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (1/2.0", 0.8 µm, f/1.75, 79.4°) + 8 MPix (ultra wide angle, 1.12 µm, f/2.2, 120°) + 2 MPix (macro, 1.75 µm, f/2.4) + 2 MPix (depth optics, 1.75 µm, f/2.4), Camera2 API level: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix (1.12 µm, f/2.0), 1.080p-Video
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Virtual, Power supply (5V-3A/9V-2A/12V-1.5A), USB cable, SIM tool, protective cover, documentation, MiUI 10, 12 Months Warranty, DRM Widevine L1, FM radio, IR blaster, head SAR: 0.74 W/kg, body SAR: 1.30 W/kg, fanless
Weight
200 g ( = 7.05 oz / 0.44 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
249 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
79.3 %7
01/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
SD 665, Adreno 610		200 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.30"2340x1080
80.2 %7
01/2020
TCL Plex
SD 675, Adreno 612		192 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.53"2340x1080
78.4 %7
11/2019
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
SD 665, Adreno 610		188 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.30"2280x1080
79.8 %7
04/2019
Samsung Galaxy A50
Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3		166 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.40"2340x1080

Case, Equipment and Operation

The Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T is almost identical in construction to its sister model Redmi Note 8, the latter being the Asian model and our tester is the one for the Western market. The two smartphones are very similar and for more information, please read the Redmi Note 8 review. 

The workmanship of the smartphone is on a good level. The metal frame gives the Note 8T a high value, only the rather thick plastic bezel dims this impression a bit. The phone is optionally available in the sonorous colors Moonshadow Grey, Starscape Blue, as well as Moonlight White. 

Besides the Global ROM with the current MiUI 11 based on Android 9.0 Pie, there is also a wide language support. Unlike the Chinese version of the Redmi smartphone, DRM Widevine-L1 is also supported, so that correspondingly protected content can be consumed in full quality. 

There are no major changes in the communication modules, only LTE has a slightly wider band support and there is an NFC chip in the Xiaomi phone. It is also interesting to note that the SAR values are higher for the note 8T (0.74/1.30 W/kg) than for the sister model (0.191/1.089 W/kg). This will be due less to actually different radiation levels, but rather to different regional measurement standards. 

The rest of the equipment is quite complete. Besides an audio jack, there is also an infrared transmitter which can be used to control the home entertainment electronics. A VHF receiver is also installed. The card slot accepts two Nano-SIM and one microSD card. 

Size Comparison

❌
162.2 mm / 6.39 inch 76.56 mm / 3.01 inch 7.99 mm / 0.3146 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs161.15 mm / 6.34 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs158.4 mm / 6.24 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 166 g0.366 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
TCL Plex
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
287 (250min - 308max) MBit/s ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
278 (218min - 305max) MBit/s ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
272 (250min - 285max) MBit/s ∼95% -2%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
152 (1min - 254max) MBit/s ∼53% -45%
iperf3 receive AX12
TCL Plex
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
359 (330min - 369max) MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
315 (157min - 352max) MBit/s ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy A50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
294 (278min - 302max) MBit/s ∼82% -7%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
182 (11min - 259max) MBit/s ∼51% -42%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340Tooltip
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø315 (157-352)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø278 (218-305)

Cameras - Redmi Note 8T with Quad Camera

The 13-MP camera on the front uses a highly visible blur from the factory. However, the settings can be adjusted including face width and eye size or even deactivated completely. The quality of the picture is decent and well suited for social networking. 

The quad-camera on the back does not offer an optical zoom, but uses the high resolution of the image sensor for a double digital zoom. The photos usually succeed quite pleasingly, but in comparison to the competition they lack a bit of sharpness. It is also a pity that the night mode is only available for the main lens. 

Videos are at best recorded in Ultra HD with 30 FPS. Unfortunately, it's not possible to change the lens during recording. 

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
ColorChecker
14.4 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
14.9 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
4 ∆E
12 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
11 ∆E
1.8 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
4 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T: 7.54 ∆E min: 1.85 - max: 14.87 ∆E
ColorChecker
26.1 ∆E
46.3 ∆E
34.9 ∆E
36.7 ∆E
38.8 ∆E
55.9 ∆E
45.3 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
31 ∆E
22.9 ∆E
56.5 ∆E
57.3 ∆E
26.2 ∆E
43.2 ∆E
27.2 ∆E
63.1 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
40.6 ∆E
65 ∆E
63.1 ∆E
46.5 ∆E
34.2 ∆E
22.1 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T: 39.96 ∆E min: 12.57 - max: 64.96 ∆E
Testchart @ 1 Lux
Selfie with Redmi Note 8T

Display - Powerful IPS Panel in the Redmi Smartphone

Sub-pixel Array

The 6.3-inch IPS display of the Redmi Note 8T not only offers high sharpness, but can also score with its high luminosity. The black movement is slightly increased, but the contrast is still very decent. The most positive thing is that Xiaomi does without PWM. 

