Notebookcheck

Test: Vivo IQOO Smartphone (Sammanfattning)

Mike Wobker (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 06/25/2019

En billig speltelefon med en del äss i rockärmen. Vivo är tillbaka och den här gången kommer de med en billig speltelefon. IQOO har ångkammarkylning, tryckkänsliga knappar på telefonens sida och en fängslande AMOLED-skärm på 6.41 tum. Vivo har dessutom inkluderat en Snapdragon 855 SoC, vilket bör hjälpa telefonen att hålla jämna steg med moderna flaggskepp. Läs vidare för att få reda på om Vivo IQOO kan leva upp till förväntningarna.

Vivo IQOO
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
Grafikkort
Qualcomm Adreno 640
Minne
6144 MB 
Skärm
6.41 tum 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixlar 402 PPI, Kapacitiv, AMOLED, glansig: ja
Hårddisk
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 108 GB ledigt
Anslutningar
1 USB 2.0, Ljudanslutningar: 3.5 mm hörlursanslutning, 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: Accelerometer, e-kompass, gyroskop, närhetssensor.
Nätverk
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5, 2G GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. 3G/WCDMA: 850, 1,900, 2,100 MHz. 4G/LTE/FDD/TDD: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, B8, B12, B17, B34, B38, B39, B40, B41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Storlek
höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 8.51 x 157.7 x 75.2
Batteri
4000 mAh Litiumpolymer
Operativsystem
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix 12 MP, f/1.8. 13 MP, f/2.4 ultravidvinkelssensor. 2 MP djupsensor.
Secondary Camera: 12 MPix f/2.0
Övrigt
Högtalare: 1, Tangentbord: Virtuellt, Tangentbordsbelysning: ja, USB-nätadapter (US), USB Typ C-kabel, skyddsfodral, SIM-verktyg, FunTouch OS, 12 Månader Garanti
Vikt
196 g, Strömförsörjning: 120 g
Pris
440 Kr
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO

Storleksjämförelse

167 mm 73 mm 8.3 mm 180 g160.1 mm 76.1 mm 8.2 mm 167 g157.7 mm 75.2 mm 8.51 mm 196 g157.5 mm 74.67 mm 7.61 mm 173 g154.8 mm 75.8 mm 8 mm 180 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
678 (min: 549, max: 725) MBit/s ∼100% +599%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
668 (min: 617, max: 692) MBit/s ∼99% +589%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
317 (min: 163, max: 343) MBit/s ∼47% +227%
Nokia 8.1
Adreno 616, 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash
312 (min: 273, max: 341) MBit/s ∼46% +222%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=424)
223 MBit/s ∼33% +130%
Vivo IQOO
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
97 (min: 92, max: 99) MBit/s ∼14%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
580 (min: 548, max: 602) MBit/s ∼100% +452%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
534 (min: 430, max: 578) MBit/s ∼92% +409%
Nokia 8.1
Adreno 616, 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash
300 (min: 169, max: 367) MBit/s ∼52% +186%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=424)
213 MBit/s ∼37% +103%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
153 (min: 133, max: 180) MBit/s ∼26% +46%
Vivo IQOO
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
105 (min: 101, max: 111) MBit/s ∼18%
0102030405060708090100110120Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø96.2 (92-99)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø105 (101-111)
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Översikt
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Översikt
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Bro
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Bro
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Slinga
GPS-Test: Vivo IQOO - Slinga
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Översikt
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Översikt
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bro
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bro
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Slinga
GPS-Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Slinga

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
Foto av vår testkarta
Foto av vår testkarta
Testkartan i detalj
620
cd/m²
613
cd/m²
625
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
612
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
626
cd/m²
620
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 626 cd/m² Medel: 618.4 cd/m² Minimum: 2.2 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 98 %
Mitt på batteriet: 612 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255
Vivo IQOO
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
IPS, 2520x1080, 6.5
Xiaomi Mi 9
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Nokia 8.1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
Google Pixel 3a XL
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
-13%
37%
4%
26%
Brightness middle
612
572
-7%
593
-3%
567
-7%
409
-33%
Brightness
618
580
-6%
587
-5%
547
-11%
410
-34%
Brightness Distribution
98
96
-2%
94
-4%
92
-6%
96
-2%
Black Level *
0.4
0.61
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.37
4.5
16%
0.9
83%
4.39
18%
1.3
76%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.65
12.2
-15%
2
81%
7.28
32%
2.3
78%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.8
7.9
-65%
1.5
69%
4.9
-2%
1.5
69%
Gamma
2.255 98%
2.16 102%
2.27 97%
2.248 98%
2.22 99%
CCT
7440 87%
8726 74%
6548 99%
7642 85%
6621 98%
Contrast
1430
930

