Doogee X95 Pro Smartphone Review: Face ID and Android 10 For $100

Name: Doogee X95 Pro
Brand: Doogee

Just enough and nothing more. How many corners must you cut when aiming for such a low price point? Not as much as one might expect, apparently. The Doogee X95 Pro works well as a backup smartphone or even as a primary for undemanding users.

Allen Ngo 👁, Published 04/02/2021 🇮🇹 🇷🇺 ...

Android Smartphone

The Doogee X95 Pro is the slightly pricier version of the already inexpensive X95. For about $20 more, users are getting 2x the RAM and storage and a faster MediaTek Helio A20 processor with the X95 Pro. Everything else remains identical including the triple rear cameras, large touchscreen, and facial recognition login.

Retailers like AliExpress are offering the Doogee X95 Pro for just $80 to $100 USD to make it one of the cheapest Android 10 smartphones available.

More Doogee reviews:

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Doogee X95 Pro (X Series)

Processor

Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D 4 x 1.8 GHz, Cortex-A53

Graphics adapter

PowerVR GE8300

Memory

4 GB

Display

6.52 inch 19.5:9, 1600 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, 5-point capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz

Storage

32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB

Connections

1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm earphones, Card Reader: MicroSD

Networking

Broadcom 802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.1, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 8.4 x 166.7 x 75.8 ( = 0.33 x 6.56 x 2.98 in)

Battery

4350 mAh

Operating System

Android 10

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MP + 2 MP + 2 MP
Secondary Camera: 5 MP

Additional features

Speakers: Yes, Micro-USB cable, 12 Months Warranty, fanless

Weight

177 g ( = 6.24 oz / 0.39 pounds), Power Supply: 84 g ( = 2.96 oz / 0.19 pounds)

Price

100 USD

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

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

potential competitors in comparison

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Height	Size	Resolution
71.3 %	04/2021	Doogee X95 Pro Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300	177 g	8.4 mm	6.52"	1600x720
87.2 %	04/2021	OnePlus 9 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660	192 g	8.7 mm	6.55"	2400x1080
77.6 %	04/2021	Motorola Moto G30 SD 662, Adreno 610	197 g	9 mm	6.50"	1600x720
82.5 %	03/2021	Oppo Find X3 Lite SD 765G, Adreno 620	172 g	7.9 mm	6.43"	2400x1080
74.5 %	03/2021	Blackview A80 Plus Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320	180 g	8.8 mm	6.49"	1560x720
74.6 %	01/2021	Motorola Moto E7 Helio G25, PowerVR GE8320	180 g	8.9 mm	6.50"	1600x720

Case

Build quality is excellent even if most of the case is plastic. The device is firm on all sides and edges with no abnormalities on our unit. It doesn't feel expensive, but it doesn't feel cheap, either.

Display with rounded corners and teardrop design not unlike Huawei smartphones

Triple rear cameras with integrated flash

All plastic chassis to save on costs. Matte sticker reduces fingerprint buildup

Connectivity

Micro-USB is present instead of the more common USB-C likely to save on costs. Both charging and data are supported with no video-out feature.

Communication

Wi-Fi supports up to 802.11n only likely to save on costs. Bands are supported for T-Mobile, but note that they are not compatible with most 4G networks in the US

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
OnePlus 9 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax	685 (654^min - 709^max) MBit/s +90%
Doogee X95 Pro Broadcom 802.11a/b/g/n	360 MBit/s
Blackview A80 Plus 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	345 (323^min - 352^max) MBit/s -4%
Oppo Find X3 Lite 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	303 (164^min - 328^max) MBit/s -16%
Motorola Moto G30 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	273 (198^min - 323^max) MBit/s -24%
Motorola Moto E7 802.11 b/g/n	41.6 (11^min - 65^max) MBit/s -88%
iperf3 receive AX12
OnePlus 9 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax	777 (623^min - 829^max) MBit/s +135%
Oppo Find X3 Lite 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	342 (335^min - 348^max) MBit/s +3%
Doogee X95 Pro Broadcom 802.11a/b/g/n	331 MBit/s
Blackview A80 Plus 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	327 (273^min - 336^max) MBit/s -1%
Motorola Moto G30 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	288 (198^min - 337^max) MBit/s -13%
Motorola Moto E7 802.11 b/g/n	48.8 (26^min - 69^max) MBit/s -85%

Webcam

ColorChecker Doogee X95 Pro: 6.97 ∆E min: 2.08 - max: 17.3 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty

The retail box includes an AC adapter, Micro-USB cable, and the usual paperwork. Warranty might be somewhat difficult to claim as owners may need to ship overseas.

