Test: Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Xiaomi har blivit en del av smartphone-eliten (Sammanfattning)

Name: Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Brand: Xiaomi

Äntligen i toppskiktet, men till vilket pris?

Med Mi 10 Pro visar Xiaomi vad man verkligen vill med Mi-serien - att till varje pris bli en del av smartphone-eliten. Mi 10-generationen är början på en ny era för Xiaomi. I den här recensionen ska vi avgöra huruvida de lyckats med detta ambitiösa koncept.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), Published 04/22/2020 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android 5G Touchscreen Smartphone

Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Mi 10 Serie)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 8 x 2.4 - 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)

Grafikkort

Qualcomm Adreno 650

Minne

8 GB

, LPDDR5

Skärm

6.67 tum 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixlar 386 PPI, Tryckkänslig, Kapacitiv, Super AMOLED, glansig: ja, HDR, 90 Hz

Hårddisk

256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 256 GB

, 226 GB ledigt

Anslutningar

1 USB 2.0, Ljudanslutningar: USB Typ C-port, 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: Närhetssensor, Accelerometer, Gyroskop, e-kompass, Hall-sensor, Barometer, Miracast, IR-sändare, USB OTG

Nätverk

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/), Bluetooth 5.1, 5G: Sub6G: n1/n3/n7/n28/n77/n78; 4G: FDD LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/20/28/32, TD LTE: 38/40; 3G: WCDMA: B1/B2/B4/B5/B8; 2G: GSM: B2/B3/B5/B8, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Storlek

höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 8.96 x 162.6 x 74.8

Batteri

4500 mAh Litiumpolymer

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Operativsystem

Android 10

Camera

Primary Camera: 108 MPix (f/1.7, 1/1.33", 0.8µm) + 8 MP (f/2.0, 1.0µm) + 12 MP f/2.0, 1/2.55", 1.4µm) + 20 MP (f/2.2, 13 mm); Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/2.0, 1/3", 0.9µm

Övrigt

Högtalare: Stereo, 1216 super linear , Tangentbord: Virtuellt, USB-kabel, Modulär laddare, Hölje, MiUI 11, 12 Månader Garanti, SAR Kropp: 0.568 W/kg, SAR Huvud: 0.428 W/kg (för den Kinesiska versionen), Widevine L1, fanless

Vikt

208 g, Strömförsörjning: 81 g

Pris

999 Kr

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

see all specifications

Jämförelseenheter

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
88.2 % v7 ^(old)	04/2020	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650	208 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.67"	2340x1080
88.9 % v7 ^(old)	04/2020	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11	219 g	128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.90"	3200x1440
89.4 % v7 ^(old)	04/2020	Huawei P40 Pro Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16	209 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.58"	2640x1200
86.9 % v7 ^(old)	11/2019	OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640	206 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.67"	3120x1440
86.1 % v7 ^(old)	03/2020	Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650	202 g	512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.70"	3168x1440
85.8 % v7 ^(old)	11/2019	Google Pixel 4 XL SD 855, Adreno 640	193 g	64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6.30"	3040x1440

Storleksjämförelse

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Oppo Find X2 Pro Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro OnePlus 7T Pro Google Pixel 4 XL Huawei P40 Pro DIN A6 ❌

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Huawei P40 Pro Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	1544 (797^min - 1619^max) MBit/s +89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	818 (425^min - 890^max) MBit/s 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	816 (403^min - 832^max) MBit/s
Oppo Find X2 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	509 (264^min - 571^max) MBit/s -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	352 (311^min - 375^max) MBit/s -57%
Google Pixel 4 XL Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	317 (159^min - 363^max) MBit/s -61%
iperf3 receive AX12
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	883 (834^min - 919^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	825 (763^min - 855^max) MBit/s -7%
Huawei P40 Pro Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	821 (388^min - 998^max) MBit/s -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	754 (346^min - 881^max) MBit/s -15%
Google Pixel 4 XL Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	631 (579^min - 653^max) MBit/s -29%
OnePlus 7T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	471 (347^min - 505^max) MBit/s -47%

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø883 (834-919)

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø803 (403-832)

