Notebookcheck

Sony Xperia X Compact Smartphone Review

Andreas Osthoff, 10/28/2016

Compact and enduring, but no more high-end. Sony once again offers a Compact version of its flagship smartphone this year. However, the smaller model will have to make do with slower components from now on. Our review shows why this is not necessarily a problem.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted:
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

For the original German review, see here.

Sony was one of the last manufacturers of Android smartphones that is still  offering compact devices with very powerful components. The previous Xperia Z5 Compact managed a very good result in our review and is still sitting in our Top 10 Ranking. However, this has changed since Sony offers high-end hardware only in smartphones with display sizes of 5 inches and more from now on.

Our review unit today is the Sony Xperia X Compact. It is the direct successor to the Xperia Z5 Compact and the design is similar to its larger sibling Xperia XZ, but the performance has been reduced. The new Compact model is no longer powered by high-end SoCs from the Snapdragon 8xx-series, but the mainstream chip Qualcomm Snapdragon 650. The IP certification against dust and water has also been waived for the new model. Still, looking at the specification details, the 4.6-inch smartphone does not reveal any serious drawbacks: a 23 MP camera, 3 GB of RAM, 32 GB of internal storage plus a microSD-slot, fast wireless connections and a fingerprint scanner.

Priced at 449 Euros (~$489; RRP), Sony has also reduced the price (100 Euros/~$109 less than the Z5 Compact). The search for suitable comparison devices is not easy. Apart from Sony, Apple is pretty much the only remaining manufacturer of small and powerful devices. In addition to the fast iPhone SE with a 4-inch display, the 4.7-inch iPhone 6s is also an interesting though more expensive alternative. The Android competition starts at 5 inches. Sony also offers the regular Xperia X with a 5-inch screen and similar performance figures. The predecessor Z5 Compact is still available as well. Also priced at around 400 Euros (~$436) are the brand-new Honor 8 and the familiar OnePlus 3.

Sony Xperia X Compact (Xperia Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
4.6 inch 16:9, 1280x720 pixel 319 PPI, capacitive, 10 touch points, IPS, TRILUMINOS Display for Mobile, X-Reality, Dynamic Contrast, glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 20 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Fingerprint, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, barometer, compass, color spectrum, DLNA, Miracast, Wi-Fi Direct, App2SD, SAR Head: 1.08 W/kg, SAR Body: 1.25 W/kg
Networking
802.11a/ac/b/g/n (a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), UMTS (800, 850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), LTE (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41), HSUPA up to 5.76 Mbps, HSDPA up to 42.2 Mbps, LTE Cat 6 up to 300 Mbps downstream, 50 Mbps upstream, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.5 x 129 x 65 ( = 0.37 x 5.08 x 2.56 in)
Battery
2700 mAh Lithium-Ion, Talk time 2G (according to manufacturer): 44 h, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 47 h, Standby 2G (according to manufacturer): 750 h, Standby 3G (according to manufacturer): 710 h
Operating System
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 23 MPix (predictive autofocus, Exmor-R sensor 1/2.3", 22 mm wide angle, Video: 1080p60)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix (f/2.4, Exmor-R sensor 1/5", 25 mm wide angle)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo at the front, Keyboard: Virtual, Keyboard Light: yes, 7.5-Watt PSU, USB cable, headset, quick-start guide, service information, Xperia-Apps, Google-Apps, AVG Protection, SwiftKey, PlayStation, 24 Months Warranty, USB Type-C, fanless
Weight
135 g ( = 4.76 oz / 0.3 pounds), Power Supply: 54 g ( = 1.9 oz / 0.12 pounds)
Price
449 Euro

 

Despite the similar model series, the design of the two new models Xperia X Compact and Xperia XZ differs from the regular Xperia X. While the shape of the new models is once again a bit boxier, the sides are now more rounded. This helps the X Compact in particular, which does not really meet the compact expectations with a thickness of 9.5 millimeters (~0.37 in). This means that it is much thicker than all the comparison devices – the previous Z5 Compact was 0.6 millimeters (~0.02 in) thinner as well. At least, there  is no camera bump at the back and the situation is better when we look at the other dimensions of the Xperia X Compact. The handling also benefits from the rounded sides and is okay in general, but you will still clearly notice the Sony in your pocket.

Unlike the other current X models, the X Compact does not get a metal chassis and is exclusively made of glossy plastics. Our test model is the "Universe Black" model, but Sony also offers a white and a "Mist Blue" version. Because of the plastic, the smartphone does unfortunately feel very slippery and will quickly collect fingerprints as well as dust. Our test model also had problems with a lot of small scratches – even though we handled it with a lot of care. The silver-colored power button with the integrated fingerprint scanner does not really fit into the otherwise completely black appearance either. Sony has also waived the IP certification for the protection against dust and water.

Pressure is not a problem for the test model. We could not provoke picture distortions, but noticed quiet creaking sounds. Overall, however, the build quality is very good and the material transitions are very clean. The buttons for the camera and the volume rocker on the other hand wiggle a bit and also create a pretty loud clicking sound.

