Honor Magic6 RSR Porsche Design review

02 May 2024

Sort by:

  • F
  • FKM
  • Hx1
  • 13 May 2024

47cosmos, 12 May 2024a lot cooler with flat scr.I agree with you big time

    Why no speaker test?

      a lot cooler with flat scr.

        • ?
        • Anonymous
        • 3Yi
        • 12 May 2024

        still prefer magic 6 pro cause of 19:5 aspect ratio.

          • ?
          • Anonymous
          • CIX
          • 10 May 2024

          Honor already selling their double layered display before Apple's currently unavailable iPad pros' tandem display must have caused years before bedtime.

            • J
            • Jos
            • yuq
            • 09 May 2024

            RSR shots are definitely less detailed unfortunately! when looking at the comparison shots its easy to see the difference when look at the 2 shots of the tree, the grass in the Pro shot is rendered way way better, the RSR shot is mushy. Pity!

              GT Headlines, 03 May 2024The design is Awesome. Just looking like a wao! It looks cooler than Magic 6 Pro, but it will be expensive.

                Mazhar , 05 May 2024What s this phone price tag????? I don't know but I expect it will be more expensive than Magic 6 Pro.

                  • R
                  • Rocco Invades Ukrain
                  • Myc
                  • 06 May 2024

                  What about video performance? Magic Pro was lacking bit compared to Samsung phones?

                    • M
                    • Mazhar
                    • CBd
                    • 05 May 2024

                    What s this phone price tag?????

                      • ?
                      • Anonymous
                      • L68
                      • 05 May 2024

                      funny everlasting comments, this is what happens when people have no friends and no hoppies and are constantly consuming asocial media and games with their smartphone glued to their hand

                        jiyen235, 03 May 2024There's a few differences. Firstly, GSMarena provi... moreYour first point
                        I agree. It's great that they provide full size photos and videos. However, I think the photos they take have remained largely unchanged for as long as I've been looking at reviews. This is one of the biggest strengths of gsmarena reviews.

                        Your second point.
                        I think you are too focused on the rankings. Nowadays there is no best smartphone camera in all areas. It's true that when you have a testing system then certain manufacturers can optimise their phone specifically to do well in the test and can keep tweaking the software to achieve this. However, having said that the scores for the different categories are very useful and the reviews themselves are very useful. I will give two examples from my own personal experience of phones I've had that have received camera reviews from Dxomark, the Honor v30 pro and the Xiaomi 12. The reviews from dxomark basically perfectly described the strengths and weaknesses for the two cameras. For example, they commented on the major weakness of the Xiaomi 12 being that it can produce a lot of noise indoors in photos and in situations where lighting is not ideal. This absolutely was very precise and corresponded to my experience. Gsmarena said 'noise is non-existant even indoors' which was completely inaccurate. As for the colours of the Iphone 15 pro Max most reviewers say they have good colours that are natural. For example in the review here they say, 'the white balance is spot-on, and the color rendition is a 1:1 match to real-life.' so I don't think DXO is inconsistent here. They take 3,000 photos for every review so I think they will be judging the colour across a large sample size. Anyway, the main reason I refer to DXO reviews is they have been extremely relflective of my personal experience for the phone cameras I've used. Their overall scores and rating system though is weighted so I wouldn't pay too much attention to the overall score. In reality though any of the phones around the 140 mark or above are all excellent and I think the reviews are useful for highlighting the strengths and weaknesses so users can get an idea of how they perform in areas they view as important. I can't comment on their other tests outside the camera as I don't currently have a phone they have tested for those. If in the future I buy a phone and I think their reviews are not reflective then I might change my mind but for now I can only go on my past experience based on they phones they've covered that I've owned.

                        Your third point
                        '"They are making their living off it after all and want to have good relationships with manufacturers"
                        This statement was not directed specifically at DXO but rather all the large review sites that have relationships with manufactures and receive either cash payments or benefits in kind.

                        As for your comment, 'I'll always respect unbiased reviewers'. This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as an unbiased reviewer. I forget who it was but there was one reviewer I used to watch who stated this and it's true.

                          The design is Awesome. Just looking like a wao!