Display

The large touchscreen is better than expected and it's easily the highlight of the Doogee. Colors don't pop or appear as vivid as on a Samsung Galaxy or Apple iPhone, but they're excellent nonetheless and with a great contrast ratio as well. The slow black-white and gray-gray response times are the main drawback to this display meaning ghosting is very noticeable when scrolling through web pages or icons.


357.3 cd/m²	378.9 cd/m²	338.7 cd/m²
360.8 cd/m²	382.2 cd/m²	329.1 cd/m²
357.7 cd/m²	375.7 cd/m²	333 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 382.2 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 357 cd/m² Minimum: 14.12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 382.2 cd/m²
Contrast: 2123:1 (Black: 0.18 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
Gamma: 2.03

	Doogee X95 Pro IPS, 6.52, 1600x720	OnePlus 9 AMOLED, 6.55, 2400x1080	Motorola Moto G30 LCD IPS, 6.50, 1600x720	Oppo Find X3 Lite OLED, 6.43, 2400x1080	Blackview A80 Plus IPS, 6.49, 1560x720	Motorola Moto E7 IPS, 6.50, 1600x720
Response Times		77%	-7%	94%	47%	-11%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *	63.2 ?(29.6, 33.6)	20 ?(11, 9) 68%	76 ?(47, 29) -20%	3.2 ?(1.6, 1.6) 95%	30 ?(15, 15) 53%	61 ?(30, 31) 3%
Response Time Black / White *	40.4 ?(20, 20.4)	6 ?(3, 3) 85%	38 ?(23, 15) 6%	2.8 ?(1.2, 1.6) 93%	24 ?(11, 13) 41%	50 ?(29, 21) -24%
PWM Frequency		323.6	176.7 ?(20)	367.6 ?(29)	178.6 ?(15)
Screen		76%	-17%	25%	-47%	-22%
Brightness middle	382.2	731 91%	284 -26%	569 49%	475 24%	470 23%
Brightness	357	739 107%	263 -26%	572 60%	467 31%	445 25%
Brightness Distribution	86	96 12%	83 -3%	97 13%	84 -2%	92 7%
Black Level *	0.18		0.34 -89%		0.49 -172%	0.35 -94%
Contrast	2123		835 -61%		969 -54%	1343 -37%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	4.4	0.59 87%	2.92 34%	3.2 27%	6.32 -44%	5.69 -29%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	8.12	1.3 84%	5.06 38%	6 26%	10.75 -32%	13.4 -65%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.4	0.9 74%	3.6 -6%	4.3 -26%	7.8 -129%	3.5 -3%
Gamma	2.03 ^108%	2.243 ^98%	2.307 ^95%	2.23 ^99%	2.228 ^99%	2.264 ^97%
CCT	6963 ^93%	6573 ^99%	6780 ^96%	6607 ^98%	9152 ^71%	7089 ^92%
Total Average (Program / Settings)		77% / 76%	-12% / -15%	60% / 42%	0% / -28%	-17% / -19%

* ... smaller is better

Color temperature is slightly on the cool side before any software adjustments. Color accuracy is otherwise better than expected considering the low price.

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
40.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 20 ms rise
40.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 20.4 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
63.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 29.6 ms rise
63.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 33.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.8 ms).

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 not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17933 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Performance

CPU performance is very slow with Geekbench results that are about half that of the mid-range Qualcomm Snapdragon 662. Even subjectively, most actions come with a slight delay. Opening new Chrome tabs, pressing the Home button, loading web pages, and switching between applications are not nearly as instant as most other smartphones. Medium multi-tasking between several applications is enough to cause momentary freezes and frame rates to chug.