The video below shows a short hands-on with the Xperia X Compact and the larger Xperia XZ from the last IFA in Berlin. Among others, you can see the available colors for the test model.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

We have already mentioned that Sony no longer implements a high-end SoC and uses the mainstream chip Snapdragon 650 with the integrated Adreno 510 GPU instead. However, Sony does not save on the memory equipment and ships the smartphone with 3 GB of RAM as well as 32 GB of internal storage. Android 6.0 Marshmallow does require an unusual amount of space and therefore, the user can only use about 20 GB for files and apps – competitors usually offer 24 to 26 GB. At least, it is possible to expand the storage via a microSD-card by up to 256 GB. Apps can be transferred to the card and pictures as well as videos can be stored there, but the microSD-card cannot be formatted as internal storage.

Unlike the larger Xperia X, the X Compact supports USB-OTG, but still no MHL. Sony has also implemented a USB Type-C port, but it is still a 2.0 jack – although this is also the case for the rivals. Other connectivity features include Bluetooth 4.2, NFC, Wi-Fi Direct, FM radio, DLNA, and Miracast. There is also a multi-colored notification LED on the front, which indicates incoming messages or the battery charge, but you cannot configure it.

Top: 3.5 mm headphones
Top: 3.5 mm headphones
Right: Camera button, volume rocker, standby/fingerprint scanner
Right: Camera button, volume rocker, standby/fingerprint scanner
Left: Combined slot for Nano-SIM and microSD
Left: Combined slot for Nano-SIM and microSD
Bottom: USB 2.0 Type-C
Bottom: USB 2.0 Type-C

Software

The Xperia X Compact is shipped with Android 6.0 Marshmallow. Sony also uses its own user interface, including some additional apps (such as Spotify or PlayStation, for example). These can only be deactivated by the user, but not deleted. There was a software update after we set the smartphone up and it did update the Android Security Patch Level to September 1st, 2016. Overall, Sony has not changed a lot of things and the whole handling is very smooth, but you will sometimes have to search quite a bit before you find the desired setting (like the storage management). Handy: You can also activate the smartphone with a double tap on the screen.

According to Sony, the Xperia X Compact is one of the models that will receive an update to Android 7. There is currently no information about the exact time frame though.

Communication and GPS

The communication modules cover modern standards with LTE Cat. 6 and WLAN 802.11ac. There are devices with even faster solutions (e.g. LTE Cat. 9), but up to 300 Mbps downstream and 50 Mbps upstream, respectively, is still pretty fast. We did not have any signal problems in the metropolitan T-Mobile network and the overall signal quality was comparable to a simultaneously used Apple iPhone 7. We did not encounter any issues in our wireless network and web browsing was very quick. Our standardized WLAN test (router Linksys EA8500, ~1 meter/~3 ft away) determined average transfer rates for the Xperia X Compact. The receiving performance was just ahead of the OnePlus 3 at 327 Mbps, but the latter has the edge when the device sends data (323 vs. 214 Mbps for the Sony).

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia X Compact
802.11a/ac/b/g/n (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
327 MBit/s ∼100%
OnePlus 3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
320 MBit/s ∼98% -2%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
OnePlus 3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
323 MBit/s ∼100% +51%
Sony Xperia X Compact
802.11a/ac/b/g/n (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
214 MBit/s ∼66%
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Indoors

The location can be determined via GPS and GLONASS, even though we could not get a signal inside the building. The connection with the satellites was established within a few seconds outdoors, but the accuracy was not perfect at 10 meters (~33 ft). We also check the performance on a bicycle ride and compare the results with the professional navigation device Garmin Edge 500. We cannot see any serious problems here, but the smartphone does not locate the position quite as often, so there can be some "shortcuts". The overall track length was about 300 meters (~328 yd) shorter. There should not be any problems when you use it for car navigation.

Sony Xperia X Compact: Overview
Sony Xperia X Compact: Overview
Sony Xperia X Compact: Crossing
Sony Xperia X Compact: Crossing
Sony Xperia X Compact: Turning point
Sony Xperia X Compact: Turning point
Garmin Edge 500: Overview
Garmin Edge 500: Overview
Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
Garmin Edge 500: Turning point
Garmin Edge 500: Turning point

Telephone and Voice Quality

Phone App
Phone App

The Sony Xperia X Compact has only one Nano-SIM slot and unfortunately, replacing the card will require a restart. This might not be an issue for many users, but it will be annoying if you travel a lot and therefore use more than one SIM-card. As with the previous Z5 Compact, the test model convinced with good voice quality without any background noises. This also applies to the hands-free feature and the provided headset, although the microphone has some problems with wind noises. The Phone app is basically the default Android app and the handling should not be a problem for any user.