                            IpsDisplay, 03 May 2024The most important step to proving something Is to firs... more"we now have another claim that can be tested"

                            It won't be tested, without bias at least. It will be tested by some corporation that Honor or their display maker would've paid to do the tests. Why? Because phones don't get complete, unbiased coverage. There's no proper phone enthusiast who's performing these tests. For audiophiles there's a lot, for videophiles there's a lot, for cars, bikes, etc. there's a lot. But for phones? There's only some people who upload brightness, performance and some other numbers and then just show samples. That's it. There's not gonna be proper testing to find it out, heck even the OLED TVs' myth wouldn't have been debunked if it weren't for one amazing website and team of reviewers.

                            "Also your individual indifference to display testing doesn't make the criticism for improvement on display reviews less credible there is always room for improvement"

                            I never said they shouldn't improve. I DO think they should improve. Like especially with their display testing numbers like it must be so easy for them to just provide the color gamuts and the color accuracy charts but they don't. I just don't understand why.

                            The reason I commented that stuff earlier is because dxo's testing mostly is technical jargon that doesn't actually amount to anything in the final reviews. The testing blogs sound cool but the testing itself isn't that confidence inspiring like "perceptual tests", just some random numbers based on what they think subjectively all the time. It would've been cool if each test was shown to the consumer so they knew WHY they rated it in that way but ofc that'd be too much work, which they most likely don't do, or reveal actual weaknesses of brands they support, which they don't want to do. They design their tests to be as difficult to compare with others as possible so the shilling is tough to question without actually owning the devices.

                            Anyways, the variety of tests is important. But the tests themselves need to be important, for example the most important part of a display is color and brightness. That's the thing that's the easiest to notice. Show a person a 60 hz phone and they might not care too much but show them a photo of them on a screen with delta e of 60 or something on colors and 8k or something color temperature and they'll have a problem. The brightness tests should also be done in wider ranges of window sizes. But if they go and idk, only add the flicker rate, that's cool and all but only a minority of users will experience head aches and that too in extremely dark conditions, afaik like 10 nits and below for the display or something.

                              Aierlan, 03 May 2024All these tech websites and large youtubers are paid to som... moreThere's a few differences.

                              Firstly, GSMarena provides the numbers of the tests, the photo samples AND the video samples. The review itself might be biased, the numbers of the rating may be skewed BUT YOU HAVE THE SAMPLES. You can see what made them think that. You can look at the performance and form your own opinion. You can listen to the sound files, you can look at the battery testing done. GSM's opinion can be helped to make your own opinion or you can ignore it and form your own with the objective tests they have done.

                              Secondly, the scoring system of websites and especially dxo is what I dislike about them. There's always supposed to be an arbitrary number that represents what they want us to think about the device. For example the rankings and how it compares to others. These are skewed by their bias which happens because of their work with manufacturers. There's one thing that happens when you get a phone from a company and the other is when you're literally working with the company and consulting them. Therefore, dxo could, in theory, be working with companies on bringing up certain scores so that they could get higher up in the ranks overall. Transparency about their tests doesn't mean anything when most of their testing is left out. Only some fringe cases are shown and those aren't that helpful sometimes and other times they are complete misses.

                              Just because someone is biased doesn't mean they can't make a review, however they must TELL in advance that they have been provided the sample or something to inform people that bias MIGHT be present. Dxo does not do that, in addition they don't even say they're a consulting firm. So yeah, there's not just bias but they're literally working with the companies, it's almost like having the company put out a review on their own website.

                              The point of no return for me was back during the S21 days and then the 12S Ultra being lower than the Mi 11 Ultra was just the icing on the cake. But the moment I was completely baffled by their incompetence was in the X100 Pro review.

                              X100 Pro :


                              15 Pro Max :


                              The 15 Pro Max is their champ, it's supposed to be the color BENCHMARK. Yet here it completely fails, and even though it fails, dxo doesn't mention it. Oh no, the X100 Pro is described as "Noticeable yellow color cast; fairly accurate skin tones", whereas the 15 Pro Max is described as "Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max – Natural white balance". The white balance may be natural but what about the colors? Contrast? The shadows? The image is an absolute technical failure yet they put it up?

