Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review – Can MediaTek’s high-end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2? – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

0
10
Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review – Can MediaTek’s high-end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2? – NotebookCheck.net Reviews
Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review – Can MediaTek’s high-end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2? – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

A questionable upgrade to the X80 Pro. While the Pro+ model of the Vivo X90 series relies on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, the X90 Pro uses the new MediaTek Dimensity 9200. Our review will tell how well the chipset performs in everyday use and what shortcomings Vivo X90 Pro has.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Anton Avdyushkin (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), Published 🇩🇪 🇸🇪

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

After we already reviewed the actual flagship of the X90 series, the Vivo X90 Pro+, which is only available in China or as an import, we will take a closer look at the European top model. The Vivo X90 Pro also relies on a camera system with Zeiss branding and Sony’s large IMX989 image sensor in a 1-inch format.

The Vivo X90 Pro’s features are also impressive. The 6.78-inch, 120 Hz Samsung E6 AMOLED panel has a peak brightness of 1,300 nits, and the fast MediaTek Dimensity 9200 chipset, which is supported by 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage.

Graphics adapter

ARM Immortalis-G715 MP11

Display

6.78 inch 20:9, 2800 x 1260 pixel 453 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 256 GB 

, 221 GB free

Connections

1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, color spectrum, OTG, Miracast, IR Blaster

Networking

Wi-Fi 6E (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.3, 5G: N1/N3/N5/N8/N28A/N38/N40/N41/N77 /N78/N79; 4G: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B26/B28A/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41; 3G: 850/1900/2100MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 9.3 x 164.1 x 74.5 ( = 0.37 x 6.46 x 2.93 in)

Battery

4870 mAh Lithium-Polymer

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 13

Camera

Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8, 23mm, 1.6µm) + 50MP (2x optical zoom, f/1.6, 50mm, 1/2.4″, 0.7µm) + 12MP (f/2.0), camera2API: Level 3

Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.8″, 0.8µm)

Additional features

Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, case, USB cable, info material, Funtouch OS 13, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, NSS: GPS L1+L5, BeiDou, Glonass L1, Galileo E1+E5, SBAS, fanless, waterproof

Weight

214.9 g ( = 7.58 oz / 0.47 pounds), Power Supply: 243 g ( = 8.57 oz / 0.54 pounds)

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

Rating

Date

Model

Weight

Drive

Size

Resolution

Best Price

89.1 %

02/2023

Vivo X90 Pro

Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11
214.9 g 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash 6.78″ 2800×1260
89.1 %

02/2023

Xiaomi 13

SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740
189 g 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash 6.36″ 2400×1080
89.1 %

11/2022

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7
212 g 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash 6.70″ 3120×1440
87 %

08/2022

OnePlus 10T

SD 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730
203.5 g 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash 6.70″ 2412×1080
90 %

02/2023

Vivo X90 Pro+

SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740
221 g 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash 6.78″ 3200×1440
Vivo X90 Pro only available in black
Vivo X90 Pro only available in black

The Vivo X90 Pro offers, like the Pro+ model, a kind of leather texture and a huge camera module on the back – the Chinese manufacturer calls this Golden Ratio Skyline design. Apart from that, the looks of both X90 smartphones are very similar and the value is also worth emphasizing. Analogous to the predecessor, the X90 Pro comes exclusively in the black color on the local market. A gray variant is also available as an import device.

Like the X80 Pro, the X90 Pro is both dust- and water-resistant according to IP68 standard. With 90.8 percent, the upper-class phone also has a very efficient ratio of the screen to the total surface on the front. Speaking of the display, the manufacturer does not specify which protective glass has been installed in the X90 Pro.

{element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_334778’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_335318’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_335318’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_333210’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_333210’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_331187’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_331187’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_334376’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_334376’).checked = false;return false;” title=”hide all”>❌

164.35 mm / 6.47 inch 75.29 mm / 2.96 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs164.1 mm / 6.46 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 214.9 g0.4738 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 212 g0.4674 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.75 mm / 0.3445 inch 203.5 g0.4486 lbs152.8 mm / 6.02 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 7.98 mm / 0.3142 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

In terms of equipment, the X90 Pro features a dual speaker system, Bluetooth 5.3, fast UFS 4.0 storage, and an NFC chip for contactless payment. In addition, Vivo relies on a USB 3.2 port (Gen. 1), which enables high data transfers and wired image output via HDMI or DisplayPort interfaces. In our copy test including a connected M2.SSD hard drive (Samsung 980 Pro), the USB port’s transfer rate is 212 MB/s, which is clearly below the theoretical peak level.