Cameras

Picture front camera
Picture front camera

The front camera of the Xperia X Compact has not changed compared to the predecessor Z5 Compact. You still get a 5 MP sensor (25 mm wide angle lens), which does at least produce acceptable pictures in good lighting condition. However, the results are never really sharp (see sample shot). Low-light situations will quickly result in picture noise and there is no flash. Videos can be recorded in Full HD.

The camera equipment at the back is similar to the larger Xperia X. The 23 MP Exmor-R sensor has a predictive autofocus, which can follow objects autonomously. You just have to tap on the screen to focus, and as with  the larger sibling, it worked well in practice. However, the camera app is rather annoying. Although it does feature a comprehensive manual mode, it launches in the automatic mode by default. The maximum resolution has to be set manually as well and the different picture modes are only available for 8 MP images. Unlike the predecessor, you cannot shoot 4K videos anymore – the maximum resolution is 1080p at 60 frames per second. The dedicated camera button (launch the app and trigger) at the right side of the case is quite handy.

In terms of quality, the camera leaves a good impression. You will only start to see some blurs when you zoom in, which is particularly noticeable in the vegetation. The direct rival OnePlus 3 performs better in this respect. We are not fully convinced by the low-light result (scene 3) either. There is only minor picture noise and the displayed contents are good to see, but you cannot see as many details as on the OnePlus 3, for example. A good example is the fence on the right side or the tree left next to the lantern.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the zoom step. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
ColorChecker Passport: The actual color is displayed in the lower half of each patch.
ColorChecker Passport: The actual color is displayed in the lower half of each patch.

In addition to our usual sample pictures, we also evaluate the color accuracy and the sharpness under controlled lighting conditions. The pictures are not edited afterwards and there is no manual white balance either. The Sony sensor shows the colors very accurately and there are no drastic deviations, only some shades are – similar to the larger Xperia X – slightly too bright. Our test chart is very sharp, and the device benefits from the high resolution here. Even the crop from the center shows only minor blurs at the edges. Overall, a good performance.

Accessories and Warranty

Sony ships the Xperia X Compact with the usual accessories including a modular power adapter, USB cable, headset with different tips, a quick-start guide and the warranty card. There are also some optional accessories such as covers, high-res headphones or docking stations. The warranty period is 24 months.

Scope of delivery Sony Xperia X Compact
Scope of delivery Sony Xperia X Compact

Input Devices and Handling

Sony uses the very comprehensive SwiftKey keyboard by default (the standard Google keyboard is also available). It can be a bit crowded at first and needs some getting used to, but it works very well. Overall, we quite liked the handling of the Xperia X Compact. Both the user interface as well as web browsing experience were very smooth. 

The fingerprint scanner inside the power button is both quick and reliable. The whole button is slightly depressed and can be found very easily with the finger. As mentioned before, the other two physical buttons are a little wobbly and also produce a pretty loud clicking sound.

Although there is actually sufficient space underneath the panel, Sony only implements on-screen Android buttons. This means that the space on the small display is further reduced. The touchscreen itself, however, does not cause any criticism and works well even in the peripheral areas. It can recognize up to ten inputs simultaneously, even though this is not so important on the small screen.

SwiftKey is preloaded
SwiftKey is preloaded
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard landscape mode
Keyboard landscape mode

Display

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

Sony is still using a 4.6-inch Triluminos display (IPS) with a resolution of 1280x720 pixels. This results in a pixel density of 320 PPI, which is sufficient for sharp texts and images, but you can notice a difference compared to higher resolution screens in a direct comparison. The Full HD resolution is once again reserved for the new flagship Xperia XZ as well as the regular Xperia X this year.

Our initial measurements are quite positive. The maximum luminance is very good at 580 nits on average and the black value has improved compared to the previous model and is now at 0.4 cd/m². The resulting contrast ratio of more than 1400:1 is excellent (results for a pure white picture and APL50 are almost identical) and marks the best value within our comparison group except for the OLED panel of the OnePlus 3. We could not detect PWM flickering. Our subjective impression is quite good, but there is unfortunately a blue cast, which is particularly visible on bright surfaces.

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 59 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 655 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 28740) Hz was measured.

516
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
587
cd/m²
566
cd/m²
579
cd/m²
558
cd/m²
566
cd/m²
570
cd/m²
552
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 587 cd/m² Average: 563.2 cd/m² Minimum: 5.04 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: 1448:1 (Black: 0.4 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.1 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 7 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.24
Sony Xperia X Compact
IPS, 1280x720, 4.6
Honor 8
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
IPS, 1280x720, 4.6
Apple iPhone SE
IPS, 1136x640, 4
Apple iPhone 6S
IPS, 1334x750, 4.7
Sony Xperia X
LCD, 1920x1080, 5
OnePlus 3
Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
-4%
-18%
-5%
14%
-35%
15%
Brightness
563
443
-21%
532
-6%
579
3%
549
-2%
392
-30%
431
-23%
Brightness Distribution
88
93
6%
94
7%
93
6%
87
-1%
91
3%
84
-5%
Black Level *
0.4
0.4
-0%
0.54
-35%
0.88
-120%
0.39
2%
0.68
-70%
Contrast
1448
1128
-22%
1013
-30%
685
-53%
1415
-2%
594
-59%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.1
5.4
11%
7.37
-21%
1.8
70%
3.4
44%
7.1
-16%
4.1
33%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7
6.7
4%
8.39
-20%
2.3
67%
4.16
41%
9.7
-39%
3.3
53%
Gamma
2.24 107%
2.33 103%
2.28 105%
2.21 109%
2.21 109%
2.23 108%
2.1 114%
CCT
8395 77%
8262 79%
9074 72%
6955 93%
7288 89%
9502 68%
6550 99%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.9865
96.74
95.93
100
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
62.13
62.18
89.38