                              Their color score is supposed to include repeatability but they don't include that here ig?? Like I was just baffled by how blatantly they tried to make the iPhone look better. Take a few more shots at least, yikes.

                              Anyways, my final point is going to address this :
                              "They are making their living off it after all and want to have good relationships with manufacturers"

                              Who cares? It's literally a review, they're supposed to review the products without bias. Yet they do not do that, they tend to support the companies, who already have enough money, to shill them so that they continue receiving products and the consumers, if they aren't too techy, just believe these shills. That's the problem. The lack of transparency, the lack of genuineness, it's just disgusting when someone acts like they're unbiased.

                              I'll always respect unbiased reviewers and especially sites like RTINGS. Who are like Dxo in terms of their tests and scientific scoring, yet they buy each of the products themselves and are always listening to feedback and improving. Then there's some youtubers like The Tech Phenomena, Ben's gadget reviews, etc. Solo youtubers who share their thoughts honestly and give samples on the screen and talk about quirks if they find. No inherent bias towards a brand but towards a type of thing they like for example either foldables or higher contrast in photos, and THAT'S transparency.

                              Dxo is transparent about their testing but what's the point if most of their testing is just talk and doesn't actually get shown on reviews? The point is to get an arbitrary score out, so that companies can brag about it and some youtubers can talk about the phone being "#1 on dxo!!". Pathetic.

                                jiyen235, 02 May 2024"Making OLED more durable is a massive massive feat&qu... moreThe most important step to proving something

                                Is to first make the technology exist and then make he claim

                                Now that this technology is out there it's not a matter of WHO will prove but WHEN

                                Like your example Samsung made a claim and it was debunked so it's a good thing we now have another claim that can be tested

                                Also your individual indifference to display testing doesn't make the criticism for improvement on display reviews less credible there is always room for improvement

                                  jiyen235, 02 May 2024"Making OLED more durable is a massive massive feat&qu... moreAll these tech websites and large youtubers are paid to some extent by the manufacturers. For example they sometimes pay for trips for them to attend launches, put them up in hotels, give them phones. They are basically all inherently biased due to this. They are making their living off it after all and want to have good relationships with manufacturers. This website is no different in that regard. It's important though to have standard tests to at least reduce the bias. Gsmarena doesn't have any objective scoring system at all which leaves them extra prone to bias. They also don't have any transparency about their scoring system as there are no articles explaining it. It seems to be just an impression score which is very subjective and largely dependent on the impression and preferences of the author of the particular review. A standard scoring system doesn't eliminate the bias but it at least can reduce it and improve the consistency

                                    • M
                                    • Max
                                    • 3Ny
                                    • 03 May 2024

                                    Why are there no comparisons in the Photo Compare Tool?
                                    Why are there no video tests?

                                      I wonder how could gsma miss that insane sensor sensitivity in review. I did certainly not catch a word about how fast shutter speed is compared to pro, which was from 2x to 4x.
                                      RSR miss some detail on wood and hdr in low light is worse than pro, iso lvl and shutter speed are wonderful tho.

                                        IpsDisplay, 02 May 2024"It's hard not to make it look like we're do... more"Making OLED more durable is a massive massive feat"

                                        And who's there to prove that this is more durable? Seriously, apart from a few horrible releases like iirc Pixel 4, there haven't been any BAD OLED panels on phones that burn in. How are you going to prove that it is indeed more durable?

                                        Samsung said QD-OLED was more durable but RTINGS proved that wrong with their test (Though arguably it was their inept software features that led to it).


                                        " a dxomark display test for example"

                                        lol. I wouldn't even care if a site did all the tests like HDTVTest does, if they're going to be working close with the manufacturers and consult with them, they're automatically biased. And then they also go on and put those same manufacturers at the top each time. Yeahhh there's a reason why I have trust issues with them. Crinacle is someone from whom dxo could learn from. Never review stuff that you work on the manufacturer with because it's inherently biased. Heck even Mrwhosetheboss used to know it, he's sort of a shill now but back when he got paid to show off Vivo devices he never said they were reviews. I respect that. Dxo? Not so much.