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 detected 219 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 219 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 219 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9367 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.8 ms).
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7480 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4278 Points ∼56% -43%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7482 Points ∼98% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
6813 Points ∼90% -9%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
6479 Points ∼85% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (7372 - 8024, n=10)
7597 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=322)
4603 Points ∼61% -38%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10187 Points ∼93%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4804 Points ∼44% -53%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10999 Points ∼100% +8%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5856 Points ∼53% -43%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5172 Points ∼47% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10187 - 11388, n=12)
10936 Points ∼99% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3240 - 11598, n=381)
4621 Points ∼42% -55%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3460 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1346 Points ∼38% -61%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3523 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1799 Points ∼51% -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1616 Points ∼46% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3406 - 3537, n=12)
3482 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (903 - 4824, n=383)
1387 Points ∼39% -60%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10450 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6018 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9035 Points ∼86% -14%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
6887 Points ∼66% -34%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7377 Points ∼71% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8342 - 11440, n=11)
9555 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3227 - 11440, n=378)
5073 Points ∼49% -51%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
14439 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
7181 Points ∼50% -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10985 Points ∼76% -24%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
8309 Points ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
9397 Points ∼65% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10330 - 14439, n=11)
12008 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4096 - 14439, n=546)
5569 Points ∼39% -61%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3121 Points ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2282 Points ∼69% -27%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3288 Points ∼100% +5%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2314 Points ∼70% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2104 - 3365, n=11)
2979 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2051 - 15735, n=61)
2372 Points ∼72% -24%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5653 Points ∼99%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
809 Points ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5723 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1416 Points ∼25% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4236 - 5862, n=11)
5548 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (341 - 14536, n=61)
2389 Points ∼42% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4790 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
944 Points ∼19% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4914 Points ∼100% +3%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1550 Points ∼32% -68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3800 - 5012, n=11)
4640 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (419 - 14786, n=64)
2076 Points ∼42% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4037 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2345 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3754 Points ∼93% -7%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2534 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2532 Points ∼63% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1934 - 4535, n=11)
3733 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4535, n=392)
1844 Points ∼46% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6951 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
862 Points ∼12% -88%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7076 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1845 Points ∼26% -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1612 Points ∼23% -77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5184 - 7115, n=11)
6745 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (76 - 8206, n=392)
1619 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5990 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1003 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5913 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1964 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1754 Points ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3969 - 6312, n=11)
5675 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (94 - 6312, n=395)
1504 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4023 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2352 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3788 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2516 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2495 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2345 - 4703, n=10)
3878 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=407)
1821 Points ∼45% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10028 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1397 Points ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10291 Points ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2855 Points ∼28% -72%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2537 Points ∼25% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6358 - 10420, n=10)
9416 Points ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (131 - 14951, n=407)
2194 Points ∼21% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7530 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1536 Points ∼20% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7449 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2772 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2528 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5268 - 8141, n=10)
7099 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (159 - 8141, n=408)
1872 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4017 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2351 Points ∼59% -41%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3758 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2514 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2466 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2705 - 4320, n=11)
3756 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4320, n=468)
1781 Points ∼44% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6233 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
808 Points ∼13% -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6355 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1702 Points ∼27% -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1487 Points ∼23% -76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5663 - 6362, n=11)
6235 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (65 - 6362, n=470)
1350 Points ∼21% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5552 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