The Vivo X90 Pro comes with Google Android 13 and the in-house Funtouch OS 13 installed. If you are interested in importing the X90 Pro, you should consider that Vivo does not use the Funtouch interface in China, but the Chinese equivalent Origin OS.

Funtouch OS 13 has security patches from January 2023 at the time of the test. How long the Vivo smartphone will enjoy OS upgrades and security updates has not been officially communicated – the X80 Pro had updates for three years.

The transfer rates in the home network are high with the Vivo phone since the WLAN module communicates with our reference router Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 in the 2.4 and 5 GHz range as well as via the 6 GHz frequency band. However, the low reception rates in both the 5- and 6-GHz ranges are noticeable. Access to the LTE network including many supported 4G frequencies is guaranteed, and switching to the fast 5G standard is also possible.

iperf3 receive AXE11000




1787 (min: 928) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000




227 (min: 115) MBit/s ∼23%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz




229 (min: 219) MBit/s ∼12%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz




1814 (min: 1250) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 receive AXE11000




894 (min: 803) MBit/s ∼50%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000




770 (min: 459) MBit/s ∼78%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz




1894 (min: 955) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz




1656 (min: 1620) MBit/s ∼91%

iperf3 receive AXE11000




904 (min: 453) MBit/s ∼51%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000




945 (min: 917) MBit/s ∼96%

iperf3 receive AXE11000




934 (min: 768) MBit/s ∼52%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000




933 (min: 865) MBit/s ∼95%

iperf3 receive AXE11000




931 (min: 890) MBit/s ∼52%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000




981 (min: 965) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 receive AXE11000





630 (min: 34.8) MBit/s ∼35%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000





668 (min: 40.5) MBit/s ∼68%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz





1509 (min: 229) MBit/s ∼80%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz





1396 (min: 598) MBit/s ∼77%

095190285380475570665760855950104511401235133014251520161517101805Tooltip

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø229 (219-238)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1810 (1250-1867)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1752 (928-1850)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø223 (115-235)

We check the tracking accuracy with a practical test on a bicycle. During our short trip, we recorded the route with a Garmin Venu 2 for comparison purposes. From time to time, the determined curve profiles deviate from the actual route, but the deviations in the detailed view of the GPS recording can still be rated as very low overall.

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

The dual-SIM smartphone supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the home WLAN (WiFi calling). In contrast to the predecessor Vivo flagship now supports an eSIM.

The voice quality of the X90 Pro is inconspicuous. Voices are reproduced cleanly and our interlocutor also characterized them as clear.

The 32 MP front-facing camera enables decent selfies, but the relatively dark pictures of the portrait mode are conspicuous.

The centerpiece of the camera group on the back with ZEISS branding is, as with the X90 Pro+, the large 1-inch Sony sensor, which delivers really good pictures during the day as well as at night. The photos sometimes look too brightened, but have a good basic sharpness – sometimes the autofocus does not always fit (see rabbit motifs). The photos tend to be a bit softer, which is not as good as the over-sharpened photo of the Apple iPhone 14 Pro more natural compared to the over-sharpened photo of the iPhone 14 Pro. The Vivo phone cannot completely convince in terms of color reproduction; green tones are displayed a bit too brightly. However, users who prefer natural colors can activate the Zeiss mode.

In contrast to the predecessor the X90 Pro has to do without a high-resolution ultra-wide-angle camera. The photos look a bit noisy even in good light conditions and lack details. In return, the Vivo phone has quite good zoom qualities, although it does not have a periscope camera and only a 2x lossless zoom. However, the X90 Pro retains many details up to a five-fold magnification. The dedicated Vivo V2 image processor and in-house software optimizations ensure solid image quality in this respect.

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.