Geekbench 5.5: Single-Core | Multi-Core
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
WebXPRT 3: Overall
JetStream 1.1: Total Score

Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic	1604 Points +948%
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G	1124 Points +635%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G	615 Points +302%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	309 Points +102%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	306 Points +100%
Blackview A80 Plus Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762	155 Points +1%
Doogee X95 Pro Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D	153 Points
Alcatel 3X 2020 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762	150 Points -2%
Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (134 - 153, n=2)	143.5 Points -6%
Wiko View5 Mediatek Helio A25	140 Points -8%
Motorola Moto E7 Mediatek Helio G25	134 Points -12%
Cubot King Kong CS Mediatek MT6580M	63 Points -59%

Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic	4160 Points +680%
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G	3653 Points +585%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G	1810 Points +240%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	1453 Points +173%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	1256 Points +136%
Alcatel 3X 2020 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762	873 Points +64%
Blackview A80 Plus Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762	869 Points +63%
Wiko View5 Mediatek Helio A25	865 Points +62%
Doogee X95 Pro Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D	533 Points
Motorola Moto E7 Mediatek Helio G25	491 Points -8%
Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (421 - 533, n=2)	477 Points -11%
Cubot King Kong CS Mediatek MT6580M	248 Points -53%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 / Total
Wiko View5 Mediatek Helio A25	14832 ms * -29%
Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (11496 - 11842, n=2)	11669 ms * -2%
Doogee X95 Pro Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D	11496 ms *
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	4650 ms * +60%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	4502 ms * +61%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G	2941 ms * +74%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Intel Core m3-6Y30	1770 ms * +85%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Intel Core m3-6Y30	1663 ms * +86%
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G	1692 ms * +85%
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic	460.4 ms * +96%

WebXPRT 3 / Overall
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic	193 Points +615%
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G	119 Points +341%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G	78 Points +189%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	52 Points +93%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	51 Points +89%
Doogee X95 Pro Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D	27 Points
Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (26 - 27, n=2)	26.5 Points -2%
Wiko View5 Mediatek Helio A25	22 Points -19%

JetStream 1.1 / Total Score
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic	342.7 Points +1466%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Intel Core m3-6Y30	143 Points +553%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz Intel Core m3-6Y30	130.7 Points +497%
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G	119.2 Points +445%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G	80 Points +265%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 662	49.63 Points +127%
Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (21.9 - 22.5, n=2)	22.2 Points +1%
Doogee X95 Pro Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D	21.89 Points

Geekbench 5.5: Single-Core | Multi-Core
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
WebXPRT 3: Overall
JetStream 1.1: Total Score

* ... smaller is better

Storage Devices

The 32 GB of internal storage is low but thankfully expandable via MicroSD. The slot supports up to 32 GB only, however, for a total of just 64 GB combined.

	Doogee X95 Pro 32 GB eMMC Flash	OnePlus 9 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Motorola Moto G30 128 GB eMMC Flash	Oppo Find X3 Lite 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	Blackview A80 Plus 64 GB eMMC Flash	Motorola Moto E7 32 GB eMMC Flash	Nokia 5.4 128 GB eMMC Flash
AndroBench 3-5		903%	138%	613%	39%	13%	140%
Sequential Read 256KB	277	1872 576%	214.5 -23%	953 244%	286.7 4%	261 -6%	288.9 4%
Sequential Write 256KB	118.6	739 523%	190.2 60%	466.2 293%	210.8 78%	101 -15%	187.2 58%
Random Read 4KB	32.59	225.4 592%	247.4 659%	194.7 497%	52.2 60%	58 78%	112.1 244%
Random Write 4KB	10.95	221.4 1922%	12.2 11%	166 1416%	21.2 94%	13.5 23%	68.8 528%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	83.3		153.8 85%		82.4 -1%	81.5 -2%	85.9 3%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	61.3		81.9 34%		62.2 1%	62 1%	64.1 5%

GPU Performance

Graphics performance is poor for gaming. Side-scrollers like Armajet run well albeit still not as smooth as we would like while 3D titles like Mario Kart Tour or PUBG Mobile are simply subpar experiences. Users who play 2D games or no games at all won't find this to be a huge issue. 1080p video playback at 60 FPS, for example, is still watchable and mostly smooth with just occasional dips in our experience.

