C 2018
Notebookcheck

Test: Vivo Nex Ultimate Smartphone (Sammanfattning)

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Felicitas Krohn (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 07/30/2018

En hel bredsida. Skärmen på Vivo Nex Ultimate täcker nästan 91% av framsidan. Tack vare alla möjliga innovativa lösningar fungerar detta även utan en skåra. Den här recensionen kommer tala om ifall denna Kinesiska toppskikts-telefon är lämplig för att användas dagligen eller om den bara är till för att visas upp.

Vivo Nex Ultimate (Nex Serie)
Minne
8192 MB 
Skärm
6.59 tum 2.14:1, 2316 x 1080 pixlar 388 PPI, kapacitiv tryckkänslig, Super AMOLED, glansig: ja
Hårddisk
256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 235 GB ledigt
Anslutningar
1 USB 2.0, Ljudanslutningar: 3.5 mm ljudanslutning, 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: Ultraljud, Kompass, Acceleration, Gyroskop
Nätverk
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM 900/1800/1900 MHz;3G 850/900/1900/2100MHz; LTE (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28A/B28B), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Storlek
höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 7.98 x 162 x 77
Batteri
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Litiumpolymer, Quick Charge 4
Operativsystem
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix F/1.8, OIS, Dubbel LED-blixt 5 MP F/2.4
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix F/2.0, utfällbar
Övrigt
Tangentbord: virtuellt tangentbord, snabbladdning, laddningskabel, hörlurar, SIM-verktyg, Funtouch OS, Designs, fingeravtrycksläsare bakom skärmen, USB OTG, piezo-elektrisk högtalare, LTE Cat. 16 (1 GBit/s nedladdning, 150 MBit/s uppladdning), fanless
Vikt
199 g
Pris
699 Kr
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate

Storleksjämförelse

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
656 MBit/s ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
654 MBit/s ∼100% +25%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼93% +16%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
503 MBit/s ∼77% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=279)
199 MBit/s ∼30% -62%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
668 MBit/s ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
653 MBit/s ∼98% +25%
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼97% +24%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼92% +17%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼78%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=279)
195 MBit/s ∼29% -63%
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Översikt
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Översikt
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Skog
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Skog
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bro
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bro
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Översikt
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Översikt
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Skog
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Skog
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Bro
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Bro

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
349.1
cd/m²
359
cd/m²
354
cd/m²
348
cd/m²
356
cd/m²
353
cd/m²
342
cd/m²
353
cd/m²
350
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 359 cd/m² Medel: 351.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.52 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 95 %
Mitt på batteriet: 356 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.08 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
95.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.096
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.3
LG G7 ThinQ
IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Screen
45%
63%
32%
37%
Brightness middle
356
530
49%
974
174%
492
38%
430
21%
Brightness
352
536
52%
975
177%
463
32%
437
24%
Brightness Distribution
95
93
-2%
96
1%
90
-5%
87
-8%
Black Level *
0.49
0.59
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7.08
2.6
63%
5.4
24%
2.4
66%
2.3
68%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
14.1
5.1
64%
13.1
7%
6.2
56%
4.6
67%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.7
2.7
43%
5
-6%
4.5
4%
2.4
49%
Gamma
2.096 105%
2.04 108%
2.31 95%
2.25 98%
2.28 96%
CCT
7297 89%
6206 105%
7480 87%
6395 102%
6160 106%
Contrast
1988
834

