Vivo X90 Pro+ Review: Vivo sets the bar very high with its flagship smartphone

Name: Vivo X90 Pro+
Brand: Vivo

First reference phone of 2023. The Vivo X90 Pro+ is one of the first phones with the new Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 SoC on the market. Apart from high performance, the Vivo Phone offers strong cameras, a very bright LTPO panel, and extensive features — a total package that will have to be beaten by upcoming high-end smartphones.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Vaidyanathan Subramaniam (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), Published 02/15/2023 🇩🇪 🇸🇪 ...

5G Smartphone Touchscreen

Last November, Vivo officially launched its X90 smartphone series in China, including X90 Pro+ as the flagship. The X90 Series can be purchased via import, but there are signs of global availability in the near future. However, this would be without the Pro+ variant, which, as in the previous year, will not be released on the European market.

The X90 Pro+ has a strong set of features befitting a flagship smartphone. Vivo uses a 120 Hz 1,440p+ AMOLED panel with a peak brightness of 1,800 nits and the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 SoC. The Vivo X90 Pro+ also really trumps in the camera setup with Sony's IMX989 — a 1-inch image sensor.

Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Vivo X90 Pro+ (X90 Series)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 8 x 2 - 3.2 GHz, Cortex-X3 / A715 / A710 / A510 (Kryo)

Graphics adapter

Qualcomm Adreno 740

Memory

12 GB

, LPDDR5x

Display

6.78 inch 20:9, 3200 x 1440 pixel 518 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen , AMOLED, Samsung E6, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 256 GB

, 219 GB free

Connections

1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 0 USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20Gbps, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, color spectrum, OTG, Miracast

Networking

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/), Bluetooth 5.3, 5G: N1/N2/N3/N5/N7/N8/N12/N20/N28/N38/N40/N41/N66/N77/N78/N79; 4G: FDD-LTE: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28/B66/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41/ B42; 3G:850/1900/2100MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 164.35 x 75.29 ( = 0.38 x 6.47 x 2.96 in)

Battery

4700 mAh Lithium-Polymer

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 13

Camera

Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8, 23mm, OIS) + 50 MP (3.5x optical zoom, f/3.5, 90mm, 1/2.0", 0.7µm) + 50 MP (2x optical zoom, f/1.6, 50mm, 1/2.4", 0.7µm) + 48MP (f/2.2, 14mm, 1/2.0", 0.8µm); 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps, Camera2 API: Level3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f(/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm)

Additional features

Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, info material, USB cable, Origin OS, 12 Months Warranty, widevine L1, GNSS: GPS L1+L5, BeiDou, Glonass L1, Galileo E1+E5, SBAS , fanless, waterproof

Weight

221 g ( = 7.8 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 158 g ( = 5.57 oz / 0.35 pounds)

Price

1100 Euro

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

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
90 %	02/2023	Vivo X90 Pro+ SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740	221 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.78"	3200x1440
89.4 %	03/2022	Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920	228 g	128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.80"	3088x1440
89.1 %	02/2023	Xiaomi 13 SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740	189 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.36"	2400x1080
89.1 %	11/2022	Google Pixel 7 Pro Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7	212 g	128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.70"	3120x1440
88.5 %	09/2022	Vivo X80 Pro SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730	215 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.78"	3200x1440

Case: Vivo smartphone with punch hole

The casing of the X90 Pro+ is made of Gorilla Glass Vicutus, an aluminum frame, and vegan leather back. The X90 Pro+ feels very premium in the hands, and the 90% screen-body ratio is possible thanks to the narrow edges around the OLED panel. There are hardly any distracting edges on the sides due to the curved display.

The build quality of our review sample is first-rate, and the X90 Pro+ also comes with an official IP68 certification. Thus, the casing is both dust and waterproof.

Size comparison

Equipment: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with UFS 4.0

The X90 Pro+ is available in two different versions (12 GB + 256 GB and 12 GB + 512 GB). The internal UFS 4.0 storage has a capacity of 256 GB in our review sample, but the user only gets about 219 GB of free space in the state of delivery. If the storage is not enough, you will have to buy the larger storage SKU because the Vivo flagship does not support expansion via micro-SD cards.