Main cameraMain cameraUltra wide-angleLow Light5x Zoom

click to load images

ColorChecker

11.6 ∆E

4.2 ∆E

10.3 ∆E

17.9 ∆E

9.1 ∆E

7.7 ∆E

3.1 ∆E

10.8 ∆E

3.8 ∆E

6.9 ∆E

7.5 ∆E

3.3 ∆E

5.6 ∆E

12.2 ∆E

4.1 ∆E

3 ∆E

5.9 ∆E

10.5 ∆E

6.5 ∆E

5.8 ∆E

9.3 ∆E

8.9 ∆E

6.3 ∆E

2.5 ∆E

ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro: 7.36 ∆E min: 2.47 – max: 17.92 ∆E
ColorChecker

17.1 ∆E

24.5 ∆E

23.9 ∆E

21.7 ∆E

26.7 ∆E

29.2 ∆E

28.2 ∆E

18.9 ∆E

20.1 ∆E

18.8 ∆E

27.2 ∆E

34.2 ∆E

17.1 ∆E

25.3 ∆E

14.8 ∆E

25 ∆E

24.9 ∆E

26.4 ∆E

26.6 ∆E

27.9 ∆E

31.4 ∆E

27.1 ∆E

20.6 ∆E

12.9 ∆E

ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro: 23.77 ∆E min: 12.85 – max: 34.24 ∆E

The Vivo phone comes with a modular 120-watt power supply, a USB cable, and a protective case. A protective film is also installed ex-factory.

The Warranty is 24 months after the purchase date.

A real feature of the predecessor X80 Pro is the huge 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, which we also saw in the X90 Pro+. However, the X90 Pro only has an optical fingerprint sensor, so the area is much smaller, only one finger can be scanned, and the recognition rate cannot keep up with the class leader of the predecessor. It is a pity that Vivo has skimped here. However, the X90 Pro still features biometric authentication via 2D facial recognition using the front-facing camera.

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

At first glance, not much has changed in the display. Like the predecessor, the OLED panel of the X90 Pro measures 6.78 inches diagonally and has a refresh rate of up to 120 Hz. An adaptive adjustment of the frequency is still not possible, but an automatic switching between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is available. A big difference is seen in the pixel density. While the Vivo X80 Pro is equipped with a QHD+ resolution, the AMOLED display of the X90 Pro only works with Full HD+.

The Vivo smartphone uses PWM with a very low frequency of 60 Hz to control the luminance, which is typical for OLEDs, but the fluctuations are small. The maximum luminance of over 1000 cd/m² in the peak that we measured is very good, and the realistic APL18 test (Average Picture Level) also results in a satisfactory maximum brightness of 1225 cd/m² for this price range. A Xiaomi 13 is considerably brighter with 1,765 cd/m².

1002

cd/m²
1024

cd/m²
1054

cd/m²
1005

cd/m²
1018

cd/m²
1063

cd/m²
993

cd/m²
1017

cd/m²
1059

cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 1063 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1026.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.15 cd/m²

Brightness Distribution: 93 %

Center on Battery: 1018 cd/m²

Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)

ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2

ΔE Greyscale 1.9 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4

99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)

Gamma: 2.26

Vivo X90 Pro

AMOLED, 2800×1260, 6.78
Xiaomi 13

OLED, 2400×1080, 6.36
Google Pixel 7 Pro

OLED, 3120×1440, 6.70
OnePlus 10T

Fluid AMOLED, 2412×1080, 6.70
Vivo X90 Pro+

AMOLED, 3200×1440, 6.78
Brightness middle

1018

1209

19%

1022

0%

861

-15%

1109

9%

Brightness

1026

1208

18%

1025

0%

856

-17%

1124

10%

Brightness Distribution

93

98

5%

99

6%

97

4%

96

3%

Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *

0.9

1.2

-33%

0.9

-0%

2.27

-152%

1.1

-22%

Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *

2.2

3

-36%

2.1

5%

4.17

-90%

2.7

-23%

Greyscale dE 2000 *

1.9

2.1

-11%

1.1

42%

2.9

-53%

2

-5%

Gamma

2.26 97%

2.26 97%

2.22 99%

2.303 96%

2.25 98%

CCT

6473 100%

6504 100%

6650 98%

6141 106%

6605 98%

* … 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 60 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 60 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 60 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 19288 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

Our display color analysis is performed with the help of a photospectrometer and the Calman software. The deviations in the color (0.9) and grayscale (1.9) representation are very low in the ZEISS profile and the color temperature of the panel is almost optimally calibrated. The high coverage of the color spaces is also worth mentioning; even the DCI-P3 is covered almost completely.

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.

Outdoors, the X90 Pro makes a very good impression thanks to the high brightness in automatic mode. Even in midsummer sunlight, the display content should still be sufficiently visible. However, those who prefer to adjust the brightness manually will have to be content with 525 cd/m² and partly annoying reflections.