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 Scene 4

click to load images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Weitwinkel)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Low-Light)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Ultraweitwinkel)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (5-facher Zoom)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 9.63 ∆E min: 1.4 - max: 19.16 ∆E


748 cd/m²	757 cd/m²	782 cd/m²
757 cd/m²	753 cd/m²	774 cd/m²
761 cd/m²	756 cd/m²	771 cd/m²

Distribution av ljusstyrkan

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Max: 782 cd/m² (Nits) Medel: 762.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.01 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 753 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7"	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3200x1440, 6.9"	Huawei P40 Pro OLED, 2640x1200, 6.6"	OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7"	Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.7"	Google Pixel 4 XL P-OLED, 3040x1440, 6.3"	OnePlus 8 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.8"
Screen		-111%	-22%	-102%	-183%	-134%	10%
Brightness middle	753	734 -3%	584 -22%	606 -20%	778 3%	557 -26%	796 6%
Brightness	762	748 -2%	576 -24%	611 -20%	775 2%	555 -27%	779 2%
Brightness Distribution	96	95 -1%	95 -1%	95 -1%	99 3%	95 -1%	94 -2%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	0.9	3.2 -256%	1.1 -22%	3.46 -284%	4.4 -389%	3.9 -333%	0.68 24%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	1.6	6.8 -325%	2.3 -44%	5.64 -253%	8.7 -444%	6.1 -281%	1.55 3%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	1.5	2.7 -80%	1.8 -20%	2 -33%	5.6 -273%	3.5 -133%	1.1 27%
Gamma	2.24 ^98%	2.11 ^104%	2.16 ^102%	2.258 ^97%	2.26 ^97%	2.18 ^101%	2.237 ^98%
CCT	6415 ^101%	6299 ^103%	6355 ^102%	6779 ^96%	7250 ^90%	6127 ^106%	6310 ^103%