* ... smaller is better

Grayscale (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: Off, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: X Reality, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Colorspace (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
ColorChecker (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (Picture mode: Super-vivid, target color space sRGB)
Manual white balance
Manual white balance

This blue cast is also confirmed by the other display measurements. The DeltaE-2000 deviations for the colors and the grayscale are also pretty high ex-works, and the three different picture modes (Off, X-Reality, Super-vivid) hardly differ at all here. We can measure the best results in the X-Reality mode with 7 (grayscale) and 6.1 (colors), respectively. Only the predecessor Z5 Compact and the Xperia X are slightly worse, but all the other rivals manage more accurate colors. At least the blue cast can be improved a bit thanks to the manual white balance.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 21 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 84 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (27.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 27 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 73 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (44.5 ms).

The maximum luminance is available with the manual as well as the automatic brightness control. In combination with the high contrast ratio, you can even see the display content in very bright environments. As with almost every other smartphone, you should avoid reflections from direct light sources on the glossy screen. The panel is based on the IPS technology and offers wide viewing angles. Colors do not distort even from very flat angles, only the luminance drops slightly in this case.

In the sun (with reflection)
In the sun (with reflection)
In the sun (without reflection)
In the sun (without reflection)
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

We have already mentioned that Sony does not use a high-end SoC from the Snapdragon 8xx-series for its Compact model this year and implements a Snapdragon 650 instead. This mainstream chip has 6 CPU cores (2x Cortex-A72 at up to 1.8 GHz and 4x Cortex-A53 at up to 1.2 GHz) and the graphics card Adreno 510, which is a lower clocked version of the Adreno 530. The single-core performance is roughly on par with the old Snapdragon 810, but the old Xperia Z5 Compact is faster when you stress multiple cores or the GPU.

It is not surprising that our test model produces similar performance figures compared to the larger Xperia X, which is equipped with the same SoC. If you take all the benchmark results, the two Sony smartphones are at the bottom of the ranking within our comparison group. Subjectively however, the Xperia X Compact is sufficiently quick and the whole handling is very smooth, only the loading times of apps can be a bit longer.

AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (Version 6.1.4)
142090 Points ∼77% +86%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
126969 Points ∼69% +67%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
94671 Points ∼51% +24%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
77650 Points ∼42% +2%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
76216 Points ∼41%
Geekbench 3
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
5645 Points ∼19% +45%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
4422 Points ∼15% +14%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
4386 Points ∼15% +13%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
3885 Points ∼13%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
3853 Points ∼13% -1%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
2539 Points ∼53% +67%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
2533 Points ∼53% +67%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2398 Points ∼50% +58%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1518 Points ∼32%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1484 Points ∼31% -2%
Geekbench 4
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
5481 Points ∼26% +64%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
4097 Points ∼19% +23%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
3343 Points ∼16%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1754 Points ∼34% +26%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1726 Points ∼34% +24%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1388 Points ∼27%
3DMark
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1 Unlimited Physics
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
2034 Points ∼84% +21%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1935 Points ∼80% +16%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1675 Points ∼69%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
Points ∼0% -100%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1 Unlimited Graphics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
3249 Points ∼100% +275%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
867 Points ∼27%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
816 Points ∼25% -6%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
Points ∼0% -100%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1 Unlimited
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2823 Points ∼98% +191%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
971 Points ∼34%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
941 Points ∼33% -3%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
Points ∼0% -100%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1912 Points ∼14% +13%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1697 Points ∼13%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1486 Points ∼11% -12%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1211 Points ∼9% -29%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
4804 Points ∼42% +250%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1373 Points ∼12%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1354 Points ∼12% -1%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1066 Points ∼9% -22%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
3595 Points ∼31% +151%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1434 Points ∼12%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1381 Points ∼12% -4%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1095 Points ∼9% -24%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1 Physics
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
2482 Points ∼97% +53%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1892 Points ∼74% +17%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Metal)
1749 Points ∼69% +8%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1624 Points ∼64%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1504 Points ∼59% -7%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1472 Points ∼58% -9%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1 Graphics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2864 Points ∼53% +271%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Metal)
2524 Points ∼47% +227%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1137 Points ∼21% +47%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
818 Points ∼15% +6%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
772 Points ∼14%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
761 Points ∼14% -1%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.1
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2571 Points ∼66% +194%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Metal)
2298 Points ∼59% +163%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1198 Points ∼31% +37%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
961 Points ∼25% +10%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
874 Points ∼23%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
855 Points ∼22% -2%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
2587 Points ∼100% +62%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1789 Points ∼69% +12%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
1649 Points ∼64% +3%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1601 Points ∼62%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1441 Points ∼56% -10%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1100 Points ∼43% -31%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
4633 Points ∼60% +252%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
4255 Points ∼55% +223%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
2353 Points ∼30% +79%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1318 Points ∼17%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1280 Points ∼17% -3%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1112 Points ∼14% -16%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
3424 Points ∼70% +150%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
3149 Points ∼65% +130%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1878 Points ∼39% +37%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1372 Points ∼28%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1313 Points ∼27% -4%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1273 Points ∼26% -7%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
21771 Points ∼32% +55%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
15531 Points ∼23% +11%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
14023 Points ∼21%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
13717 Points ∼20% -2%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
13097 Points ∼19% -7%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
13065 Points ∼19% -7%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
10801 Points ∼16% -23%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
44059 Points ∼10% +106%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
42686 Points ∼9% +100%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
37319 Points ∼8% +75%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
34023 Points ∼8% +59%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
22157 Points ∼5% +4%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
21349 Points ∼5%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
21087 Points ∼5% -1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
30241 Points ∼16% +58%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
29538 Points ∼15% +54%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
28419 Points ∼15% +49%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
26420 Points ∼14% +38%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
20235 Points ∼10% +6%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
19128 Points ∼10%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
17404 Points ∼9% -9%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
89 fps ∼8% +187%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
80.3 fps ∼7% +159%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
79.6 fps ∼7% +157%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
56 fps ∼5% +81%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
41 fps ∼4% +32%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
31 fps ∼3%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
30 fps ∼3% -3%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
60 fps ∼13% +18%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
59.2 fps ∼13% +16%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
59.1 fps ∼13% +16%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
57 fps ∼12% +12%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
51 fps ∼11%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
43 fps ∼9% -16%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
33 fps ∼7% -35%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
47 fps ∼9% +213%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
40 fps ∼7% +167%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
39.5 fps ∼7% +163%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
25 fps ∼5% +67%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
19 fps ∼3% +27%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
15 fps ∼3%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
9.2 fps ∼2% -39%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
58.1 fps ∼26% +94%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
56 fps ∼25% +87%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
46 fps ∼20% +53%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
45 fps ∼20% +50%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
30 fps ∼13%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
19 fps ∼8% -37%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
15 fps ∼7% -50%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
31 fps ∼10% +230%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
28.1 fps ∼9% +199%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
18 fps ∼6% +91%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
10 fps ∼3% +6%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
9.4 fps ∼3%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
4.6 fps ∼2% -51%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
57.9 fps ∼33% +163%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
38 fps ∼22% +73%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
30 fps ∼17% +36%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
22 fps ∼13%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
11 fps ∼6% -50%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
10 fps ∼6% -55%
GFXBench 4.0
off screen Car Chase Offscreen
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
18 fps ∼6% +233%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
6.3 fps ∼2% +17%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
5.4 fps ∼2%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
5.3 fps ∼2% -2%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
18 fps ∼15% +50%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
12 fps ∼10%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
6.9 fps ∼6% -42%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
5.9 fps ∼5% -51%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (OxygenOS 3.1.2)
7101 Points ∼87% +49%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
6735 Points ∼83% +41%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
4770 Points ∼59%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
4379 Points ∼54% -8%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
4084 Points ∼50% -14%
BaseMark OS II
Web
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
1226 Points ∼80% +20%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
1207 Points ∼78% +18%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
1112 Points ∼72% +9%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1019 Points ∼66%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
994 Points ∼64% -2%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
976 Points ∼63% -4%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
774 Points ∼50% -24%
Graphics
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
4813 Points ∼56% +194%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
4323 Points ∼50% +164%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
4175 Points ∼49% +155%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
3094 Points ∼36% +89%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
1703 Points ∼20% +4%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1638 Points ∼19%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1581 Points ∼18% -3%
Memory
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
2556 Points ∼66% +42%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2052 Points ∼53% +14%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1796 Points ∼47%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1408 Points ∼37% -22%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
1281 Points ∼33% -29%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
1032 Points ∼27% -43%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
963 Points ∼25% -46%
System
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
5179 Points ∼79% +67%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
3952 Points ∼60% +27%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
3537 Points ∼54% +14%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
3466 Points ∼53% +12%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
3107 Points ∼47%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
2564 Points ∼39% -17%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
2082 Points ∼32% -33%
Overall
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530
2496 Points ∼76% +43%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
2287 Points ∼70% +31%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600
2194 Points ∼67% +26%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4
2034 Points ∼62% +16%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1747 Points ∼53%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430
1569 Points ∼48% -10%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510
1450 Points ∼44% -17%

We performed the browser tests with the preloaded Chrome 53, because Sony does not install its own version. The devices from Sony are once again at the bottom of the charts, but the old Z5 Compact is beaten (which is also a result of the older browser version). In practice however, there is no criticism.

Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari)
16550 Points ∼100% +85%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari Mobile 9.01)
16200 Points ∼98% +81%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4 (Chrome 52)
10692 Points ∼65% +19%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (Chrome 51)
9155 Points ∼55% +2%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 53)
8952 Points ∼54%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 51.0.02704.81)
8388 Points ∼51% -6%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430 (Google Chrome 46.0.2490.76, Android 5.1.1)
5691 Points ∼34% -36%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430 (Google Chrome 46.0.2490.76, Android 5.1.1)
4210.4 ms * ∼100% -23%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 51.0.02704.81)
3677 ms * ∼87% -8%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 53)
3417 ms * ∼81%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4 (Chrome 52)
2979 ms * ∼71% +13%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (Chrome 51)
2920.7 ms * ∼69% +15%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari Mobile 9.0.1)
1715 ms * ∼41% +50%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari)
1708.9 ms * ∼41% +50%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari Mobile 9.01)
187 Points ∼100% +72%
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari)
186 Points ∼99% +71%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4 (Chrome 52)
138 Points ∼74% +27%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (Chrome 51)
122 Points ∼65% +12%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 53)
109 Points ∼58%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430 (Google Chrome 46.0.2490.76, Android 5.1.1)
104 Points ∼56% -5%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 51.0.02704.81)
92 Points ∼49% -16%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone SE
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari)
118.76 Points ∼100% +133%
Apple iPhone 6S
A9, A9 / PowerVR GT7600 (Safari Mobile 9.01)
118.6 Points ∼100% +133%
Honor 8
Kirin 950, Mali-T880 MP4 (Chrome 52)
64.046 Points ∼54% +26%
OnePlus 3
820 MSM8996, Adreno 530 (chrome 51)
54.4 Points ∼46% +7%
Sony Xperia X Compact
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 53)
51 Points ∼43%
Sony Xperia X
650 MSM8956, Adreno 510 (Chrome 51.0.02704.81)
50.92 Points ∼43% 0%
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
810 MSM8994, Adreno 430 (Google Chrome 46.0.2490.76, Android 5.1.1)
49 Points ∼41% -4%

* ... smaller is better

Compared to the predecessor Z5 Compact, the internal storage of the Sony Xperia X Compact with a capacity of 32 GB is slightly faster, but still only average. The two rivals Honor 8 and OnePlus 3 in particular have an advantage here. The card reader is not the fastest either. We can only determine 33/28 MB/s (read/write) with our reference card Toshiba Exceria Pro (up to 95/80 MB/s).

Sony Xperia X Compact
Adreno 510, 650 MSM8956, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Honor 8
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 950, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Sony Xperia X
Adreno 510, 650 MSM8956, 32 GB eMMC Flash
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
AndroBench 3-5
50%
-22%
-17%
135%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
27.57 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
23.59 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-14%
12.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-54%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
32.54 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
53.68 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
65%
17.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-46%
Random Write 4KB
9.3
31.5
239%
7.81
-16%
10.26
10%
18.23
96%
Random Read 4KB
31.52
34.16
8%
14.15
-55%
36.28
15%
137.62
337%
Sequential Write 256KB
139.49
119.25
-15%
88.91
-36%
117.38
-16%
153.3
10%
Sequential Read 256KB
207.87
247.46
19%
248.15
19%
184.33
-11%
408.71
97%

Games

Even though the Adreno 510 GPU in the test model is slower than the old Adreno 430 GPU in the predecessor, the performance is still sufficient for modern games. The comparatively low resolution is obviously an advantage here, and even demanding games run smoothly at high details. Two examples are the racing game “Asphalt 8: Airborne”, which runs into the 30-FPS limitation, as well as “Dead Trigger 2”, where the one-minute benchmark sequence is extremely smooth at 60 FPS. Thanks to the well working sensors and the two speakers at the front, we enjoyed gaming, even though you might have to get used to the small screen. It can also affect the handling slightly, which is the case for the strategy game “Banner Saga II”, for example. The control elements are very small on the Xperia X Compact, so you will sometimes hit the wrong 

The demanding Dead Trigger 2 runs really smoothly.
The demanding Dead Trigger 2 runs really smoothly.
The control elements are pretty small in strategic titles like Banner Saga 2.
The control elements are pretty small in strategic titles like Banner Saga 2.
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 SettingsValue
 high60 fps
Discussion

Emissions

Temperature

The lower part of the smartphone does get quite warm with light workloads and the average temperatures are pretty high at 35 °C (~95 °F; front) and 33 °C (~91 °F; back), respectively. The average is around 40 °C (~104 °F) under load, which is perceptible, but not inconvenient in practice.