Other features include Miracast, Bluetooth 5.3, and NFC including Google Pay (a Play Protect certification is available). Peripherals, such as a memory stick, can be connected via the USB-C port using an OTG adapter. The USB interface's data transfer is based on the 3.2 Gen1 standard.

Software: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with Android 13

The X90 Pro+ is not based on the Funtouch OS that is common with Vivo phones but on the Chinese equivalent called Origin OS. The UI is based on Android 13 but is strongly adapted to the Chinese market.

Nevertheless, many languages including German, can be selected. Even Google Services can be activated easily, so the Google Play Store and other Google apps can be used relatively smoothly. Streaming content in high resolution is also possible thanks to the Widevine L1 certification.

Origin OS 3 came with December 2022 security patches at the time of testing. How long does Vivo plan to support the X90 Pro+ with OS upgrades and security updates is not yet officially known.

Communication and GNSS: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Wi-Fi 6

The X90 Pro+ supports access to the mobile 5G network and a wide range of 4G frequencies. The Vivo phone can access a total of 22 LTE bands, including bands 20 and 28.

The flagship phone offers fast Wi-Fi 6 within the domestic WLAN, which is sufficient for average transfer rates of over 900 Mbps in combination with our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router, but the 6 GHz frequency range (Wi-Fi 6E) is missing.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1383 (1126^min - 1462^max) MBit/s +49%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	931 (890^min - 944^max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	904 (453^min - 912^max) MBit/s -3%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	894 (803^min - 944^max) MBit/s -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	716 (539^min - 791^max) MBit/s -23%
Average of class Smartphone (34.8 - 1875, n=209, last 2 years)	655 MBit/s -30%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1328 (378^min - 1471^max) MBit/s +35%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	981 (965^min - 1014^max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	945 (917^min - 968^max) MBit/s -4%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	770 (459^min - 912^max) MBit/s -22%
Average of class Smartphone (40.5 - 1810, n=210, last 2 years)	692 MBit/s -29%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	521 (311^min - 704^max) MBit/s -47%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	1894 (955^min - 1923^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1704 (852^min - 1767^max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1645 (1586^min - 1695^max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone (229 - 1894, n=61, last 2 years)	1536 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1743 (1585^min - 1798^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1702 (1642^min - 1735^max) MBit/s
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	1656 (1620^min - 1684^max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone (598 - 1840, n=61, last 2 years)	1364 MBit/s

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Qualcomm Adreno 740; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø925 (890-944)

Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1380 (1126-1462)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Qualcomm Adreno 740; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø982 (965-1014)

Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1306 (378-1471)

In order to assess the GPS tracking accuracy in practice, we record a route with the Garmin Venu 2 in parallel for comparison purposes.

The detailed course hardly reveals any inaccuracies for the X90 Pro+ and shows a very accurate tracking overall.

Telephony and voice quality: Vivo smartphone with dual-SIM

The dual-SIM smartphone from Vivo supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the home Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi calling). Like the X80 Pro, the current flagship lacks eSIM support.

The voice quality does not pose any surprises, and the installed microphones transmit the voice intelligibly to the caller. Video calls via the built-in front-facing camera and the built-in speaker via the Skype app also worked without problems in the test.

Cameras: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Sony IMX989

Selfies with the Vivo X90 Pro+ are sharp with high-contrast

The X90 Pro+, along with cooperation from Zeiss, combines a 50 MP main camera based on the Sony IMX989 sensor along with a 48 MP ultra-wide-angle lens, a 50 MP portrait camera, and a 64 MP periscope telephoto lens.

The heart of the camera unit, the large 1-inch Sony sensor, offers really good shots in daylight as well as at night. The photos have a wide dynamic range, but there are also weaknesses in sharpness levels from time to time. The Vivo phone can also convince in terms of color reproduction, but the X90 Pro+ often captures the subjects quite cool.

We also measured low DeltaE deviations in the ColorChecker under controlled lighting conditions, with the exception of green tones.

Besides the solid ultra-wide-angle camera, which is actually the weakest lens in the camera quartet, the Vivo X90 Pro+ also has excellent zoom qualities. Especially at 5x lossless magnification, the X90 Pro+ preserves a lot of details. Even the 100x zoom is quite usable.