946 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5509 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1834 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1631 Points ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4556 - 5734, n=11)
5418 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (80 - 5734, n=478)
1286 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3826 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2349 Points ∼60% -39%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3614 Points ∼92% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2467 Points ∼63% -36%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2489 Points ∼64% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3505 - 4454, n=10)
3910 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (512 - 4454, n=501)
1691 Points ∼43% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9653 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1327 Points ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9963 Points ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2763 Points ∼28% -71%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2428 Points ∼24% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6122 - 10008, n=10)
9125 Points ∼92% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 10008, n=501)
1815 Points ∼18% -81%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7212 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1469 Points ∼20% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7166 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2691 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2441 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5251 - 7820, n=10)
7026 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 7820, n=509)
1562 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41855 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25339 Points ∼61% -39%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
14820 Points ∼35% -65%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
14631 Points ∼35% -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (23877 - 45072, n=10)
31426 Points ∼75% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4811 - 45072, n=659)
13790 Points ∼33% -67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
107036 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
106534 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
39655 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
35596 Points ∼33% -67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (103955 - 110432, n=10)
95143 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7567 - 162695, n=659)
20320 Points ∼19% -81%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
79518 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
62225 Points ∼78% -22%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
28895 Points ∼36% -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
26999 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (63969 - 83518, n=10)
61470 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8316 - 83518, n=660)
16844 Points ∼21% -79%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
162 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
35 fps ∼21% -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
65 fps ∼39% -60%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
58 fps ∼35% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (85 - 167, n=12)
160 fps ∼96% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6 - 251, n=689)
35.3 fps ∼21% -78%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
30 fps ∼47% -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼95% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
57 fps ∼90% -5%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
53 fps ∼84% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (59 - 91, n=12)
63.3 fps ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.8 - 120, n=692)
27.3 fps ∼43% -54%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
97 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
16 fps ∼16% -84%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
100 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
32 fps ∼32% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
29 fps ∼29% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (50 - 102, n=12)
95 fps ∼95% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.7 - 132, n=608)
19.6 fps ∼20% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼99%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
13 fps ∼21% -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼99% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
31 fps ∼51% -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
28 fps ∼46% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (51 - 85, n=12)
60.5 fps ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.4 - 115, n=613)
18.1 fps ∼30% -70%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
10 fps ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
23 fps ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
20 fps ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (35 - 71, n=12)
62.5 fps ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 88, n=469)
16.1 fps ∼23% -77%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
56 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
8.4 fps ∼14% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +4%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
22 fps ∼38% -61%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
19 fps ∼33% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (36 - 58, n=12)
49.2 fps ∼85% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.4 - 110, n=472)
15.4 fps ∼27% -72%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
3.2 fps ∼13% -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
8.2 fps ∼34% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7.2 fps ∼30% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (14 - 26, n=11)
21.5 fps ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.86 - 59, n=172)
8.99 fps ∼37% -63%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2.2 fps ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼95% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5 fps ∼30% -69%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
4.5 fps ∼27% -72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8.5 - 24, n=12)
16.9 fps ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.26 - 31, n=172)
6.24 fps ∼37% -61%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4.9 fps ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
13 fps ∼35% -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼30% -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 38, n=11)
34.2 fps ∼92% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 59, n=173)
13.6 fps ∼37% -62%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.1 fps ∼15% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
14 fps ∼34% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 43, n=12)
40.3 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.94 - 63, n=173)
14.9 fps ∼36% -64%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.3 fps ∼15% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
13 fps ∼31% -68%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼26% -73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 42, n=12)
39.8 fps ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.89 - 54, n=398)
10.7 fps ∼25% -74%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
35 fps ∼92%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.1 fps ∼13% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼100% +9%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼32% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼29% -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (21 - 41, n=12)
32.9 fps ∼87% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 58, n=402)
9.74 fps ∼26% -72%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
217967 Points ∼58%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
117574 Points ∼31% -46%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