The viewing angles of the OLED panel are very good and the brightness drop is only noticeable from an extremely flat angle.

The X90 Pro features the latest flagship SoC from MediaTek, which is manufactured by TSMC in a second-generation 4 nm process. The chipset combines an ARM Cortex X3 core (3.05 GHz) with three ARM Cortex A715 performance cores (2.85 GHz) and four frugal Cortex A510 cores (1.8 GHz). For the graphics unit, MediaTek relies on the new ARM Immortalis G715 with eleven cores.

Compared to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in the Pro+ model the single-core performance of the MediaTek Dimensity 9200 is lower by 7% and the multi-thread performance by 12%. PCMark’s system benchmark also turns out relatively low.

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


1489 Points ∼100% +8%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


1478 Points ∼99% +7%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


1384 Points ∼93%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





1384 Points ∼93% 0%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


1277 Points ∼86% -8%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


1048 Points ∼70% -24%

Average of class Smartphone

  (119 – 1885, n=259, last 2 years)





786 Points ∼53% -43%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


5090 Points ∼100% +20%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


4786 Points ∼94% +13%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


4232 Points ∼83%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





4232 Points ∼83% 0%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


3987 Points ∼78% -6%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


3222 Points ∼63% -24%

Average of class Smartphone

  (466 – 5538, n=259, last 2 years)





2518 Points ∼49% -41%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


1273775 Points ∼100% +8%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


1262638 Points ∼99% +7%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


1175789 Points ∼92%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





1175789 Points ∼92% 0%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


846323 Points ∼66% -28%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


773857 Points ∼61% -34%

Average of class Smartphone

  (111952 – 1300282, n=167, last 2 years)





621118 Points ∼49% -47%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


15944 Points ∼100% +63%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


14094 Points ∼88% +44%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


12748 Points ∼80% +31%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


11397 Points ∼71% +17%

Average of class Smartphone

  (4436 – 19200, n=226, last 2 years)





10455 Points ∼66% +7%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


9765 Points ∼61%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





9765 Points ∼61% 0%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


1219 Points ∼100% +31%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


1038 Points ∼85% +11%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


932 Points ∼76%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





932 Points ∼76% 0%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


886 Points ∼73% -5%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


806 Points ∼66% -14%

Average of class Smartphone

  (226 – 1332, n=105, last 2 years)





805 Points ∼66% -14%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


8320 Points ∼100% +23%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


8153 Points ∼98% +21%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


7684 Points ∼92% +14%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


6755 Points ∼81%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





6755 Points ∼81% 0%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


6164 Points ∼74% -9%

Average of class Smartphone

  (411 – 9555, n=172, last 2 years)





4934 Points ∼59% -27%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


13646 Points ∼100% +40%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


12847 Points ∼94% +32%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


12230 Points ∼90% +25%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


9767 Points ∼72%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





9767 Points ∼72% 0%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


9294 Points ∼68% -5%

Average of class Smartphone

  (2083 – 19657, n=172, last 2 years)





8603 Points ∼63% -12%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


9245 Points ∼100%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





9245 Points ∼100% 0%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


8822 Points ∼95% -5%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


8179 Points ∼88% -12%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


7330 Points ∼79% -21%

Average of class Smartphone

  (670 – 11617, n=172, last 2 years)





5488 Points ∼59% -41%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


5456 Points ∼59% -41%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


27698 Points ∼100%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





27698 Points ∼100% 0%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


24037 Points ∼87% -13%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


23966 Points ∼87% -13%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


22837 Points ∼82% -18%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


16375 Points ∼59% -41%

Average of class Smartphone

  (697 – 28497, n=172, last 2 years)





10147 Points ∼37% -63%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


1833 Points ∼100% +117%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


1739 Points ∼95% +106%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


1652 Points ∼90% +96%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


1564 Points ∼85% +86%

Average of class Smartphone

  (10 – 2392, n=172, last 2 years)





1439 Points ∼79% +71%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


843 Points ∼46%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





843 Points ∼46% 0%

Vivo X90 Pro

MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288


44483 Points ∼100%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 





44483 Points ∼100% 0%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288


42662 Points ∼96% -4%

Average of class Smartphone

  (207 – 84787, n=101, last 2 years)





23828 Points ∼54% -46%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288


16465 Points ∼37% -63%

Xiaomi 13

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192


15961 Points ∼36% -64%

OnePlus 10T

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384


11648 Points ∼26% -74%

The MediaTek Dimensity 9200 performs well in GFXBench’s graphics tests. However, even the onscreen rates are often lower than in the Pro+ model which has to cope with the significantly higher resolution. The browser benchmarks and the BaseMark OS II browser test are also conspicuously low.