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.

Hauptkamera Hauptkamera Low Light Ultraweitwinkel Zoom 5x

click to load images

Vivo X90 Pro Plus

Oppo Find X5 Pro

Mototola Edge 30 Ultra

Canon EOS 90D

click to load images

Vivo X90 Pro Plus

Oppo Find X5 Pro

Mototola Edge 30 Ultra

Canon EOS 90D

click to load images

Vivo X90 Pro Plus

Oppo Find X5 Pro

Mototola Edge 30 Ultra

Canon EOS 90D

click to load images

Vivo X90 Pro Plus

Oppo Find X5 Pro

Mototola Edge 30 Ultra

Canon EOS 90D

click to load images

Vivo X90 Pro Plus

Oppo Find X5 Pro

Mototola Edge 30 Ultra

Canon EOS 90D

ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro+: 5.49 ∆E min: 1.28 - max: 11.31 ∆E

Accessories and warranty: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with a power adapter

The scope of delivery consists of a USB cable, a very high-quality protective case, and a modular 80 W CN power supply. TradingShenzhen also includes an EU adapter for the sockets used in this country, but this is not part of the standard scope of delivery and is a service of the lender.

The warranty is 12 months. Our review sample from TradingShenzhen also offers the option of sending the X90 Pro+ to a German shipping address in case of a warranty claim.

Input devices and operation: Vivo phone with huge fingerprint sensor

Thanks to the high refresh rate up to 120 Hz, even fast scrolling passages are displayed smoothly. The huge ultrasonic fingerprint sensor underneath the OLED panel is not only one of the fastest on the market but is also reliable for detecting two fingers in parallel.

The Qualcomm 3D Sonic Ultrasonic sensor is clearly a unique selling point for the flagship. A relatively insecure 2D FaceUnlock feature is also on board.

Display: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with OLED

The X90 Pro+ has a 6.78-inch LTPO AMOLED display with a high resolution of 3200 x 1440 pixels and supports an adaptive refresh rate of up to 120 Hz — we could read a minimum frequency of 5 Hz from the system in the test.

In terms of brightness, illumination and sharpness, the Vivo flagship can convince all along by achieving an average brightness of over 1,100 cd/m² in a full white display. In the APL18 measurement, we find the brightness to be 1,614 cd/m² in the center of the screen. Thus, the panel is very well suited for reproducing HDR content.

Due to the OLED technology, the Vivo phone is not spared from screen flickering. Below a display brightness of 43%, the PWM frequency fluctuates around the native refresh rate of 120 Hz (66 to 222 Hz). Above this brightness setting, the PWM increases up to 706 Hz. Using DC dimming (anti-fatigue mode), the flickering amounts to a constant 120 Hz.


1114 cd/m²	1117 cd/m²	1151 cd/m²
1106 cd/m²	1109 cd/m²	1134 cd/m²
1137 cd/m²	1118 cd/m²	1130 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 1151 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1124 cd/m² Minimum: 1.99 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 1109 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25

	Vivo X90 Pro+ AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78	Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.80	Xiaomi 13 OLED, 2400x1080, 6.36	Google Pixel 7 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.70	Vivo X80 Pro AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78
Screen		8%	-1%	12%	9%
Brightness middle	1109	1077 -3%	1209 9%	1022 -8%	938 -15%
Brightness	1124	1093 -3%	1208 7%	1025 -9%	947 -16%
Brightness Distribution	96	97 1%	98 2%	99 3%	97 1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	1.1	1.2 -9%	1.2 -9%	0.9 18%	0.9 18%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	2.7	2 26%	3 -11%	2.1 22%	1.9 30%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	2	1.3 35%	2.1 -5%	1.1 45%	1.3 35%
Gamma	2.25 ^98%	2.37 ^93%	2.26 ^97%	2.22 ^99%	2.2 ^100%
CCT	6605 ^98%	6526 ^100%	6504 ^100%	6650 ^98%	6518 ^100%

* ... 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

222 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 222 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 222 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

maximum manual display brightness — 100 %

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

We examine the OLED panel's color calibration using the Calman analysis software. The quite large DCI-P3 color space is controlled in the factory settings. Besides the Zeiss mode, three other modes are also available. Our measurement with the spectrophotometer results in very low average Delta-E deviations of 1.1 (colors) and 2.0 (grayscale) for the Zeiss profile.