* ... 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

373.1 Hz

≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 373.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 373.1 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8743 (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
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 1.2 ms rise
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 1.2 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. » 9 % 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
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 1.2 ms rise
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 1.2 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. » 8 % 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 5.5
Single-Core (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	906 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	940 Points +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	779 Points -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	911 Points +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	552 Points -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (764 - 924, n=23)	903 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (126 - 2437, n=172, last 2 years)	995 Points +10%
Multi-Core (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	3338 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	2815 Points -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3165 Points -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	3360 Points +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	2164 Points -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2687 - 3449, n=23)	3268 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (473 - 6687, n=172, last 2 years)	3312 Points -1%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	2932 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	Points -100%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4511 Points +54%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	2960 Points +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2829 - 3080, n=8)	2981 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (516 - 18876, n=48, last 2 years)	7481 Points +155%
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	2519 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3804 Points +51%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3979 Points +58%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	2641 Points +5%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	2411 Points -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2487 - 3259, n=8)	2723 Points +8%
Average of class Smartphone (281 - 18656, n=54, last 2 years)	7952 Points +216%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4261 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4791 Points +12%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3935 Points -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4278 Points 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4261 - 4304, n=5)	4281 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=82, last 2 years)	5486 Points +29%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	13186 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	12557 Points -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	12774 Points -3%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	13279 Points +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (13186 - 13589, n=5)	13396 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 30323, n=82, last 2 years)	15064 Points +14%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9443 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8648 Points -8%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	11557 Points +22%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9491 Points +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9443 - 9739, n=5)	9559 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 18534, n=58, last 2 years)	11998 Points +27%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	13142 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	14307 Points +9%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	14352 Points +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	12645 Points -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	13360 Points +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	12760 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (10990 - 19989, n=22)	13584 Points +3%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	10952 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	10255 Points -6%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	11341 Points +4%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10442 Points -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11387 Points +4%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10335 Points -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9202 - 15299, n=23)	11246 Points +3%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	82937 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	66452 Points -20%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	70593 Points -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	72173 Points -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	75632 Points -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	80296 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (56045 - 112989, n=20)	84555 Points +2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	150281 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	79572 Points -47%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	82652 Points -45%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	118129 Points -21%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	145567 Points -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	105430 Points -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (110875 - 180392, n=20)	147707 Points -2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	32384 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	42135 Points +30%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	46731 Points +44%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	30561 Points -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	28147 Points -13%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	43773 Points +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (17817 - 58293, n=20)	35224 Points +9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9123 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8010 Points -12%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6739 Points -26%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8165 Points -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8866 Points -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7507 Points -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8215 - 9611, n=20)	8915 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (812 - 7285, n=26, last 2 years)	4204 Points -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	12394 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	11488 Points -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7499 Points -39%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10637 Points -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11458 Points -8%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9141 Points -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (10599 - 13305, n=20)	11750 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (756 - 9451, n=26, last 2 years)	4740 Points -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4729 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3889 Points -18%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4975 Points +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4503 Points -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5054 Points +7%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4618 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (3965 - 5274, n=20)	4844 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (1093 - 4349, n=26, last 2 years)	3303 Points -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8823 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	7563 Points -14%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7286 Points -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8605 Points -2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9616 Points +9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7963 Points -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8499 - 11492, n=22)	9645 Points +9%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 23024, n=73, last 2 years)	11109 Points +26%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	12694 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9470 Points -25%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7905 Points -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	11448 Points -10%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	12573 Points -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9995 Points -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (11956 - 16809, n=22)	12921 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (840 - 45492, n=73, last 2 years)	19708 Points +55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4283 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4436 Points +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5718 Points +34%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4604 Points +7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5209 Points +22%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4652 Points +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (3956 - 5765, n=22)	5138 Points +20%
Average of class Smartphone (1075 - 8749, n=73, last 2 years)	5001 Points +17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7157 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	6836 Points -4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6060 Points -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6266 Points -12%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	7012 Points -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5734 Points -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5996 - 7653, n=21)	7103 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (286 - 17553, n=73, last 2 years)	3084 Points -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8299 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8257 Points -1%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6465 Points -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	7044 Points -15%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8045 Points -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6163 Points -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (6500 - 9167, n=20)	8128 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (240 - 29890, n=73, last 2 years)	3263 Points -61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4895 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4267 Points -13%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4971 Points +2%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4519 Points -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4582 Points -6%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4612 Points -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4582 - 5209, n=20)	4941 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (858 - 7180, n=73, last 2 years)	3286 Points -33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7986 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	7412 Points -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6508 Points -19%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6916 Points -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	7982 Points 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6404 Points -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (7517 - 8947, n=23)	8073 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (317 - 20131, n=160, last 2 years)	7767 Points -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9356 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9157 Points -2%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6771 Points -28%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8006 Points -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9345 Points 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6950 Points -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8633 - 11999, n=22)	9501 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (267 - 33376, n=160, last 2 years)	11536 Points +23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	5277 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4447 Points -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5728 Points +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4683 Points -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5187 Points -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5024 Points -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4733 - 5780, n=22)	5319 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (877 - 8480, n=160, last 2 years)	4613 Points -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	6578 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	6280 Points -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5648 Points -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	5509 Points -16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	6444 Points -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4970 Points -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4582 - 6961, n=20)	6202 Points -6%
Average of class Smartphone (365 - 6635, n=72, last 2 years)	2846 Points -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8173 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8659 Points +6%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6360 Points -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6527 Points -20%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8076 Points -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5685 Points -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (7618 - 9104, n=19)	8249 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (298 - 8601, n=72, last 2 years)	3095 Points -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	3830 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3201 Points -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4057 Points +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	3564 Points -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	3843 Points 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3452 Points -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1786 - 4061, n=19)	3414 Points -11%
Average of class Smartphone (1667 - 4198, n=72, last 2 years)	2704 Points -29%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	90 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	119 fps +32%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	60 fps -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	60 fps -33%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	60 fps -33%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50 - 138, n=23)	75.4 fps -16%
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 165, n=169, last 2 years)	86.3 fps -4%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	203 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	200 fps -1%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	152 fps -25%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	185 fps -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	202 fps 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	136 fps -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (168 - 266, n=23)	206 fps +1%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=169, last 2 years)	280 fps +38%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	88 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	59 fps -33%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	59 fps -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	57 fps -35%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	58 fps -34%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	46 fps -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50 - 111, n=23)	71.7 fps -19%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=169, last 2 years)	75.5 fps -14%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	122 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	100 fps -18%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	118 fps -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	111 fps -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	123 fps +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	82 fps -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (96 - 151, n=23)	123.6 fps +1%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 482, n=169, last 2 years)	165.3 fps +35%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	77 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	58 fps -25%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	52 fps -32%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	40 fps -48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	45 fps -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	27 fps -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (43 - 83, n=24)	60.1 fps -22%
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=169, last 2 years)	65.7 fps -15%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	86 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	72 fps -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	75 fps -13%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	79 fps -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	86 fps 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	53 fps -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (67 - 103, n=24)	86 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=169, last 2 years)	117.2 fps +36%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	45 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	44 fps -2%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	31 fps -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	24 fps -47%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	26 fps -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	16 fps -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (25 - 54, n=24)	40.5 fps -10%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 119, n=170, last 2 years)	47.8 fps +6%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	50 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	50 fps 0%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	44 fps -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	48 fps -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	51 fps +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	32 fps -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (39 - 62, n=24)	51.1 fps +2%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 216, n=169, last 2 years)	70.6 fps +41%
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	47 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	51 fps +9%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	36 fps -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	26 fps -45%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	28 fps -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	17 fps -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (28 - 57, n=25)	43.2 fps -8%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=201, last 2 years)	49.5 fps +5%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	54 (20^min) fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	56 fps +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	50 fps -7%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	47 fps -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	53 fps -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	33 fps -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (27 - 67, n=25)	52.7 fps -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 261, n=201, last 2 years)	79.8 fps +48%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	30 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	33 fps +10%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	23 fps -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	17 fps -43%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	18 fps -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	11 fps -63%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (18 - 40, n=25)	27.8 fps -7%
Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 119, n=201, last 2 years)	37.4 fps +25%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	20 fps
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	22 fps +10%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	19 fps -5%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	19 fps -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	20 fps 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	12 fps -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (20 - 27, n=25)	20.5 fps +3%
Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 104, n=201, last 2 years)	32 fps +60%

AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	595466 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	498708 Points -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	496966 Points -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	486654 Points -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	599843 Points +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	426757 Points -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24)	579049 Points -3%

VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7156 Score
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4957 Score -31%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5037 Score -30%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4986 Score -30%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4988 Score -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4988 - 7649, n=4)	6205 Score -13%
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years)	5819 Score -19%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	6072 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4915 Points -19%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5589 Points -8%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4992 Points -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5540 Points -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5243 Points -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5264 - 6402, n=23)	5871 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 11976, n=151, last 2 years)	6297 Points +4%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	10002 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9478 Points -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	9782 Points -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	9294 Points -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9555 Points -4%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	8417 Points -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8412 - 10147, n=23)	9660 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 16475, n=151, last 2 years)	10163 Points +2%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7945 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4497 Points -43%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6038 Points -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	5091 Points -36%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	6350 Points -20%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6387 Points -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5304 - 8874, n=23)	7073 Points -11%
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 12716, n=151, last 2 years)	6767 Points -15%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	11567 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	10781 Points -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	10138 Points -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10618 Points -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11496 Points -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9356 Points -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (11366 - 13833, n=23)	11779 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=151, last 2 years)	16908 Points +46%
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	1514 Points
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	1270 Points -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	1629 Points +8%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	1236 Points -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	1351 Points -11%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	1502 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1276 - 2169, n=23)	1497 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2145, n=151, last 2 years)	1564 Points +3%

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years)	120.4 Points +85%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	70 Points +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	65 Points
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	64.6 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20)	63.6 Points -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	62.4 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	51.8 Points -20%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	116.6 Points +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	115.4 Points 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	115.4 Points
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	114.7 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145.1, n=21)	113.1 Points -2%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	89.6 Points -22%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	84.4 Points -27%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years)	136.2 runs/min +99%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	71.8 runs/min +5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	71 runs/min +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	68.6 runs/min
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)	66.4 runs/min -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19)	63.9 runs/min -7%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	63.7 runs/min -7%