The CalMAN analysis also shows a good color display for this price range, which can be additionally adjusted in the settings. Merely the reaction times are a bit slow. 

631
cd/m²		648
cd/m²		653
cd/m²
628
cd/m²		628
cd/m²		646
cd/m²
618
cd/m²		608
cd/m²		621
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 653 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 631.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.09 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 628 cd/m²
Contrast: 1163:1 (Black: 0.54 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 3.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
99.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.17
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.30		TCL Plex
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.53		Motorola Moto G8 Plus
IPS, 2280x1080, 6.30		Samsung Galaxy A50
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.40
Response Times
11%
36%
85%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
56 ?(27.2, 28.8)
56 ?(29.2, 26.8)
-0%
36 ?(17, 19)
36%
8 ?(5, 3)
86%
Response Time Black / White *
36.8 ?(20.4, 16.4)
29.2 ?(12.8, 16.4)
21%
24 ?(9, 15)
35%
6 ?(3, 3)
84%
PWM Frequency
2358 ?(49)
463 ?(20)
119
Screen
-19%
-42%
-13%
Brightness middle
628
432
-31%
597
-5%
644
3%
Brightness
631
418
-34%
596
-6%
628
0%
Brightness Distribution
93
93
0%
93
0%
91
-2%
Black Level *
0.54
0.43
20%
0.52
4%
Contrast
1163
1005
-14%
1148
-1%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
2
3.4
-70%
5.93
-197%
2.64
-32%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
5.1
6
-18%
9.42
-85%
9.23
-81%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
3.7
3.8
-3%
5.3
-43%
2.5
32%
Gamma
2.17 101%
2.14 103%
2.232 99%
2.024 109%
CCT
6230 104%
6151 106%
7632 85%
6649 98%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-4% / -13%
-3% / -26%
36% / 11%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
   ↔    Response Time Black to White
36.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20.4 ms rise
↘ 16.4 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 94 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms).
   ↔    Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
56 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 27.2 ms rise
↘ 28.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 91 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.2 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18889 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.


Grayscale (Target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (Target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Target color space: sRGB)
Redmi Note 8T - Outdoor
Viewing Angles

Performance, Emissions and Battery Life

Pink noise measurement

The system performance of the Redmi Note 8T is on a good level and apps start quite fast. There are only minor restrictions for ambitious gamers, although most titles can be played smoothly on the smartphone, but you have to make do with reduced details in demanding games and even then you might experience some minor jerkiness. However, the surface temperatures always remain low and the note 8T doesn't even get hand-warm under load. 

The loudspeaker on the bottom edge delivers a solid performance, but is quite high loaded and sometimes creaks in our test device. Alternatively, the sound can be output via the jack port as well as USB. Bluetooth is available wirelessly.

The note 8T delivers good runtimes with its 4.000 mAh battery, even if these are somewhat below those of its sister model. 