* ... 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 117.9 Hz ≤ 15 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 117.9 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 117.9 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8677 (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. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
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 (41.1 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
229991 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
173997 Points ∼76% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ
223464 Points ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
162183 Points ∼70% -29%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 232931, n=11)
221422 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 250848, n=366)
72912 Points ∼32% -68%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
201210 Points ∼70% -30%
LG G7 ThinQ
256276 Points ∼90% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
266601 Points ∼93% -7%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 290397, n=15)
269351 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=145)
111758 Points ∼39% -61%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5096 Points ∼62% -33%
LG G7 ThinQ
7717 Points ∼93% +2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
8078 Points ∼98% +7%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=15)
8225 Points ∼99% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (6998 - 9868, n=233)
4440 Points ∼54% -41%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6084 Points ∼62% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ
9503 Points ∼97% +19%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
9179 Points ∼93% +15%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼98% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=13)
9824 Points ∼100% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (4147 - 13211, n=396)
4801 Points ∼49% -40%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
1009 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1235 Points ∼89% +22%
LG G7 ThinQ
1374 Points ∼99% +36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
1234 Points ∼89% +22%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼100% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=13)
1356 Points ∼98% +34%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=471)
680 Points ∼49% -33%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7887 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6121 Points ∼77% -22%
LG G7 ThinQ
7906 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
7918 Points ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 7965, n=13)
7736 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15875, n=471)
1622 Points ∼20% -79%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4798 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3095 Points ∼65% -35%
LG G7 ThinQ
3744 Points ∼78% -22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3012 Points ∼63% -37%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 4798, n=13)
3442 Points ∼72% -28%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=471)
1171 Points ∼24% -76%
System (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8252 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5308 Points ∼64% -36%
LG G7 ThinQ
8070 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
5792 Points ∼70% -30%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5792 - 8435, n=13)
7672 Points ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=471)
2367 Points ∼29% -71%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4213 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3338 Points ∼77% -21%
LG G7 ThinQ
4257 Points ∼99% +1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3614 Points ∼84% -14%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3489 - 4478, n=13)
4056 Points ∼94% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=475)
1185 Points ∼28% -72%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
8310 Points ∼60% -39%
LG G7 ThinQ
13497 Points ∼97% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (12493 - 14417, n=12)
13856 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=170)
4186 Points ∼30% -69%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6744 Points ∼74% -26%
LG G7 ThinQ
9029 Points ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
8937 Points ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7983 - 9182, n=14)
8707 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 11598, n=220)
4163 Points ∼46% -54%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2028 Points ∼82% -18%
LG G7 ThinQ
2448 Points ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2456 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2330 - 2468, n=14)
2441 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=221)
1229 Points ∼50% -50%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2346 Points ∼68% -28%
LG G7 ThinQ
3255 Points ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2606 Points ∼76% -20%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3669, n=14)
3196 Points ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (549 - 4183, n=325)
1588 Points ∼46% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2661 Points ∼51% -49%
LG G7 ThinQ
5006 Points ∼96% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
5181 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5220, n=14)
4908 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 5220, n=325)
1124 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2584 Points ∼55% -44%
LG G7 ThinQ
4471 Points ∼96% -2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
4248 Points ∼91% -7%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=14)
4370 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (86 - 4734, n=333)
1075 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2342 Points ∼68% -17%
LG G7 ThinQ
3150 Points ∼91% +12%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2159 Points ∼63% -23%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3642, n=14)
3001 Points ∼87% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4150, n=356)
1484 Points ∼43% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3928 Points ∼48% -52%
LG G7 ThinQ
7633 Points ∼92% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
6630 Points ∼80% -19%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=14)
7753 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (104 - 8312, n=356)
1527 Points ∼19% -81%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3414 Points ∼54% -41%
LG G7 ThinQ
5799 Points ∼92% +1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
4540 Points ∼72% -21%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6378, n=14)
5712 Points ∼91% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (127 - 6378, n=364)
1304 Points ∼21% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
22829 Points ∼66% -34%
LG G7 ThinQ
27817 Points ∼80% -20%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
30245 Points ∼87% -13%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (27817 - 36762, n=14)
33715 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (7095 - 36762, n=511)
12516 Points ∼36% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
36807 Points ∼45% -54%
LG G7 ThinQ
80534 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
76078 Points ∼94% -5%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (76078 - 84681, n=14)
80769 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 160199, n=511)
16923 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
32399 Points ∼52% -48%
LG G7 ThinQ
56669 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
56913 Points ∼91% -8%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (56669 - 64592, n=14)
61576 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=512)
14348 Points ∼23% -77%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
105 fps ∼70% -30%
LG G7 ThinQ
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
150 fps ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 151, n=15)
143 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=537)
29.5 fps ∼20% -80%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
59 fps ∼98% -2%
LG G7 ThinQ
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 60, n=14)
59.8 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=540)
24.2 fps ∼40% -60%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
51 fps ∼61% -39%
LG G7 ThinQ
63 fps ∼76% -24%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
74 fps ∼89% -11%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=14)
73.9 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 115, n=459)
15.8 fps ∼19% -81%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
38 fps ∼64% -36%
LG G7 ThinQ
41 fps ∼69% -31%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
59 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 59, n=14)
54.9 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=462)
15.3 fps ∼26% -74%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
42 fps ∼70% -30%
LG G7 ThinQ
51 fps ∼85% -15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 60.9, n=15)
53.9 fps ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 69.3, n=324)
13.4 fps ∼22% -78%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
23 fps ∼42% -58%
LG G7 ThinQ
26 fps ∼47% -53%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
55 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (26 - 59, n=14)
49 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=326)
13.3 fps ∼24% -76%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
25 fps ∼71% -29%
LG G7 ThinQ
33 fps ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
35 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=14)
34.1 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 40, n=254)
9.31 fps ∼27% -73%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
13 fps ∼38% -61%
LG G7 ThinQ
17 fps ∼50% -48%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
34 fps ∼100% +3%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼94% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=14)
29.9 fps ∼88% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 50, n=257)
8.44 fps ∼25% -74%