374820 Points ∼100% +72%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
169262 Points ∼45% -22%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
158868 Points ∼42% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (217967 - 398720, n=12)
353615 Points ∼94% +62%
Average of class Smartphone
  (52607 - 398720, n=291)
133058 Points ∼35% -39%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1415 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1046 Points ∼74% -26%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1378 Points ∼97% -3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1077 Points ∼76% -24%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1186 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1076 - 1431, n=11)
1321 Points ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1731, n=621)
751 Points ∼53% -47%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9254 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1611 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9270 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
3086 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2815 Points ∼30% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8125 - 9477, n=11)
9109 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 15969, n=621)
1986 Points ∼21% -79%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4970 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1236 Points ∼25% -75%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4031 Points ∼81% -19%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2947 Points ∼59% -41%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
3316 Points ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2661 - 7500, n=11)
4976 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=621)
1487 Points ∼30% -70%
System (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8974 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4342 Points ∼48% -52%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8441 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5681 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5507 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5993 - 9143, n=11)
8480 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 12202, n=621)
2910 Points ∼32% -68%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4917 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1734 Points ∼35% -65%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4595 Points ∼93% -7%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2731 Points ∼56% -44%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2794 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3847 - 5397, n=11)
4716 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 6097, n=625)
1450 Points ∼29% -71%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
108 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (94 - 114, n=12)
106 Points ∼98% +6%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
100 Points ∼93%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
72 Points ∼67% -28%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 161, n=152)
63.4 Points ∼59% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼57% -38%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
54 Points ∼50% -46%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
24534 Points ∼100% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 25640, n=12)
22912 Points ∼93% +21%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
18882 Points ∼77%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
12717 Points ∼52% -33%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
11056 Points ∼45% -41%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
8163 Points ∼33% -57%
Average of class Smartphone (1994 - 43280, n=682)
6403 Points ∼26% -66%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=702)
10678 ms * ∼100% -309%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
4739 ms * ∼44% -82%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
3360.7 ms * ∼31% -29%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
3034.9 ms * ∼28% -16%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
2610.5 ms * ∼24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=11)
2141 ms * ∼20% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
1873.2 ms * ∼18% +28%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
110.54 Points ∼100% +22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90.8 - 118, n=9)
107 Points ∼97% +18%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
90.763 Points ∼82%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
66.048 Points ∼60% -27%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
57.573 Points ∼52% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 273, n=521)
39.3 Points ∼36% -57%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo IQOOSony Xperia 10 PlusXiaomi Mi 9Nokia 8.1Google Pixel 3a XLAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-36%
154%
-46%
32%
56%
-52%
Random Write 4KB
26.2
16.77
-36%
165.32
531%
7.3
-72%
86.96
232%
86.8 (18.2 - 250, n=39)
231%
21.3 (0.14 - 250, n=730)
-19%
Random Read 4KB
147.46
77.67
-47%
149.36
1%
69.9
-53%
92.12
-38%
139 (98.9 - 158, n=39)
-6%
46.1 (1.59 - 196, n=730)
-69%
Sequential Write 256KB
194.16
205.19
6%
388.27
100%
203.8
5%
179.09
-8%
205 (182 - 503, n=39)
6%
94.6 (2.99 - 590, n=730)
-51%
Sequential Read 256KB
794.73
280.34
-65%
666.06
-16%
279.3
-65%
315.6
-60%
751 (427 - 912, n=39)
-6%
266 (12.1 - 1504, n=730)
-67%
Hög belastning
 44.7 °C41.7 °C39.2 °C 
 44.5 °C42.3 °C39.3 °C 
 44 °C41.5 °C39.3 °C 
Max: 44.7 °C
Medel: 41.8 °C
33.8 °C37.5 °C40.5 °C
34.5 °C37.5 °C40.7 °C
35.2 °C38.8 °C39.9 °C
Max: 40.7 °C
Medel: 37.6 °C
Strömförsörjning (max.)  45.3 °C | Rumstemperatur 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 41.8 °C / 107 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 44.7 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2047.140.12541.339.33136.833.94043.343.15042.3506332.135.98026.92610024.423.612523.427.216021.840.320019.949.425019.955.331519.759.740019.161.350020.663.863019.165.980017.568.6100017.266.5125016.965.8160017.269.1200016.973.5250016.472.931501568.2400014.365.650001467.2630013.968.180001467.7100001470.61250013.954.9160001443.7SPL61.228.881N141.149.8median 17.2median 65.8Delta2.68.139.432.928.325.418.726.526.725.933.229.422.622.721.822.224.43123.839.218.550.417.149.117.853.815.556.114.162.51467.913.869.114.773.515.47715.276.614.376.514.574.913.971.714.675.914.178.114.374.314.574.614.875.714.87514.864.41558.226.887.10.871.4median 14.8median 71.71.510hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo IQOOXiaomi Mi 9
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo IQOO audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Strömförbrukning
Av/Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Låg belastningdarkmidlight 1.2 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt
Hög belastning midlight 4.8 / 8.5 Watt
 color bar
Förklaring: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo IQOO
4000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Nokia 8.1
3500 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
22%
30%
33%
39%
17%
23%
Idle Minimum *
1.2
0.68
43%
0.67
44%
0.8
33%
0.7
42%
0.897 (0.6 - 1.3, n=11)
25%
0.878 (0.2 - 3.4, n=757)
27%
Idle Average *
2.2
2.12
4%
1.26
43%
1.5
32%
1.63
26%
1.505 (1 - 2.35, n=11)
32%
1.733 (0.6 - 6.2, n=756)
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.6
2.17
17%
1.29
50%
1.8
31%
1.67
36%
1.875 (1.13 - 2.9, n=11)
28%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=757)
22%
Load Average *
4.8
3.82
20%
3.71
23%
3.2
33%
2.64
45%
4.61 (3.64 - 5.8, n=11)
4%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=751)
15%
Load Maximum *
8.5
6.44
24%
9.3
-9%
5.4
36%
4.62
46%
8.87 (7.49 - 10.2, n=11)
-4%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=751)
31%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
18tim 05min
Vivo IQOO
4000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Nokia 8.1
3500 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
1085
635
-41%
546
-50%
738
-32%
709
-35%