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3792 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3707 Points ∼98% -2%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3173 Points ∼84% -16%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


2876 Points ∼76% -24%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


1807 Points ∼48% -52%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3783 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3751 Points ∼99% -1%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


3192 Points ∼84% -16%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


2824 Points ∼75% -25%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


1847 Points ∼49% -51%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


14038 Points ∼100% +4%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


14002 Points ∼100% +4%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


13492 Points ∼96%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


10989 Points ∼78% -19%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


6721 Points ∼48% -50%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


120 fps ∼100% 0%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100% 0%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100% 0%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


60 fps ∼50% -50%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


490 fps ∼100% +9%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


451 fps ∼92%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


435 fps ∼89% -4%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


395 fps ∼81% -12%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


251 fps ∼51% -44%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100% 0%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


119 fps ∼99% -1%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


84 fps ∼70% -30%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


60 fps ∼50% -50%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


299 fps ∼100% +13%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


265 fps ∼89%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


257 fps ∼86% -3%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


221 fps ∼74% -17%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


139 fps ∼46% -48%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


120 fps ∼100% +15%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


106 fps ∼88% +2%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


104 fps ∼87%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


60 fps ∼50% -42%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


56 fps ∼47% -46%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


218 fps ∼100% +93%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


181 fps ∼83% +60%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


171 fps ∼78% +51%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


113 fps ∼52%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


101 fps ∼46% -11%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


93 fps ∼100% +15%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


81 fps ∼87%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


62 fps ∼67% -23%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


60 fps ∼65% -26%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


37 fps ∼40% -54%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


127 fps ∼100% +43%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


108 fps ∼85% +21%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


105 fps ∼83% +18%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


89 fps ∼70%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


68 fps ∼54% -24%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


82 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


66 fps ∼80% -20%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


59 fps ∼72% -28%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


50 fps ∼61% -39%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


28 fps ∼34% -66%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


61 fps ∼100% +20%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


56 fps ∼92% +10%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


51 fps ∼84%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


44 fps ∼72% -14%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


31 fps ∼51% -39%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


113 fps ∼100% +8%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


105 fps ∼93%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


80 fps ∼71% -24%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


60 fps ∼53% -43%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


38 fps ∼34% -64%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


156 fps ∼100% +41%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


142 fps ∼91% +28%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


123 fps ∼79% +11%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


111 fps ∼71%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


75 fps ∼48% -32%

Vivo X90 Pro Xiaomi 13 Google Pixel 7 Pro OnePlus 10T Vivo X90 Pro+ Average 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash Average of class Smartphone
Sequential Read 256KB

3866.75

3454.01

-11%

1346.78

-65%

1568.37

-59%

3397.4

-12%

1101 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(90.5 – 3867, n=250, last 2 years)

-72%

Sequential Write 256KB

2643.38

2722.77

3%

874.73

-67%

847.69

-68%

2834.4

7%

647 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(13.6 – 2834, n=250, last 2 years)

-76%

Random Read 4KB

367.89

393.81

7%

219.01

-40%

173.45

-53%

373.88

2%

195.6 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(22.2 – 543, n=250, last 2 years)

-47%

Random Write 4KB

521.43

536.76

3%

253.18

-51%

211.24

-59%

484.29

-7%

199.7 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(13 – 552, n=251, last 2 years)

-62%

The graphics performance of the Immortalis G715 offers enough graphics performance for demanding games like PUBG mobile even at the highest details for smooth playback at a constant 40 fps. The shooter is played constantly at about 60 FPS with the HD graphics setting, the new 90-fps mode is not available due to a frame lock on Vivo’s part – we use GameBench’s app to determine our frame rates.

The full 120 Hz of the OLED panel is generally not supported in our test games. We also measured 60 fps in Armajet, although the arena shooter theoretically allows 144 fps. The open-world action RPG Genshin Impact is even only rendered at 30 fps with the X90 Pro.

051015202530354045505560Tooltip

The surface temperatures are very low in our measurements. There is hardly any temperature development even under load. However, the X90 Pro shows a moderate performance loss of 20 to 25 percent in the 3DMark stress tests.

