Test: Vivo IQOO Smartphone (Sammanfattning)

Name: Vivo IQOO
Brand: Vivo

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.

Mike Wobker (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), Published 06/25/2019 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android Chinese Tech Gaming Smartphone Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of Trading Shenzhen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Vivo IQOO (IQOO Serie)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 8 x 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 485)

Grafikkort

Qualcomm Adreno 640

Minne

6 GB

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.

see all specifications

Storleksjämförelse

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Google Pixel 3a XL Adreno 616, SD 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash	580 (548^min - 602^max) MBit/s +452%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	534 (430^min - 578^max) MBit/s +409%
Nokia 8.1 Adreno 616, SD 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash	300 (169^min - 367^max) MBit/s +186%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Adreno 509, SD 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash	153 (133^min - 180^max) MBit/s +46%
Vivo IQOO Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	105 (101^min - 111^max) MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Xiaomi Mi 9 Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	678 (549^min - 725^max) MBit/s +599%
Google Pixel 3a XL Adreno 616, SD 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash	668 (617^min - 692^max) MBit/s +589%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Adreno 509, SD 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash	317 (163^min - 343^max) MBit/s +227%
Nokia 8.1 Adreno 616, SD 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash	312 (273^min - 341^max) MBit/s +222%
Vivo IQOO Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	97 (92^min - 99^max) MBit/s

Vivo IQOO; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø96.2 (92-99)

Vivo IQOO; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø105.4 (101-111)

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


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

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Max: 626 cd/m² (Nits) 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 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255

	Vivo IQOO AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4"	Sony Xperia 10 Plus IPS, 2520x1080, 6.5"	Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4"	Nokia 8.1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2"	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 dE 2000 *	5.37	4.5 16%	0.9 83%	4.39 18%	1.3 76%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	10.65	12.2 -15%	2 81%	7.28 32%	2.3 78%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	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)

ℹ

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.

Screen flickering / PWM detected

219 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 219 Hz (worst case, e.g., 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.