Legend

 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
88.081 Points ∼100% +291%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
87.695 Points ∼100% +290%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 89.5, n=15)
72.7 Points ∼83% +223%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
69.765 Points ∼79% +210%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
69.57 Points ∼79% +209%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=394)
35.4 Points ∼40% +57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼26%
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼100% +327%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
16720 Points ∼98% +319%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 17131, n=15)
14744 Points ∼87% +269%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
14491 Points ∼85% +263%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
13265 Points ∼78% +232%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=530)
5305 Points ∼31% +33%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼23%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=549)
11710 ms * ∼100% -5%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼96%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2264 - 11204, n=15)
3122 ms * ∼27% +72%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
2868 ms * ∼24% +74%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
2484.1 ms * ∼21% +78%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% +78%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
1876.8 ms * ∼16% +83%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +163%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +163%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=14)
237 Points ∼94% +147%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
228 Points ∼90% +138%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
159 Points ∼63% +66%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=264)
106 Points ∼42% +10%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
96 Points ∼38%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo Nex UltimateSamsung Galaxy Note 8LG G7 ThinQXiaomi Mi Mix 2SOnePlus 6Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-8%
122%
0%
84%
-60%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.27 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
44.7 (3.4 - 87.1, n=301)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
67.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63 (8.2 - 96.5, n=301)
Random Write 4KB
22.1
14.55
-34%
23.26
5%
128.36
481%
21.8
-1%
91.2 (22.1 - 160, n=2)
313%
14.8 (0.14 - 164, n=580)
-33%
Random Read 4KB
126.7
122.48
-3%
110.46
-13%
135.14
7%
137
8%
136 (127 - 144, n=2)
7%
36.4 (1.59 - 173, n=580)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
228.4
205.85
-10%
176.45
-23%
208.1
-9%
201.4
-12%
235 (228 - 242, n=2)
3%
75.8 (2.99 - 242, n=580)
-67%
Sequential Read 256KB
687.2
796.96
16%
695.15
1%
756.07
10%
725.6
6%
780 (687 - 873, n=2)
14%
222 (12.1 - 895, n=580)
-68%
Arena of Valor
 InställningarVärde
 min60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 InställningarVärde
 high30 fps
 very low29 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Hög belastning
 44.8 °C41 °C39 °C 
 45.9 °C40.8 °C40.1 °C 
 45.2 °C41.1 °C39 °C 
Max: 45.9 °C
Medel: 41.9 °C
39.8 °C41.1 °C42.1 °C
40.2 °C41.2 °C43.6 °C
39.8 °C41.5 °C42.8 °C
Max: 43.6 °C
Medel: 41.3 °C
Strömförsörjning (max.)  41.2 °C | Rumstemperatur 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2025.625.72527.128.13125.428.84025.225.35031.733.76322.823.4802122.910019.524.512517.729.616016.842.220016.751.825015.252.431514.253.540013.660.150013.457.763012.762.780012.364.5100011.866.5125011.963.1160011.368.7200011.374.2250011.376.4315011.275.1400011.465.3500011.162.2630011.363.5800011.468.71000011.466.51250011.448.61600011.536.2SPL68.759.950.12482.5N20.312.96.60.548.5median 11.8median 62.7Delta1.68.531.631.325.427.225.326.132.925.133.624.531.62628.4242728.220.828.22234.521.348.320.852.321.257.619.460.119.563.917.767.117.965.517.868.617.372.117.474.616.776.217.278.418.281.117.977.417.672.817.775.417.877.917.970.918.167.118.258.13086.91.369.1median 17.9median 67.11.310.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo Nex UltimateSamsung Galaxy Note 8
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy Note 8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Strömförbrukning
Av/Standbydarklight 0.4 / 0.6 Watt
Låg belastningdarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt
Hög belastning midlight 3.7 / 7.2 Watt
 color bar
Förklaring: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
8%
-24%
-26%
7%
-23%
-4%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.73
19%
1.16
-29%
0.75
17%
0.6
33%
0.845 (0.42 - 1.8, n=12)
6%
0.884 (0.2 - 3.4, n=613)
2%
Idle Average *
1.5
1.44
4%
1.98
-32%
2.25
-50%
1
33%
1.953 (1 - 2.9, n=12)
-30%
1.725 (0.6 - 6.2, n=612)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
1.7
1.53
10%
2.07
-22%
2.26
-33%
1.6
6%
2.26 (1.57 - 3.5, n=12)
-33%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=613)
-17%
Load Average *
3.7
4.56
-23%
4.51
-22%
4.89
-32%
4.3
-16%
4.87 (3.7 - 7.1, n=12)
-32%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=607)
-9%
Load Maximum *
7.2
5.09
29%
8.3
-15%
9.6
-33%
8.6
-19%
9.18 (6.87 - 11.2, n=12)
-28%
5.7 (1.2 - 14.2, n=607)
21%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid
Låg belastning (utan WLAN, min. ljusstyrka)
32tim 05min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
17tim 06min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
18tim 53min
Hög belastning (maximal ljusstyrka)
3tim 23min
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
-29%
-12%
-16%
-10%
Reader / Idle
1925
1134
-41%
1662
-14%
1678
-13%
1806
-6%
H.264
1133
662
-42%
908
-20%
718
-37%
791
-30%
WiFi v1.3
1026
474
-54%
591
-42%
716
-30%
762
-26%
Load
203
246
21%
260
28%
239
18%
246
21%