  26.3 °C

79 F
26.4 °C

80 F
27 °C

81 F
 
  26.5 °C

80 F
26.5 °C

80 F
27 °C

81 F
 
  26.6 °C

80 F
26.7 °C

80 F
26.8 °C

80 F
 
Maximum: 27 °C = 81 F

Average: 26.6 °C = 80 F
25.8 °C

78 F
25.9 °C

79 F
25.8 °C

78 F
25.8 °C

78 F
25.7 °C

78 F
25.8 °C

78 F
25.6 °C

78 F
25.9 °C

79 F
26 °C

79 F
Maximum: 26 °C = 79 F

Average: 25.8 °C = 78 F

Power Supply (max.)  23.8 °C = 75 F | Room Temperature 21.3 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.

(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 27 °C / 81 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 26 °C / 79 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F

(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


92.7 % ∼100% +25%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


88.5 % ∼95% +19%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


78.9 % ∼85% +6%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


74.1 % ∼80%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


67.9 % ∼73% -8%

Vivo X90 Pro+

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


87 % ∼100% +6%

Vivo X90 Pro

Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


81.7 % ∼94%

Xiaomi 13

Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


79.1 % ∼91% -3%

Google Pixel 7 Pro

Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


75.6 % ∼87% -7%

OnePlus 10T

Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


% ∼0% -100%

05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip

Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø19.9 (18.5-22.6)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø20.6 (17.7-22.4)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø9.93 (8.31-11)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø21.4 (19.4-22.3)

Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø64.4 (58.3-78.6)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø68.6 (62.7-79.5)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø32.8 (26.2-38.6)

OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø61.8 (59-63.6)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø76.6 (70.7-80)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø80 (76.5-84.2)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø36.5 (30.7-39.8)

The stereo speakers reach a high maximum volume of over 92 dB(A) in our test. The sound output is characterized by tones from medium frequencies that could have been a bit more linear. However, a slight bass note is also recognizable. Alternatively, headphones can be connected via the USB-C port or wirelessly via Bluetooth.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.836.22527.936.53124.338.14028.236.15036.736.86322.239.38025.440.41002142.812518.645.316015.455.920015.154.125013.155.53151255.340012.753.850011.866.563012.968.980010.472.3100013.372.9125013.279.1160012.179.4200012.281.6250012.983.7315014.883.7400015.881.6500016.182.7630014.478.9800013.678.21000013.574.51250014.469.4160001567SPL25.992.3N0.787.9median 13.5median 72.3Delta1.112.628.834.326.328.625.629.918.631.830.236.920.536.819.538.218.442.513.642.911.654.21254.91259.110.158.410.159.210.567.910.367.41070.99.876.211.377.411.277.211.478.511.979.613.985.914.782.51477.914.676.813.575.313.372.813.769.213.968.124.891.40.682.7median 12median 70.91.79.2hearing rangehide median Pink Noise {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_886363_0’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.pn_886363_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_886363_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});” style=”text-anchor:start;font-size:0.7em” x=”55″ y=”38″>Vivo X90 Pro {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_886363_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});” style=”stroke:rgb(255, 46, 46);stroke-width:2″ x1=”74.2″ x2=”90.2″ y1=”40″ y2=”56″> {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_880511_0’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.pn_880511_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_880511_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});” style=”text-anchor:start;font-size:0.7em” x=”313.4″ y=”38″>Xiaomi 13 {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});document.querySelectorAll(‘.toggle_880511_1’).forEach(element => {element.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’)});” style=”stroke:rgb(255, 46, 46);stroke-width:2″ x1=”332.6″ x2=”348.6″ y1=”40″ y2=”56″>

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Vivo X90 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.3 dB)

Bass 100 – 315 Hz

(-) | nearly no bass – on average 20.8% lower than median

(+) | bass is linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)

Mids 400 – 2000 Hz

(±) | reduced mids – on average 6.4% lower than median

(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)

Highs 2 – 16 kHz

(±) | higher highs – on average 8.2% higher than median

(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)

Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz

(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% 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 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%

Compared to all devices tested

» 37% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 55% worse

» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi 13 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.4 dB)

Bass 100 – 315 Hz

(-) | nearly no bass – on average 18.9% lower than median

(+) | bass is linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)

Mids 400 – 2000 Hz

(±) | higher mids – on average 5.5% higher than median

(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)

Highs 2 – 16 kHz

(±) | higher highs – on average 7.8% higher than median

(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)

Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz

(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16% difference to median)

Compared to same class

» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 93% worse

» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%

Compared to all devices tested

» 25% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 69% worse

» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

When it comes to fast charging, the Vivo smartphone offers wired 120 watts and wireless 50 watts. We cannot verify how long a complete charging process takes since we were provided with a UK version for testing. Interestingly, the battery of the X90 Pro is operated at a high voltage of 7.78 volts, resulting in an equivalent capacity of 4,870 mAh (3.89V).