3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	3459 Points +315%
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	3187 Points +282%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	2334 Points +180%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	2164 Points +159%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	1091 Points +31%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	1014 Points +22%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	945 Points +13%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (780 - 1588, n=16)	918 Points +10%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	858 Points +3%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	834 Points
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	10348 Points +4736%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	3557 Points +1562%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1081 Points +405%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	980 Points +358%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	424 Points +98%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	408 Points +91%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	387 Points +81%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	368 Points +72%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (197 - 443, n=16)	258 Points +21%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	214 Points
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	6903 Points +2586%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	3535 Points +1275%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1176 Points +358%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1124 Points +337%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	491 Points +91%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	470 Points +83%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	432 Points +68%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	426 Points +66%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (238 - 509, n=16)	307 Points +19%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	257 Points
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Adreno 660, SD 888 5G	0 Points -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	3441 Points +318%
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	3084 Points +275%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	2438 Points +196%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	2146 Points +161%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	1114 Points +35%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	936 Points +14%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	927 Points +13%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (775 - 1590, n=17)	915 Points +11%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	892 Points +8%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	823 Points
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	20511 Points +5054%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	5383 Points +1253%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1787 Points +349%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1768 Points +344%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	822 Points +107%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	775 Points +95%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	712 Points +79%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	689 Points +73%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (390 - 712, n=17)	470 Points +18%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	398 Points
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Apple iPhone 12 Pro Apple A14 Bionic GPU, A14	9094 Points +1921%
Oppo Find X3 Lite Qualcomm Adreno 620, SD 765G	4783 Points +963%
Nokia 5.4 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1908 Points +324%
Motorola Moto G30 Qualcomm Adreno 610, SD 662	1856 Points +312%
Alcatel 3X 2020 PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	873 Points +94%
Motorola Moto E7 PowerVR GE8320, Helio G25	806 Points +79%
Wiko View5 PowerVR GE8320, Helio A25	747 Points +66%
Blackview A80 Plus PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762	731 Points +62%
Average PowerVR GE8300 (442 - 763, n=17)	525 Points +17%
Doogee X95 Pro PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D	450 Points

3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited		257 points
Help

Emissions

Temperature

Surface temperatures are quite cool even when under load. Hot spots top out at just 32 C compared to 38 C on the Samsung Galaxy S21+.

Max. Load

Idle


25.6 °C 78 F	24.2 °C 76 F	27 °C 81 F
25.6 °C 78 F	24.6 °C 76 F	27.6 °C 82 F
25.4 °C 78 F	25.2 °C 77 F	27.6 °C 82 F

Maximum: 27.6 °C = 82 F
Average: 25.9 °C = 79 F


30 °C 86 F	26.8 °C 80 F	26 °C 79 F
31.8 °C 89 F	27 °C 81 F	26 °C 79 F
31.4 °C 89 F	27.4 °C 81 F	26 °C 79 F

Maximum: 31.8 °C = 89 F
Average: 28 °C = 82 F

Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 25.9 °C / 79 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 27.6 °C / 82 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31.8 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

Pink noise at maximum volume. Volume is loud with limited bass as expected

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

Doogee X95 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 37.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 53% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Overall power consumption is very low even when running high processing loads. We're able to record a maximum of just 3.8 W compared to almost 3x that on the OnePlus 9. Of course, the latter is also significantly faster and more expensive. The difference between minimum and maximum brightness is about 1.5 W.

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.1 / 1.76 Watt
Idle	0.5 / 2 / 2.7 Watt
Load	3.7 / 3.8 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.