För

+ Massor av lagring
+ Fantastisk batteritid
+ Prydligt översatt mjukvara
+ Oproblematisk installation av Google-appar
+ Riktig helsides-skärm
+ Innovativ teknik för fingeravtrycksläsare och framåtriktad kamera
+ Kameran presterar bra vid låg ljusnivå
+ Hög prestanda

Emot

- Ingen microSD-plats
- Relativt långsamt WiFi
- SoC som stryps vid belastning
- Mörk skärm
- Relativt tung
- Höljet är inte av högsta kvalitet
- Tangentbords-appen är delvis på Kinesiska
- Röstassistenten är bara på Kinesiska
- Fingeravtrycksläsaren är aningen långsam och inexakt
Recenseras: Vivo Nex Ultimate. Recensionsex från:
Recenseras: Vivo Nex Ultimate. Recensionsex från:
tradingshenzhen.com

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

Vivo Nex Ultimate är en fascinerande smartphone: För det första visar den upp dom kommande årens teknologi. För det andra visar den att Kinesiska tillverkare kan leverera ett prydligt översatt operativsystem och andra anpassningar för den västerländska marknaden. Och det finns så många saker att titta på: den utfällbara framåtriktade kameran som glider fram med ett futuristiskt ljud, fingeravtrycksläsaren och högtalaren som båda gömmer sig bakom skärmen och höljet som skimrar i regnbågens alla färger. Dessutom har den hög prestanda och bra kameror.

Trots all fascination får du inte glömma att du inte får en perfekt telefon för priset på 6.900 kronor: Höljet ser tjusigt ut men är gjort av ett material som känns alldagligt, den har långsammare WiFi än andra toppskiktsenheter och dess GPS kunde varit mer exakt. Högtalaren är inte den bästa. Dess SoC erbjuder hög prestanda, men den stryps markant vid belastning. Skärmen är aningen mörk och flimmrar en del vid låga ljusstyrkenivåer. Det tar ett tag för fingeravtrycksläsaren att känna igen ett finger, om den lyckas känna igen det överhuvudtaget.

Infattningsfri, fullpackad med den senaste tekniken och väldigt tjusig: Detta är Vivo Nex Ultimate. Den är inte perfekt, men kan verkligen rekommenderas åt teknikentusiaster, eller personer som vill bli sådana.

Men batteritiden är helt enkelt fantastisk: Efter 17 timmar av ihållande webbsurfande över WiFi utan ett eluttag inom räckvidd kanske man kan förlåta en del av telefonens brister. Därför kan vi rekommendera Vivo Nex Ultimate till alla som kan leva med några mindre tillkortakommanden och som letar efter en smartphone som står ut från mängden och har innovativa funktioner.

Vivo Nex Ultimate - 07/23/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Design
79%
Tangentbord
66 / 75 → 88%
Mus
96%
Anslutningar
41 / 60 → 68%
Vikt
88%
Batteri
100%
Skärm
81%
Spelprestanda
62 / 63 → 98%
Programprestanda
63 / 70 → 90%
Temperatur
85%
Ljudnivå
100%
Audio
62 / 91 → 68%
Camera
84%
Medel
77%
87%
Smartphone - Vägt medel

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Vivo Nex Ultimate Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Florian Wimmer, 2018-07-30 (Update: 2018-07-30)