För

+ bra batteritid
+ lyxigt utseende och känsla
+ prisvärd
+ skapliga kameror

Emot

- blir varm
- hög energiförbrukning
- långsamt WiFi
- FunTouch OS optimerat för den Kinesiska marknaden
Recension av Vivo IQOO. Recensionsex från TradingShenzhen.
Recension av Vivo IQOO. Recensionsex från TradingShenzhen.

Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.

Vivo IQOO lever upp till sitt mål om att vara en billig speltelefon, trots sina brister. Den stora och ljusstarka skärmen är fängslande, vilket Vivo har understrukit med en kraftfull SoC. De extra tryckkänsliga knapparna på telefonens kant är en kul idé, även om de inte direkt är nödvändiga. Xiaomi Mi 9 får ut mer av sin Snapdragon 855 än vad IQOO får, men vår recensionsenhet klarade utan problem av alla moderna och komplexa mobilspel.

Vivo IQOO är en kraftfull speltelefon med en skaplig uppsättning kameror, men du får kämpa för att använda den om du inte kan läsa Kinesiska.

Det var smart att inkludera ett batteri på 4.000 mAh, då IQOO drar mer energi än sina gelikar. IQOO håller sig en hel dag mellan laddningarna, även om stödet för Quick Charge innebär att du inte behöver sitta fast vid nätuttaget allt för länge.

Vidare har IQOO en gedigen uppsättning kameror som levererar skapliga resultat när det är ljust. Underligt nog härstammar de största problemen vi har med IQOO från dess styrkor. Vår recensionsenhet blev varm och led av hög energiförbrukning, men det är oftast det man får betala för konsekvent prestanda i spel. Svag WiFi-prestanda kommer nog däremot få en del gamers att tänka en extra gång, precis som det dåligt översatta operativsystemet. I korthet så är Vivo IQOO en nedtonad speltelefon med mycket som talar till dess fördel. Begränsad LTE-täckning och ett OS som är fyllt av Kinesiska hindrar den dock från att utmana de bästa speltelefonerna på marknaden.

Vivo IQOO - 06/20/2019 v6(old)
Mike Wobker

Design
87%
Tangentbord
67 / 75 → 89%
Mus
95%
Anslutningar
39 / 60 → 66%
Vikt
88%
Batteri
100%
Skärm
85%
Spelprestanda
72 / 63 → 100%
Programprestanda
85 / 70 → 100%
Temperatur
86%
Ljudnivå
100%
Audio
68 / 91 → 75%
Camera
76%
Subjektivt intryck
-1%
Medel
75%
87%
Smartphone - Vägt medel

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Vivo IQOO Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Mike Wobker, 2019-06-25 (Update: 2019-06-26)