One advantage of the Mainstream SoC is the performance under sustained load. We use the GFXBench Battery Tests to simulate this scenario. While the performance of the predecessor dropped after a while, it is quite steady in the case of the Xperia X Compact. This is also an advantage over the slimmer sibling Xperia X, where the SoC had to reduce the performance after some runs due to the temperatures.

GFXBench Battery Test ES 2.0
GFXBench Battery Test ES 2.0
GFXBench Battery Test ES 3.1
GFXBench Battery Test ES 3.1
Max. Load
 38.6 °C39.2 °C40.5 °C 
 37.8 °C39.8 °C41.2 °C 
 37.3 °C39 °C40.8 °C 
Maximum: 41.2 °C
Average: 39.4 °C
37.4 °C40.9 °C41.8 °C
39.5 °C41.5 °C41.8 °C
37.7 °C41.5 °C40.8 °C
Maximum: 41.8 °C
Average: 40.3 °C
Power Supply (max.)  32.8 °C | Room Temperature 21.5 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
Heat development front
Heat development front
Heat development rear
Heat development rear

Speakers

Speaker measurements
Speaker measurements

No changes in terms of the speakers: Sony still equips the Xperia X Compact with two stereo speakers located at the front of the smartphone. The two modules are not the loudest modules at almost 81 dB(A) and bass is – as expected – not really available, but the sound is still quite balanced in general. It is certainly sufficient for some background music and YouTube videos.

The stereo jack is more interesting for music enthusiasts since the Xperia X Compact also supports high-res audio files. Sony has also implemented some enhancements for bad source files and normal headsets, which will make the sound slightly richer. The sound does get really good with corresponding files. We listened to some lossless audio files and we really liked the low-noise sound quality.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.642.62525.434.93125.330.14032.940.65033.638.26331.635.48028.428.81002725.912520.825.41602225.620021.332.725020.84031521.246.340019.452.750019.560.863017.762.680017.970.2100017.871.5125017.370.2160017.467200016.770.1250017.269.9315018.269.7400017.969.3500017.669.9630017.768.7800017.868.51000017.964.11250018.164.11600018.260.9SPL3081N1.348median 17.9Sony Xperia X Compactmedian 64.1Delta1.311.731.632.825.430.425.332.132.933.333.63631.630.128.427.82725.420.825.62229.121.339.620.848.321.254.219.456.819.559.117.758.117.961.117.864.417.365.817.467.416.770.317.27118.277.117.979.117.673.517.772.117.87117.966.418.157.518.253.13084.71.353.4median 17.9Honor 8median 61.11.310.734.243.535.434.229.238.729.729.238.336.729.538.329.934.329.729.935.747.939.735.727.739.133.927.727.330.428.527.3312528.23129.623.32629.636.724.820.636.744.829.420.744.847.834.820.647.854.236.92154.254.43818.454.458.743.418.758.763.747.217.963.767.852.218.667.871.457.217.571.470.356.616.970.369.655.817.469.669.255.116.269.266.551.816.966.566.550.717.566.569.352.117.269.375.556.717.775.576.456.917.476.474.65517.674.667.948.817.667.957.741.717.857.754.741.417.954.783.266.329.883.25419.51.354median 66.5Apple iPhone SEmedian 48.8median 17.8median 66.59.3101.69.3hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Sony Xperia X Compact audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.95 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 41% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 15%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 48%

Honor 8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.66 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 15%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 48%

Apple iPhone SE audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.15 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 15%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 48%

Frequency Comparison (Checkboxes select/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Sony has improved the power consumption of the Xperia X Compact compared to the previous model. The test model is the most power efficient Android devices within this comparison. Only the load consumption is quite high at 8.66 watts – particularly since the power adaptor only provides 7.5 watts. However, the high luminance and the steady performance take their toll. Overall, only the two smartphones from Apple are more power efficient in general. They require much less power under load, despite the higher performance figures.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.11 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.33 / 1.48 / 1.6 Watt
Load midlight 4.83 / 8.66 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Sony Xperia X Compact
 Wh, 4.6, 1280x720
Honor 8
11.4 Wh, 5.2, 1920x1080
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
 Wh, 4.6, 1280x720
Apple iPhone SE
6.21 Wh, 4, 1136x640
Apple iPhone 6S
7 Wh, 4.7, 1334x750
Sony Xperia X
 Wh, 5, 1920x1080
OnePlus 3
 Wh, 5.5, 1920x1080
Power Consumption
-32%
-18%
7%
3%
-20%
-17%
Idle Minimum *
0.33
0.78
-136%
0.6
-82%
0.54
-64%
0.5
-52%
0.56
-70%
0.57
-73%
Idle Average *
1.48
1.89
-28%
1.4
5%
1.26
15%
1.6
-8%
1.69
-14%
1.24
16%
Idle Maximum *
1.6
2.02
-26%
1.7
-6%
1.4
12%
1.9
-19%
1.75
-9%
1.36
15%
Load Average *
4.83
5.28
-9%
5.3
-10%
2.45
49%
2.5
48%
6.01
-24%
5.92
-23%
Load Maximum *
8.66
5.44
37%
8.4
3%
6.46
25%
4.8
45%
7.03
19%
10.53
-22%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

Sony has not changed the integrated 2700-mAh battery and our runtime tests reflect the consumption measurements pretty well. We can only determine little more than three hours under load, only the more powerful Apple iPhone 6s has to be recharged even sooner.