Color accuracy (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)

Color space (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)

Grayscale (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)

Color saturation(Target color space: P3; Profile: Zeiss)

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
0.93 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.5365 ms rise
0.93 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 0.3895 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. » 1 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.736 ms rise
1.44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 0.7055 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

The X90 Pro+ can compensate bright ambient light very well with its high luminosity. Even the highly reflective surface should hardly lead to problems with readability in direct sunlight. The viewing angle stability of the OLED panel is very good.

Performance: X90 Pro Plus with Qualcomm SoC

As expected from a 2023 flagship, the X90 Pro+ relies on a powerful SoC, namely the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. The Kryo CPU consists of four clusters with different architectures. A fast Cortex-X3 prime core (3.2 GHz) as well as two Cortex-A715 (2.8 GHz) and two Cortex-A710 cores provide very high results in our benchmarks, especially in Geekbench multi-core. However, the achieved scores are a bit below the Xiaomi 13.

Also in the graphics workloads, which are performed by the Adreno 740, the Vivo X90 Pro+ performs very well while the Xiaomi 13 performs about 10 to 15% better.

Thanks to the SoC's high performance and fast UFS 4.0 memory, there are no noticeable lags in everyday use and the system runs smoothly. The same is true for browsing in the Chrome browser, although the benchmarks are quite low.

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1489 Points
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1478 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (1048 - 1574, n=18)	1452 Points -2%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	1234 Points -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	1154 Points -22%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	1048 Points -30%
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 2138, n=217, last 2 years)	918 Points -38%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	5090 Points +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (4192 - 5243, n=18)	4945 Points +3%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	4786 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	3685 Points -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	3560 Points -26%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	3222 Points -33%
Average of class Smartphone (473 - 6681, n=217, last 2 years)	3009 Points -37%

Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1273775 Points +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (1111522 - 1322448, n=15)	1263746 Points 0%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1262638 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	944782 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	773857 Points -39%
Average of class Smartphone (102602 - 1650926, n=153, last 2 years)	738503 Points -42%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	704479 Points -44%

PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (11562 - 19783, n=19)	15689 Points +23%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	14094 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	12748 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	12579 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (4761 - 21385, n=213, last 2 years)	11798 Points -7%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	11397 Points -11%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	10140 Points -20%

CrossMark - Overall
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1219 Points +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (778 - 1356, n=17)	1154 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1038 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	942 Points -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	886 Points -15%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	879 Points -15%
Average of class Smartphone (200 - 1474, n=165, last 2 years)	837 Points -19%

BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (7354 - 9730, n=17)	8759 Points +14%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	8153 Points +6%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	7684 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	7085 Points -8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	6319 Points -18%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	6164 Points -20%
Average of class Smartphone (411 - 11438, n=165, last 2 years)	5745 Points -25%
System
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	13646 Points +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (10786 - 15148, n=17)	13206 Points +3%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	12847 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	10464 Points -19%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	9765 Points -24%
Average of class Smartphone (2376 - 16475, n=165, last 2 years)	9678 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	9294 Points -28%
Memory
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (6601 - 10821, n=17)	9382 Points +28%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	8179 Points +12%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	7492 Points +2%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	7330 Points
Average of class Smartphone (670 - 12716, n=165, last 2 years)	6250 Points -15%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	6212 Points -15%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	5456 Points -26%
Graphics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (22837 - 32334, n=17)	27673 Points +21%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	23966 Points +5%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	22837 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	20288 Points -11%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	17104 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	16375 Points -28%
Average of class Smartphone (697 - 58651, n=165, last 2 years)	14101 Points -38%
Web
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (1077 - 2044, n=17)	1749 Points +12%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	1739 Points +11%
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	1698 Points +9%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1652 Points +6%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1564 Points
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2145, n=165, last 2 years)	1494 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	1434 Points -8%

UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288	74725 Points +354%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	42662 Points +159%
Average of class Smartphone (207 - 84787, n=150, last 2 years)	21814 Points +32%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	16465 Points
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	15961 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (11338 - 16880, n=16)	15326 Points -7%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192	10841 Points -34%