The Vivo X90 Pro reveals an increased power consumption in idle mode in our measurements.

Vivo X90 Pro

4870 mAh
Xiaomi 13

4500 mAh
Google Pixel 7 Pro

5000 mAh
OnePlus 10T

4800 mAh
Vivo X90 Pro+

4700 mAh
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

 
Average of class Smartphone

 
Idle Minimum *

0.9

0.76

16%

0.78

13%

0.8

11%

0.92

-2%

0.9

-0%

0.886 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.12 – 2.5, n=185, last 2 years)

2%

Idle Average *

2.32

1.1

53%

1.61

31%

1.2

48%

1.76

24%

2.32

-0%

1.54 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.65 – 3.6, n=185, last 2 years)

34%

Idle Maximum *

2.39

1.13

53%

1.63

32%

1.3

46%

1.88

21%

2.39

-0%

1.746 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.69 – 3.7, n=185, last 2 years)

27%

Load Average *

3.64

2.99

18%

3.29

10%

3.5

4%

3.65

-0%

3.64

-0%

4.31 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(2.1 – 7.74, n=185, last 2 years)

-18%

Load Maximum *

6.53

6.63

-2%

6.01

8%

5.9

10%

6.24

4%

6.53

-0%

7.17 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(3.56 – 11.9, n=185, last 2 years)

-10%

* … smaller is better

0123456789101112131415Tooltip

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Geekbench 5.4: Ø8.29 (3.35-15.7)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.4: Ø6.3 (1.574-11.4)

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

012345678910111213141516Tooltip

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø14.8 (12.7-16.8)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.77 (9.38-10.2)

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

The X90 Pro lasted a good 15 hours in our WLAN test with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m2. This is a good rate, which is only surpassed by the Xiaomi 13 in our comparison.

Pros

+ bright OLED panel

+ fast SoC

+ good workmanship

+ appealing main camera

+ fast charging

Cons

no frugal LTPO panel

deteriorations compared to the predecessor

ultra wide-angle camera is solid at best

high power consumption

In review: VivoX90 Pro.
In review: VivoX90 Pro.

Without the official pricing for Europe, a conclusive assessment of the X90 Pro is difficult. If the Chinese manufacturer’s flagship phone in Europe matches the X80 Pro’s RRP of 1299 Euros, we see a few reasons to buy the predecessor rather than the X90 Pro – especially since a Xiaomi 13 that is better in many areas is much cheaper.

Whether the X90 Pro can hold its own as a flagship for Europe against a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra or Xiaomi 13 Pro is highly doubtful.

Overall, the X90 Pro is a really good smartphone, but the technical deteriorations compared with the predecessor make it a bit of a relegation. Why the successor of the X80 Pro has to accept a downgrade in the ultra-wide-angle camera and zoom lenses, the fingerprint sensor, and the display resolution is incomprehensible. Especially in view of the fact that the X90 Pro is the manufacturer’s European flagship and already has to accept compromises in terms of the SoC compared with the Pro+ model.

If you really want the best of the best from Vivo, you will have to import the actual high-end smartphone X90 Pro+. Besides the Xiaomi 13, we also see the Google Pixel 7 Pro as a suitable and cheaper alternative to the Vivo X90 Pro.

Vivo has announced the international launch of the Vivo X90 Pro, but no concrete details about the price and availability are known at the moment. However, the predecessor had a slightly lower MSRP in China, so we assume that it will be available for less than 1,300 Euros in this country as well. The X90 Pro can already be purchased via import, for example at Trading Shenzhen, starting at around 780 Euros.

Vivo X90 Pro

02/21/2023 v7



Marcus Herbrich

Connectivity

67 / 70 → 95%

Games Performance

69 / 64 → 100%

Application Performance

90 / 86 → 100%

Smartphone – Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review.

Marcus Herbrich, 2023-02-26 (Update: 2023-02-26)

Read More