Geekbench 5.0 | PCMark for Android | 3DMark | GFXBench
Geekbench 5.0
5.0 Single-Core (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
313 Points ∼36%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
492 Points ∼56% +57%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
315 Points ∼36% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (313 - 315, n=3)
314 Points ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (363 - 1668, n=12, last 2 years)
878 Points ∼100% +181%
5.0 Multi-Core (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1392 Points ∼50%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
939 Points ∼34% -33%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1379 Points ∼50% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1327 - 1392, n=3)
1366 Points ∼49% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1257 - 4233, n=12, last 2 years)
2783 Points ∼100% +100%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8186 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7029 Points ∼55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7437 - 9051, n=10)
8163 Points ∼64%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years)
12669 Points ∼100%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6587 Points ∼69%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
7950 Points ∼84% +21%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6534 Points ∼69% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5827 Points ∼61% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6189 - 11432, n=12)
6985 Points ∼73% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years)
9508 Points ∼100% +44%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23388 Points ∼39%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
22767 Points ∼38% -3%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23253 Points ∼39% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16037 Points ∼27% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (22445 - 25046, n=11)
23846 Points ∼40% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (31558 - 113147, n=5, last 2 years)
59969 Points ∼100% +156%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24871 Points ∼27%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
26320 Points ∼28% +6%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24992 Points ∼27% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16593 Points ∼18% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15403 - 25351, n=11)
24085 Points ∼26% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (40738 - 200519, n=5, last 2 years)
93693 Points ∼100% +277%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19349 Points ∼70%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
15461 Points ∼56% -20%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
18698 Points ∼68% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14353 Points ∼52% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (17865 - 24652, n=11)
20749 Points ∼75% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15179 - 44810, n=5, last 2 years)
27680 Points ∼100% +43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1744 Points ∼52%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1618 Points ∼48% -7%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼52% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1430 Points ∼42% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1675 - 1795, n=12)
1751 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (574 - 9221, n=101, last 2 years)
3367 Points ∼100% +93%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1616 Points ∼44%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1594 Points ∼44% -1%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1634 Points ∼45% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1279 Points ∼35% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1564 - 1663, n=12)
1623 Points ∼44% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (517 - 13263, n=101, last 2 years)
3659 Points ∼100% +126%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2412 Points ∼81%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1708 Points ∼57% -29%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2452 Points ∼82% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2432 Points ∼82% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2282 - 2596, n=12)
2427 Points ∼81% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (937 - 4609, n=101, last 2 years)
2979 Points ∼100% +24%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1785 Points ∼26%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1621 Points ∼24% -9%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1790 Points ∼26% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1667 Points ∼25% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1754 - 1810, n=12)
1787 Points ∼26% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (599 - 18846, n=167, last 2 years)
6769 Points ∼100% +279%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1663 Points ∼15%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1611 Points ∼15% -3%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1670 Points ∼15% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1553 Points ∼14% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1650 - 1692, n=12)
1669 Points ∼15% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (541 - 36477, n=166, last 2 years)
10808 Points ∼100% +550%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2399 Points ∼64%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1657 Points ∼44% -31%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2393 Points ∼63% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2241 Points ∼59% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2199 - 2503, n=12)
2369 Points ∼63% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (954 - 7019, n=166, last 2 years)
3777 Points ∼100% +57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1076 Points ∼43%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
937 Points ∼37% -13%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1128 Points ∼45% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1296 Points ∼52% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1076 - 1152, n=12)
1119 Points ∼44% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (286 - 7890, n=131, last 2 years)
2516 Points ∼100% +134%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
927 Points ∼37%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
829 Points ∼33% -11%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
979 Points ∼39% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1149 Points ∼46% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (927 - 999, n=12)
970 Points ∼39% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (240 - 9814, n=131, last 2 years)
2518 Points ∼100% +172%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2468 Points ∼82%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1724 Points ∼57% -30%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2424 Points ∼81% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2351 Points ∼78% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2212 - 2580, n=12)
2418 Points ∼81% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (858 - 4679, n=131, last 2 years)
3002 Points ∼100% +22%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1139 Points ∼22%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1057 Points ∼20% -7%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1126 Points ∼21% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1328 Points ∼25% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1097 - 1151, n=11)
1135 Points ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (317 - 16100, n=205, last 2 years)
5294 Points ∼100% +365%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
990 Points ∼12%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
955 Points ∼12% -4%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼12% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1188 Points ∼15% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (980 - 999, n=11)
988 Points ∼12% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (267 - 192870, n=204, last 2 years)
8184 Points ∼100% +727%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2410 Points ∼66%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
1684 Points ∼46% -30%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2341 Points ∼64% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2266 Points ∼62% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2154 - 2541, n=11)
2377 Points ∼65% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (839 - 7042, n=204, last 2 years)
3667 Points ∼100% +52%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.4 fps ∼20%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
8.3 fps ∼22% +12%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.6 fps ∼20% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.2 fps ∼22% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.2 - 15, n=12)
9.14 fps ∼24% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.6 - 123, n=241, last 2 years)
37.4 fps ∼100% +405%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.1 fps ∼17%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
9.1 fps ∼19% +12%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.2 fps ∼17% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9 fps ∼19% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7.8 - 8.4, n=12)
8.13 fps ∼17% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 175, n=242, last 2 years)
48.6 fps ∼100% +500%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.4 fps ∼16%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
4.9 fps ∼18% +11%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.5 fps ∼17% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4.9 fps ∼18% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (3.9 - 9.1, n=12)
5.53 fps ∼21% +26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.8 - 100, n=242, last 2 years)
26.7 fps ∼100% +507%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼15%
TCL Plex
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 6144
3 fps ∼16% +7%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼15% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.1 fps ∼16% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2.7 - 2.8, n=12)
2.78 fps ∼15% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.85 - 68, n=242, last 2 years)
18.8 fps ∼100% +571%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8TTCL PlexMotorola Moto G8 PlusSamsung Galaxy A50Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
30%
4%
3%
-16%
217%
Sequential Read 256KB
315.8
522
65%
302.5
-4%
507
61%
273 ?(95.6 - 704, n=196)
-14%
1180 ?(215 - 4512, n=235, last 2 years)
274%
Sequential Write 256KB
173.9
199.7
15%
217.4
25%
192.1
10%
177.2 ?(40 - 274, n=196)
2%
741 ?(13.6 - 3062, n=235, last 2 years)
326%
Random Read 4KB
90.4
130.8
45%
59.9
-34%
98.9
9%
59.4 ?(9.58 - 148.5, n=196)
-34%
207 ?(22.2 - 543, n=235, last 2 years)
129%
Random Write 4KB
91.2
130.1
43%
124.9
37%
18.2
-80%
31.9 ?(2.34 - 146.9, n=196)
-65%
217 ?(13 - 572, n=236, last 2 years)
138%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
71.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
74.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
72.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
73.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
77.4 ?(21.1 - 107.6, n=144)
8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
52.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
56.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
52.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
60.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
15%
58.3 ?(11.2 - 83.3, n=144)
10%