3DMark: Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | Wild Life Extreme | Wild Life Unlimited Score
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7: T-Rex Onscreen | 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
GFXBench 3.0: on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
GFXBench 3.1: on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
GFXBench: on screen Car Chase Onscreen | 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3707 Points +17%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3173 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	2456 Points -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1916 Points -40%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1807 Points -43%

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3751 Points +18%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3192 Points
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	2567 Points -20%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	2044 Points -36%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1847 Points -42%

3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	14038 Points
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	14002 Points 0%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10151 Points -28%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	7288 Points -48%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6721 Points -52%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	120 fps 0%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps 0%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	118 fps -2%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps -50%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	490 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	395 fps -19%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	302 fps -38%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	267 fps -46%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	251 fps -49%

GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps +1%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	119 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	108 fps -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	84 fps -29%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps -50%

GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	299 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	257 fps -14%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	187 fps -37%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	147 fps -51%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	139 fps -54%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps +13%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	106 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	71 fps -33%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps -43%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	56 fps -47%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	218 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	181 fps -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	127 fps -42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	101 fps -54%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	99 fps -55%

GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	93 fps +50%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	62 fps
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	49 fps -21%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	39 fps -37%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	37 fps -40%

GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	127 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	105 fps -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	68 fps -46%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	68 fps -46%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	50 fps -61%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	66 fps +32%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	52 fps +4%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	50 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	31 fps -38%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	28 fps -44%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	61 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	56 fps -8%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	34 fps -44%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	31 fps -49%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	30 fps -51%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	113 fps +41%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	80 fps
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps -25%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps -47%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	38 fps -52%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	156 fps
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	142 fps -9%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	87 fps -44%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	75 fps -52%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	68 fps -56%

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	143.264 Points +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (62.7 - 179.2, n=18)	128.9 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	116.455 Points
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years)	106.1 Points -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	98.153 Points -16%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)	96.8 Points -17%
Vivo X80 Pro	72.786 Points -37%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (62.9 - 199, n=14)	124 runs/min
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	113 runs/min
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)	108 runs/min
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years)	107.1 runs/min
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	104 runs/min
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)	87.9 runs/min

WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	139 Points
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	136 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (28 - 183, n=17)	125.5 Points -10%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 202, n=160, last 2 years)	100.2 Points -28%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	90 Points -35%

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (115 - 238, n=9)	199.8 Points
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years)	133.1 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)	124 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	98 Points
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)	79 Points

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (19870 - 65418, n=20)	44774 Points +60%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)	44631 Points +60%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	44245 Points +58%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	43632 Points +56%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)	34055 Points +22%
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years)	33640 Points +20%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	27938 Points

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	1773.4 ms *
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years)	1595 ms * +10%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)	1259 ms * +29%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)	1240.1 ms * +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (654 - 1837, n=17)	1049 ms * +41%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	1011.5 ms * +43%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	870.7 ms * +51%

* ... smaller is better

	Vivo X90 Pro+	Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G	Xiaomi 13	Google Pixel 7 Pro	Vivo X80 Pro	Average 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-43%	4%	-55%	-34%	-6%	-49%
Sequential Read 256KB	3397.4	1653 -51%	3454.01 2%	1346.78 -60%	1856.39 -45%	3558 ?(3249 - 4384, n=19) 5%	1505 ?(226 - 4512, n=215, last 2 years) -56%
Sequential Write 256KB	2834.4	1074 -62%	2722.77 -4%	874.73 -69%	1424.91 -50%	2443 ?(1014 - 3346, n=19) -14%	1112 ?(57.5 - 3678, n=215, last 2 years) -61%
Random Read 4KB	373.88	322.3 -14%	393.81 5%	219.01 -41%	303.72 -19%	414 ?(368 - 460, n=19) 11%	247 ?(22.2 - 543, n=215, last 2 years) -34%
Random Write 4KB	484.29	273.1 -44%	536.76 11%	253.18 -48%	382.17 -21%	367 ?(152.9 - 595, n=19) -24%	271 ?(13 - 709, n=215, last 2 years) -44%

Emissions - Vivo X90 Pro Plus stays cool

Temperature

The casing of the X90 Pro+ hardly warms up under load in our stability test. Nevertheless, the Vivo phone reveals a reduction in performance in the 3DMark stress tests.