↔ Response Time Black to White
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 3 ms rise
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 3 ms rise
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3460 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1346 Points -61%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3523 Points +2%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1799 Points -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1616 Points -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (3406 - 3537, n=14)	3480 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=82, last 2 years)	5422 Points +57%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10187 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	4804 Points -53%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10999 Points +8%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	5856 Points -43%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	5172 Points -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10187 - 11388, n=14)	10955 Points +8%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 30323, n=82, last 2 years)	14892 Points +46%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7480 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	4278 Points -43%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7482 Points 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	6813 Points -9%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	6479 Points -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (7372 - 8024, n=12)	7629 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 18534, n=57, last 2 years)	11924 Points +59%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	14439 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	7181 Points -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10985 Points -24%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	8309 Points -42%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	9397 Points -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19)	12161 Points -16%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10450 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	6018 Points -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9035 Points -14%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	6887 Points -34%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	7377 Points -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19)	9710 Points -7%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	79518 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	Points -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	62225 Points -22%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	28895 Points -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	26999 Points -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (55771 - 83518, n=17)	70036 Points -12%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	107036 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	Points -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	106534 Points 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	39655 Points -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	35596 Points -67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (97354 - 110432, n=17)	105781 Points -1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	41855 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	Points -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	25339 Points -39%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	14820 Points -65%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	14631 Points -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (20636 - 45072, n=18)	32923 Points -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7212 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1469 Points -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7166 Points -1%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2691 Points -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2441 Points -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (5251 - 7820, n=18)	7091 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (812 - 7285, n=26, last 2 years)	4204 Points -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9653 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1327 Points -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9963 Points +3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2763 Points -71%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2428 Points -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (6122 - 10008, n=18)	9272 Points -4%
Average of class Smartphone (756 - 9451, n=26, last 2 years)	4740 Points -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3826 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2349 Points -39%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3614 Points -6%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2467 Points -36%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2489 Points -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (3001 - 4618, n=18)	3925 Points +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1093 - 4349, n=26, last 2 years)	3303 Points -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7530 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1536 Points -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7449 Points -1%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2772 Points -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2528 Points -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (5268 - 8141, n=18)	7186 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 23024, n=74, last 2 years)	11160 Points +48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10028 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1397 Points -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10291 Points +3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2855 Points -72%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2537 Points -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (6358 - 10420, n=18)	9569 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (840 - 45492, n=74, last 2 years)	19815 Points +98%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4023 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2352 Points -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3788 Points -6%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2516 Points -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2495 Points -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2345 - 4703, n=18)	3892 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1075 - 8749, n=74, last 2 years)	5009 Points +25%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5552 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	946 Points -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5509 Points -1%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1834 Points -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1631 Points -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (4556 - 5747, n=20)	5489 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (286 - 17553, n=74, last 2 years)	3077 Points -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6233 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	808 Points -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6355 Points +2%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1702 Points -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1487 Points -76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (5429 - 6362, n=20)	6201 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (240 - 29890, n=74, last 2 years)	3252 Points -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4017 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2351 Points -41%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3758 Points -6%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2514 Points -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2466 Points -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2705 - 4612, n=20)	3954 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (858 - 7180, n=74, last 2 years)	3288 Points -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5990 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1003 Points -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5913 Points -1%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1964 Points -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1754 Points -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (3969 - 6404, n=20)	5819 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (317 - 20131, n=160, last 2 years)	7682 Points +28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6951 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	862 Points -88%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7076 Points +2%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1845 Points -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1612 Points -77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (5184 - 7148, n=20)	6793 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (267 - 33376, n=160, last 2 years)	11410 Points +64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4037 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2345 Points -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3754 Points -7%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2534 Points -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2532 Points -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1934 - 5024, n=20)	3942 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (877 - 8480, n=160, last 2 years)	4587 Points +14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4790 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	944 Points -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4914 Points +3%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1550 Points -68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (3800 - 5012, n=20)	4719 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (365 - 6635, n=73, last 2 years)	2841 Points -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5653 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	809 Points -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5723 Points +1%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1416 Points -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (4236 - 5884, n=20)	5618 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (298 - 8601, n=73, last 2 years)	3085 Points -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3121 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2282 Points -27%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3288 Points +5%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2314 Points -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2104 - 3452, n=20)	3045 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1667 - 4198, n=73, last 2 years)	2706 Points -13%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	30 fps -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	57 fps -5%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	53 fps -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (59 - 91, n=20)	63.4 fps +6%
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 165, n=170, last 2 years)	85.7 fps +43%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	162 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	35 fps -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	167 fps +3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	65 fps -60%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	58 fps -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (85 - 167, n=20)	153.1 fps -5%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=170, last 2 years)	279 fps +72%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	13 fps -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	31 fps -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	28 fps -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (46 - 85, n=20)	59.6 fps -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=170, last 2 years)	75 fps +25%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	97 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	16 fps -84%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	100 fps +3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	32 fps -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	29 fps -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (50 - 102, n=20)	92.3 fps -5%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 482, n=170, last 2 years)	164.1 fps +69%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	56 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	8.4 fps -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	58 fps +4%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	22 fps -61%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	19 fps -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20)	47.7 fps -15%
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=170, last 2 years)	65.2 fps +16%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	69 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	10 fps -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	69 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	23 fps -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	20 fps -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20)	62 fps -10%
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=170, last 2 years)	116.5 fps +69%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	35 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	5.1 fps -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	38 fps +9%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	12 fps -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	11 fps -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (16 - 41, n=20)	31.7 fps -9%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 119, n=171, last 2 years)	47.5 fps +36%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	41 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	6.3 fps -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	42 fps +2%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	13 fps -68%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	11 fps -73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (22 - 43, n=20)	39.2 fps -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 216, n=170, last 2 years)	70.3 fps +71%
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	36 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	4.9 fps -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	37 fps +3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	13 fps -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	11 fps -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17 - 38, n=20)	32.5 fps -10%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=202, last 2 years)	49.3 fps +37%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	41 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	6.1 fps -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	41 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	14 fps -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	12 fps -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (22 - 43, n=21)	39.9 fps -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 261, n=202, last 2 years)	79.4 fps +94%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	24 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	3.2 fps -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	24 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	8.2 fps -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	7.2 fps -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (11 - 26, n=20)	20.9 fps -13%
Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 119, n=202, last 2 years)	37.1 fps +55%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	16 fps
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	2.2 fps -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	16 fps 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	5 fps -69%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	4.5 fps -72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8.5 - 24, n=21)	16.2 fps +1%
Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 104, n=202, last 2 years)	31.6 fps +98%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	217967 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	117574 Points -46%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	374820 Points +72%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	169262 Points -22%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	158868 Points -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (217967 - 398720, n=16)	354450 Points +63%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4917 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1734 Points -65%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4595 Points -7%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2731 Points -44%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2794 Points -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (3847 - 5397, n=19)	4796 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 11976, n=152, last 2 years)	6257 Points +27%
System (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	8974 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	4342 Points -52%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	8441 Points -6%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	5681 Points -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	5507 Points -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (5993 - 9143, n=19)	8539 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 16475, n=152, last 2 years)	10131 Points +13%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4970 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1236 Points -75%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4031 Points -19%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	2947 Points -41%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	3316 Points -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2661 - 7500, n=19)	5097 Points +3%
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 12716, n=152, last 2 years)	6714 Points +35%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9254 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1611 Points -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9270 Points 0%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	3086 Points -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	2815 Points -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8125 - 9510, n=19)	9174 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=152, last 2 years)	16761 Points +81%
Web (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	1415 Points
Sony Xperia 10 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096	1046 Points -26%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	1378 Points -3%
Nokia 8.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096	1077 Points -24%
Google Pixel 3a XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096	1186 Points -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1076 - 1601, n=19)	1356 Points -4%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2145, n=152, last 2 years)	1557 Points +10%