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years)	148.7 Points +47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23)	106.7 Points +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	101 Points
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	100 Points -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	100 Points -1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	93 Points -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	86 Points -15%
Huawei P40 Pro	Points -100%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years)	37161 Points +63%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	24044 Points +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	23999 Points +5%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	23690 Points +4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	22976 Points +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	22834 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23)	22518 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	19122 Points -16%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	2398 ms * -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	2345 ms * -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	2134 ms * -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	2044 ms * -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24)	2031 ms * -0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	2021 ms *
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	1914 ms * +5%
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years)	1568 ms * +22%

* ... smaller is better

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra	Huawei P40 Pro	OnePlus 7T Pro	Oppo Find X2 Pro	Google Pixel 4 XL	Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-13%	-14%	-47%	-14%	-52%	-21%	30%
Sequential Read 256KB	1739	1632 -6%	1775 2%	1489 -14%	1606 -8%	871 -50%	1547 ?(983 - 1789, n=22) -11%	1839 ?(226 - 4512, n=192, last 2 years) 6%
Sequential Write 256KB	750	697 -7%	395.7 -47%	405 -46%	729 -3%	197.4 -74%	575 ?(387 - 915, n=22) -23%	1425 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=192, last 2 years) 90%
Random Read 4KB	264.9	202.4 -24%	228.1 -14%	169 -36%	202.6 -24%	142.2 -46%	210 ?(168.5 - 265, n=22) -21%	277 ?(22.2 - 483, n=192, last 2 years) 5%
Random Write 4KB	258.5	221.4 -14%	271.8 5%	26 -90%	205 -21%	164.2 -36%	188.5 ?(24.8 - 272, n=22) -27%	309 ?(9.4 - 753, n=192, last 2 years) 20%

PUBG Mobile

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: Ø39.9 (37-41)

Asphalt 9 Legends

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: Ø29.9 (28-32)

Dead Trigger 2

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: Ø89.9 (89-90)

Hög belastning

Låg belastning


30.8 °C	32.1 °C	32.6 °C
30 °C	31.7 °C	33.1 °C
29.5 °C	31 °C	32.5 °C

Max: 33.1 °C
Medel: 31.5 °C


29.6 °C	30.7 °C	30.7 °C
29.8 °C	30.3 °C	29.7 °C
29.1 °C	30.3 °C	30.1 °C

Max: 30.7 °C
Medel: 30 °C

Strömförsörjning (max.) 25 °C | Rumstemperatur 22 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 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 33.1 °C / 92 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 30.7 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

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

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 18% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Strömförbrukning

Av/Standby	0.01 / 0.23 Watt
Låg belastning	0.61 / 1.19 / 1.23 Watt
Hög belastning	4.18 / 8.53 Watt


Förklaring: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh	Huawei P40 Pro 4200 mAh	OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh	Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh	Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh	Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-35%	-9%	-121%	-118%	-14%	-62%	-34%
Idle Minimum *	0.61	0.76 -25%	0.92 -51%	2.1 -244%	1.47 -141%	0.83 -36%	1.133 ?(0.52 - 2.2, n=22) -86%	0.894 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=152, last 2 years) -47%
Idle Average *	1.19	1.91 -61%	1.41 -18%	3 -152%	3.43 -188%	1.24 -4%	2.23 ?(1.19 - 5.37, n=22) -87%	1.456 ?(0.6 - 4.26, n=152, last 2 years) -22%
Idle Maximum *	1.23	1.96 -59%	1.47 -20%	3.5 -185%	3.52 -186%	1.25 -2%	2.45 ?(1.23 - 5.41, n=22) -99%	1.616 ?(0.83 - 4.45, n=152, last 2 years) -31%
Load Average *	4.18	4.72 -13%	3.35 20%	5.3 -27%	6.2 -48%	4.98 -19%	5.26 ?(3.5 - 7.4, n=22) -26%	6.45 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=147, last 2 years) -54%
Load Maximum *	8.53	10.15 -19%	6.37 25%	8.3 3%	10.63 -25%	9.09 -7%	9.68 ?(7.67 - 12.3, n=22) -13%	9.8 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=147, last 2 years) -15%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid

Låg belastning (utan WLAN, min. ljusstyrka)		35tim 33min
WiFi Websurfing		14tim 25min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		16tim 13min
Hög belastning (maximal ljusstyrka)		3tim 18min

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh	Huawei P40 Pro 4200 mAh	OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh	Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh	Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh
Battery Runtime		-1%	-7%	10%	-24%	-28%
Reader / Idle	2133	1858 -13%	1474 -31%	2015 -6%
H.264	973	1131 16%	1137 17%	957 -2%
WiFi v1.3	865	720 -17%	743 -14%	912 5%	654 -24%	623 -28%
Load	198	221 12%	198 0%	283 43%

För

+ Fantastisk OLED-skärm

+ Hög konstruktionskvalitet

+ Utmärkt vibrationsenhet

+ Riktigt bra stereohögtalare

+ Obetydlig värmeutveckling och strypning

+ Tilltalande kameror

Emot

- Inget stöd för dual-SIM / SD-kort

- Ultravidvinkelkamerans placering och fotokvalitet

- Endast USB 2.0

- Saknar en del toppskiktsfunktioner (120 FPS, 1440p-skärm, IP-certifiering)

- Den framåtriktade kameran har inte stöd för 4K-video

Omdöme - Konkurrensmässig helhet med luckor i specifikationerna

Recension av Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro. Recensionsex från TradingShenzhen

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

För första gången kommer en telefon från Xiaomi inte bara nära smartphone-eliten utan platsar också bland den - något som dock syns på priset. Även om ett pris på 10.000 kronor inte gör Mi-serien lika prisvärd som den varit i åratal får man istället en lyxig smartphone-upplevelse som kan tävla med andra tillverkares flaggskepp. Funktioner som står ut inkluderar vibrationsenhetens höga kvalitet, de kanske bästa stereohögtalarna du kan hitta på en smartphone, utmärkt konstruktionskvalitet och bra kameror, även om kvaliteten på vidvinkelslinsen hamnar efter motsvarigheterna på i synnerhet Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra och Huawei P40 Pro. Men Mi 10 Pro har zoomegenskaper som kompenserar för detta (upp till 10x zoom) och som är överlägsna konkurrenternas periskopkameror.

På samma sätt är skärmen värdig en flaggskepps-smartphone från 2020. Panelen som sitter i Mi 10 Pro har snabb bilduppdatering, hög färgprecision och stark belysning. Samtidigt kan vi hålla med om kritiken att man inte gått hela vägen (120 Hz, 1440p). Detta kommer dock knappast påverka genomsnittsanvändaren på något meningsfullt sätt, särskilt inte vid en direkt jämförelse med OnePlus 8 Pro. Andra ömma punkter är att den saknar IP-certifiering och att USB-porten är begränsad till 2.0-hastigheter.

Det stämmer, Mi-serien är inte längre billig. Men det höga riktpriset Xiaomi satt på sitt flaggskepp är berättigat - åtminstone i förhållande till andra telefoner från toppskiktet.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 09/03/2022 v7 ^(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Design

88%

Tangentbord

67 / 75 → 89%

Mus

96%

Anslutningar

54 / 70 → 78%

Vikt

88%

Batteri

90%

Skärm

93%

Spelprestanda

61 / 64 → 95%

Programprestanda

82 / 86 → 96%

Temperatur

93%

Ljudnivå

100%

Audio

78 / 90 → 87%

Camera

76%

Medel

82%

88%

Smartphone - Vägt medel

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Marius Schell - Tech Writer and translator - 398 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2020

contact me via: LinkedIn

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Xiaomi har blivit en del av smartphone-eliten (Sammanfattning)

Marcus Herbrich, 2020-04-22 (Update: 2020-04-22)

Jämförelseenheter

Storleksjämförelse

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

PUBG Mobile

Asphalt 9 Legends

Dead Trigger 2

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro audio analysis

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis

För

Emot

Omdöme - Konkurrensmässig helhet med luckor i specifikationerna

More articles related to this device

Price comparison