That being said, the system performance is more stable than in the X80 Pro with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 and offers significantly better performance at the same time.

Max. Load

Idle


30.6 °C 87 F	30.3 °C 87 F	30.6 °C 87 F
30.3 °C 87 F	31.1 °C 88 F	29.7 °C 85 F
30.7 °C 87 F	30.1 °C 86 F	29.9 °C 86 F

Maximum: 31.1 °C = 88 F
Average: 30.4 °C = 87 F


29.2 °C 85 F	29.2 °C 85 F	28.3 °C 83 F
29.2 °C 85 F	29.5 °C 85 F	30 °C 86 F
29 °C 84 F	30.3 °C 87 F	30.4 °C 87 F

Maximum: 30.4 °C = 87 F
Average: 29.5 °C = 85 F

Power Supply (max.) 25.2 °C = 77 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.4 °C / 87 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 31.1 °C / 88 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 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	88.5 %
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	78.9 % -11%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	68.1 % -23%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.9 % -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	58.5 % -34%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	87 %
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	79.1 % -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	75.6 % -13%
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	73.3 % -16%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	61.8 % -29%

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

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø9.2 (7.76-12.6)

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

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

Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø13.2 (11.5-15.7)

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

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø32.2 (25.9-44.2)

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

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

Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø46.8 (40.4-59.3)

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø32.3 (26.8-43.4)

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

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

Loudspeaker

The Vivo flagship relies on two speakers with a high maximum volume of over 90 dB. Our measurement shows a fairly linear frequency response for the mids in the X90 Pro+, but the highs and especially the super high tones drop significantly. A wired or wireless headphone solution via USB-C and Bluetooth 5.3 is also available.

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

Vivo X90 Pro+ audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Power consumption: Vivo phone with 80 W charging

Energy consumption

The 4,700 mAh strong battery can be charged with 80 W wired or 50 W wireless charging. The power consumption of the X90 Pro+ is above the Xiaomi 13. Especially in idle mode, the Vivo phone consumes a lot of power at over 1.7 W.

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.16 / 0.32 Watt
Idle	0.92 / 1.76 / 1.88 Watt
Load	3.65 / 6.24 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.

	Vivo X90 Pro+ 4700 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G 5000 mAh	Xiaomi 13 4500 mAh	Google Pixel 7 Pro 5000 mAh	Vivo X80 Pro 4700 mAh	Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-8%	21%	10%	-17%	-24%	-11%
Idle Minimum *	0.92	0.58 37%	0.76 17%	0.78 15%	0.92 -0%	1.052 ?(0.7 - 2.37, n=18) -14%	0.897 ?(0.42 - 2.37, n=162, last 2 years) 2%
Idle Average *	1.76	0.71 60%	1.1 37%	1.61 9%	2.04 -16%	1.49 ?(0.8 - 2.16, n=18) 15%	1.452 ?(0.69 - 4.26, n=162, last 2 years) 17%
Idle Maximum *	1.88	1.16 38%	1.13 40%	1.63 13%	2.05 -9%	1.632 ?(1.07 - 2.2, n=18) 13%	1.629 ?(0.79 - 4.45, n=162, last 2 years) 13%
Load Average *	3.65	7.07 -94%	2.99 18%	3.29 10%	4.29 -18%	6.81 ?(2.61 - 15.3, n=18) -87%	5.55 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=162, last 2 years) -52%
Load Maximum *	6.24	11.32 -81%	6.63 -6%	6.01 4%	8.75 -40%	9.29 ?(4.57 - 17.8, n=18) -49%	8.31 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=162, last 2 years) -33%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø6.3 (1.574-11.4)

Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø5.84 (0.888-13.8)

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

Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.833 (0.772-1.019)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.77 (9.38-10.2)

Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø7.55 (6.97-8.54)

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

Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.833 (0.772-1.019)

Battery life

The Vivo X90 Pro+ offers 15 hours of battery run time that is mostly on par with the Galaxy S22 Ultra when tested with a display brightness of 150 cd/m² and 1440p resolution including adaptive refresh rate. The battery can be charged from 0 to 100% in about 35 minutes.