WebXPRT 3 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | JetStream 1.1

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years)	147.1 Points +47%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)	108 Points +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20)	105.2 Points +5%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)	100 Points
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)	72 Points -28%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)	62 Points -38%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)	54 Points -46%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years)	36733 Points +95%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)	24534 Points +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21)	23749 Points +26%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)	18882 Points
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)	12717 Points -33%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)	11056 Points -41%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)	8163 Points -57%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)	4739 ms * -82%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)	3361 ms * -29%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)	3035 ms * -16%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)	2611 ms *
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19)	2147 ms * +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)	1873 ms * +28%
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years)	1583 ms * +39%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)	110.5 Points +22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17)	108.4 Points +19%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)	90.8 Points
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)	66 Points -27%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)	57.6 Points -37%

* ... smaller is better

	Vivo IQOO	Sony Xperia 10 Plus	Xiaomi Mi 9	Nokia 8.1	Google Pixel 3a XL	Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-36%	154%	-46%	32%	114%	484%
Sequential Read 256KB	795	280.3 -65%	666 -16%	279.3 -65%	315.6 -60%	760 ?(427 - 1011, n=113) -4%	1834 ?(226 - 4512, n=193, last 2 years) 131%
Sequential Write 256KB	194.2	205.2 6%	388.3 100%	203.8 5%	179.1 -8%	297 ?(13.6 - 719, n=113) 53%	1426 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=193, last 2 years) 634%
Random Read 4KB	147.5	77.7 -47%	149.4 1%	69.9 -53%	92.1 -38%	152.9 ?(92.6 - 239, n=113) 4%	278 ?(22.2 - 543, n=193, last 2 years) 88%
Random Write 4KB	26.2	16.77 -36%	165.3 531%	7.3 -72%	87 232%	131.6 ?(18.2 - 290, n=113) 402%	310 ?(9.4 - 753, n=193, last 2 years) 1083%

Hög belastning

Låg belastning


44.7 °C	41.7 °C	39.2 °C
44.5 °C	42.3 °C	39.3 °C
44 °C	41.5 °C	39.3 °C

Max: 44.7 °C
Medel: 41.8 °C


33.8 °C	37.5 °C	40.5 °C
34.5 °C	37.5 °C	40.7 °C
35.2 °C	38.8 °C	39.9 °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 32.8 °C / 91 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 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °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 32.8 °C / 91 F.

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% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 62% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 78% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

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 (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Strömförbrukning

Av/Standby	0 / 0.1 Watt
Låg belastning	1.2 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt
Hög belastning	4.8 / 8.5 Watt


Förklaring: min: , med: , max: 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%	10%
Idle Minimum *	1.2	0.68 43%	0.67 44%	0.8 33%	0.7 42%	0.939 ?(0.58 - 1.96, n=19) 22%	0.895 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=153, last 2 years) 25%
Idle Average *	2.2	2.12 4%	1.26 43%	1.5 32%	1.63 26%	1.506 ?(0.85 - 2.8, n=19) 32%	1.447 ?(0.6 - 4.26, n=153, last 2 years) 34%
Idle Maximum *	2.6	2.17 17%	1.29 50%	1.8 31%	1.67 36%	1.799 ?(1 - 2.9, n=19) 31%	1.608 ?(0.83 - 4.45, n=153, last 2 years) 38%
Load Average *	4.8	3.82 20%	3.71 23%	3.2 33%	2.64 45%	4.61 ?(3.64 - 5.8, n=19) 4%	6.41 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=148, last 2 years) -34%
Load Maximum *	8.5	6.44 24%	9.3 -9%	5.4 36%	4.62 46%	9.04 ?(7.49 - 11.9, n=19) -6%	9.61 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=148, last 2 years) -13%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid


WiFi Websurfing		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.

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 - 2019-06-20 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

Price comparison

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)

Storleksjämförelse

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Vivo IQOO audio analysis

Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis

För

Emot

More articles related to this device

Price comparison