Temperature

Max. Load
 32.4 °C
90 F		32.6 °C
91 F		32.5 °C
91 F		 
 32.5 °C
91 F		32 °C
90 F		32.8 °C
91 F		 
 31.9 °C
89 F		32.3 °C
90 F		31.9 °C
89 F		 
Maximum: 32.8 °C = 91 F
Average: 32.3 °C = 90 F
30.1 °C
86 F		30.4 °C
87 F		32.6 °C
91 F
30.2 °C
86 F		30.5 °C
87 F		33.3 °C
92 F
29.8 °C
86 F		30.7 °C
87 F		31.9 °C
89 F
Maximum: 33.3 °C = 92 F
Average: 31.1 °C = 88 F
Power Supply (max.)  27 °C = 81 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 32.6 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.3 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.6 °C / 91 F.


Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.440253026.43126.726.64027.724.55037.635.76328.831.6802428.710021.226.212521.532.916021.147.220016.249.525018.753.63151661.44001663.650014.566.463014.668.380014.467.7100015.671.4125015.371.9160014.673200014.675.1250014.577.5315014.779.2400014.680.3500014.578.5630014.575800014.7741000015.174.61250015.168.31600015.155SPL27.187.9N0.970.7median 15.1median 68.3Delta1.41042.246.742.143.934.636.737.342.739.84532.736.427.729.327.83125.734.323.340.22344.221.449.221.455.720.161.620.563.421.869.520.472.12074.618.273.918.972.9187419.174.518.276.71871.21968.21872.418.17518.166.418.252.318.148.365.965.66267.731.38518.518.514.623.11.662.7median 19.1median 68.21.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Redmi Note 8TSamsung Galaxy A50
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A50 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery Life

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
4000 mAh		TCL Plex
3820 mAh		Motorola Moto G8 Plus
4000 mAh		Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh		Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
764
616
-19%
980
28%
701
-8%
888 ?(424 - 1252, n=242, last 2 years)
16%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 78)
12h 44min

Pros

+ fast SoC
+ good IPS panel
+ well-rounded equipment package

Cons

- Camera quality needs for optimization
- higher SAR values

Verdict - Redmi Note 8T Shows Only Few Weaknesses

In Review: Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T. Test device provided by Xiaomi Austria.
In Review: Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T. Test device provided by Xiaomi Austria.

With the Redmi Note 8T, Xiaomi offers a smartphone that is already available for well under 200 euros. The customer gets quite a lot for that. Especially the display is convincing in the test with a good color representation and a broadly adjustable luminance. The integrated SoC also offers plenty of computing power. 

The nominal quad camera takes decent pictures, but the macro and bokeh lens are more show than really being of noticeable use. Given the price, however, this is grumbling at a high level. 

With the Redmi Note 8T, Xiaomi puts together a modern smartphone package at an attractive price-performance ratio.

The fully-fledged dual SIM support and the possibility to additionally expand the memory with microSD should also be positively emphasized. If that's not enough, you can also fall back on a version with 6/128 GB memory, and if you want to save a few more euros, you can go for the version with 3/32 GB. 

Why Xiaomi only uses Bluetooth 4.2 in the Note 8T remains a mystery forever, with no noticeable limitations. With LTE band 20, DRM certification and NFC, the smartphone is also freed from the restrictions of the Chinese version compared to its sister model. 

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T - 01/21/2020 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
49 / 70 → 69%
Weight
88%
Battery
90%
Display
88%
Games Performance
15 / 64 → 23%
Application Performance
64 / 86 → 74%
Temperature
94%
Noise
100%
Audio
77 / 90 → 86%
Camera
60%
Average
74%
79%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 8 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T Review - Smartphone with the small difference
Daniel Schmidt, 2020-01-24 (Update: 2020-01-24)