The situation changes in favor of the Xperia X Compact in our practical tests. At an adjusted brightness, we can determine little more than 10 hours both in the WLAN as well as the video test – very good results. Some of the comparison devices even have a little more stamina (iPhones + OnePlus 3), but the runtime should easily last a full business day. At least, we did not have problems in this respect.

Not quite realistic, but still impressive: Our WLAN reading script ran for almost two full days at the minimum brightness setting. If you need even longer runtimes, you can choose one of two power-saving modes. The STAMINA mode reduces the performance and the functionality, but you can still adjust it. The Ultra STAMINA mode on the other hand limits both the performance and the functionality of the smartphone significantly (see screenshots). The switch to the Ultra STAMINA mode takes about 10 seconds, but exiting it unfortunately requires a restart of the device. Other competitors implement a more comfortable solution.

The provided modular power adapter has a nominal output of 7.5 watts and it takes about 2.5 hours before the battery is fully charged again (0 -> 100%). 50% is available after about one hour; 90% after two hours. The quick-charger UCH12W is unfortunately an optional accessory (around 50 Euros/~$54).

One interesting aspect that we could not evaluate due to the limited review time is the adaptive charging technology from Qnovo. There is a special setting called Battery Care, which is supposed to increase the lifespan of the battery. The smartphone is supposed to learn when you usually leave your device for charging and therefore reduce the time the device is charged over 90% for a long time. It estimates the charging time and will charge the battery to 100% just before the end of this estimated time.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
47h 24min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
10h 01min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
10h 24min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 06min
Sony Xperia X Compact
2700 mAh,  Wh
Honor 8
3000 mAh, 11.4 Wh
Sony Xperia Z5 Compact
 mAh,  Wh
Apple iPhone SE
1624 mAh, 6.21 Wh
Apple iPhone 6S
 mAh, 7 Wh
Sony Xperia X
2620 mAh,  Wh
OnePlus 3
3000 mAh,  Wh
Battery Runtime
-11%
-9%
-3%
-20%
-22%
17%
Reader / Idle
2844
1487
-48%
2249
-21%
1274
-55%
1510
-47%
1240
-56%
1338
-53%
Load
186
255
37%
242
30%
207
11%
137
-26%
213
15%
268
44%
WiFi
WiFi v1.3
601
499
-17%
440
-27%
673
12%
492
-18%
434
-28%
840
40%
H.264
624
526
-16%
525
-16%
759
22%
699
12%
518
-17%
847
36%

Pro

+ very good build quality
+ good performance
+ long battery runtimes in practice
+ USB Type-C
+ decent speakers
+ good camera
+ bright display
+ storage expansion via microSD

Cons

- sensitive glossy surfaces
- comparatively thick chassis
- only USB 2.0
- slower than the previous models in some scenarios
- no IP certification (water, dust) anymore
- no 4K video recordings

Verdict

In review: Sony Xperia X Compact. Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.
In review: Sony Xperia X Compact. Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.

After the review of the new Xperia X Compact, we are a little disappointed that there are no more compact and high-end Android phones. If you want to have the fastest components, you will now have to get a larger device or have a look at the competition from Apple.

However, once you have accepted this, you will see that the new Sony is a very solid mainstream smartphone, and the price has also been reduced compared to the previous Xperia Z5 Compact. Yes, the performance is slower in some situations, but you will hardly notice it in practice and the gaming performance in particular benefits from the comparatively low display resolution. One drawback is the missing IP certification and the sensitive and glossy plastic surfaces are not to everyone’s taste either. We do, however, like the long battery runtimes.

No more high-end: The Sony Xperia X Compact is now a mainstream device. Nevertheless, the compact smartphone does not reveal any serious issues and the performance is also more than sufficient in practice, but the competition is really strong in this price range.

Priced at 449 Euros (~$489; current street price ~410 Euros/~$447), the Xperia X Compact is up against strong rivals such as the mini-flagship Honor 8 and the OnePlus 3. Both devices are faster and feature larger screens; otherwise the differences are pretty small. The predecessor Xperia Z5 Compact is also still available: It supports 4K video recordings and the case is more durable thanks to the IP certification. If you are looking for an even more compact system with even faster components, you are limited to Apple (iPhone SE) from now on.

Sony Xperia X Compact - 10/21/2016 v5.1
Andreas Osthoff

Chassis
82%
Keyboard
68 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
46 / 60 → 77%
Weight
94%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
45 / 63 → 71%
Application Performance
55 / 70 → 78%
Temperature
85%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 91 → 79%
Camera
73%
Average
76%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article:
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Sony Xperia X Compact Smartphone Review
Andreas Osthoff, 2016-10-28 (Update: 2016-10-28)