	Doogee X95 Pro Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 32 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1600x720, 6.52	OnePlus 9 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55	Motorola Moto G30 SD 662, Adreno 610, 128 GB eMMC Flash, LCD IPS, 1600x720, 6.50	Oppo Find X3 Lite SD 765G, Adreno 620, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, OLED, 2400x1080, 6.43	Apple iPhone 12 Pro A14, A14 Bionic GPU, 256 GB NVMe, OLED, 2532x1170, 6.10	Nokia 5.4 SD 662, Adreno 610, 128 GB eMMC Flash, IPS LCD, 1560x720, 6.39
Power Consumption		-61%	-38%	-20%	16%	-6%
Idle Minimum *	0.5	0.9 -80%	0.8 -60%	0.92 -84%	0.64 -28%	0.49 2%
Idle Average *	2	1.7 15%	1.5 25%	1.97 1%	1.22 39%	1.91 4%
Idle Maximum *	2.7	2.7 -0%	1.8 33%	1.98 27%	1.24 54%	1.94 28%
Load Average *	3.7	5.4 -46%	6.1 -65%	3.33 10%	3.04 18%	3.57 4%
Load Maximum *	3.8	11.1 -192%	8.4 -121%	5.77 -52%	3.86 -2%	6.42 -69%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Runtimes are excellent at almost 14.5 hours of real-world WLAN use when the display is set to 150 nits. Charging from empty to full capacity is slow, however, at several hours.

Battery Runtime


WiFi Websurfing		14h 39min

	Doogee X95 Pro Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, Wh	OnePlus 9 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660, Wh	Motorola Moto G30 SD 662, Adreno 610, Wh	Oppo Find X3 Lite SD 765G, Adreno 620, Wh	Blackview A80 Plus Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, Wh	Motorola Moto E7 Helio G25, PowerVR GE8320, Wh
Battery Runtime		-3%	22%	-5%	7%	-1%
WiFi v1.3	879	854 -3%	1069 22%	834 -5%	943 7%	867 -1%
Reader / Idle		1623	2336
Load		168	219

Pros

+ Facial recognition login (Face ID)

+ large 6.52-inch touchscreen

+ decent plastic build quality

+ good colors and contrast

+ respectable battery life

+ decent camera quality

+ 3.5 mm audio back

+ very inexpensive

Cons

- not compatible with most 4G networks in US

- Micro-USB instead of USB-C

- noticeable display ghosting

- slow gaming performance

- low storage capacity

- no fingerprint reader

- slow recharge rate

- Face ID is finicky

- slow processor

Verdict

In review: Doogee X95 Pro. Test unit provided by Doogee

The Doogee X95 Pro works well for light web browsing, light apps, video and music streaming, and the occasional pictures. Users will be surprised by the large display and quality of the pictures for such an inexpensive smartphone.

Unfortunately, the processor is so slow that most games and even moderate multi-tasking will bring the whole smartphone down to a crawl. If you're not a heavy smartphone user at all, then the Doogee will be appealing.

Price and availability

Overseas retailers like AliExpress have the Doogee X95 Pro on sale for about $100 USD or less. Amazon does not have it in stock as of this writing.

Doogee X95 Pro - 2021-04-02 04/02/2021 v7
Allen Ngo

Chassis

60%

Keyboard

82 / 75 → 100%

Pointing Device

89%

Connectivity

24 / 70 → 34%

Weight

90%

Battery

90%

Display

83%

Games Performance

3 / 64 → 5%

Application Performance

39 / 86 → 45%

Temperature

96%

Noise

100%

Audio

69 / 90 → 77%

Camera

39%

Average

66%

71%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Allen Ngo - Lead Editor U.S. - 5190 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2011

After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.

contact me via: @AllenNgoNBC

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Doogee X95 Pro Smartphone Review: Face ID and Android 10 For $100

Allen Ngo, 2021-04- 2 (Update: 2021-04- 2)

Doogee X95 Pro Smartphone Review: Face ID and Android 10 For $100

potential competitors in comparison

Case

Connectivity

Communication

Webcam

Accessories and Warranty

Display

Display Response Times

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Performance

Storage Devices

GPU Performance

Emissions

Temperature

Speakers

Doogee X95 Pro audio analysis

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Battery Life

Pros

Cons

Verdict

Price and availability

More articles related to this device

Related Articles

Pricecompare