Battery Runtime


WiFi Websurfing (Chrome Beta 110)		15h 05min

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Xiaomi 13 4500 mAh	1021 min +13%
Average of class Smartphone (424 - 2844, n=227, last 2 years)	913 min +1%
Vivo X90 Pro+ 4700 mAh	905 min
Vivo X80 Pro 4700 mAh	852 min -6%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G 5000 mAh	844 min -7%
Google Pixel 7 Pro 5000 mAh	676 min -25%

Pros

+ bright LTPO panel

+ strong performance

+ excellent fingerprint sensor

+ valuable casing

+ good photo qualities

Cons

- no WiFi 6E

- no eSIM

- Ultra-wide-angle camera with weaknesses

Verdict

In review: Vivo X90 Pro+. Test device provided by TradingShenzhen

The Vivo X90 Pro+ paves the way and shows how flagships have to fare in 2023 to be competitive in the high-end segment. The Chinese manufacturer's flagship smartphone offers excellent imaging capabilities — with the exception of the ultra-wide-angle lens. You also get performance and features that are beyond doubt in everyday use including fast UFS 4.0 storage and a bright and energy-efficient LTPO-4 panel. Thanks to the energy-efficient components, the run times of the X90 Pro+ are just as appealing despite the high resolution and frame rate.

Vivo can improve its energy management and charging speed a bit — the latter is still on the level of the X80 Pro. Other Chinese smartphones like Xiaomi and OnePlus are clearly ahead in this case. Small deficiencies in terms of equipment such as Wi-Fi 6E/Wi-Fi 7 and eSIM support can be expected to be closed in the next generation.

Vivo creates a reference phone for 2023 with the X90 Pro+. Unfortunately, it will probably never make it officially to Europe and the USA.

Those who do not feel like importing the Vivo X90 Pro+ will find suitable alternatives with the Samsung Galaxy S23, Google Pixel 7 Pro or Xiaomi 13 Pro.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and availability

The Vivo X90 Pro+ with 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB of flash storage starts at about €1,050 (~US$1,050) at our partner Trading Shenzhen.

Vivo X90 Pro+ - 2023-02-21 02/21/2023 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis

92%

Keyboard

67 / 75 → 89%

Pointing Device

94%

Connectivity

67 / 70 → 96%

Weight

88%

Battery

91%

Display

94%

Games Performance

74 / 64 → 100%

Application Performance

93 / 86 → 100%

Temperature

95%

Noise

100%

Audio

79 / 90 → 87%

Camera

79%

Average

86%

90%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 3 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Senior Tech Writer - 420 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2016

I have always been very passionately interested in mobile technologies, especially smartphones. Being a tech enthusiast means the half-life of my devices isn’t exactly long, and being the latest hardware is not enough to suffice as the manufacturer and operating system play a minor role – the most important aspect for me is that the device is state-of-the-art. After posting for Mobi Test I joined Notebookcheck in 2016, where I have been pursuing my enthusiasm for technology by reviewing the latest smartphone, tablet, and accessory trends.

contact me via: @Marcus_Herbrich

Translator: Ninh Ngoc Duy - Editorial Assistant - 388744 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2008

My main responsibility as an editorial assistant is maintaining the Library section, which aggregates reviews from other publications and channels. In addition, my daily breakfast is Notebookcheck's long list of new content, which I comb through to select the most interesting topics for translation from English to French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch."

contact me via: Facebook

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Vivo X90 Pro+ Review: Vivo sets the bar very high with its flagship smartphone

Marcus Herbrich, 2023-02-15 (Update: 2023-02-15)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Review: Vivo sets the bar very high with its flagship smartphone

Possible competitors in comparison

Case: Vivo smartphone with punch hole

Size comparison

Equipment: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with UFS 4.0

Software: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with Android 13

Communication and GNSS: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Wi-Fi 6

Telephony and voice quality: Vivo smartphone with dual-SIM

Cameras: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Sony IMX989

Accessories and warranty: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with a power adapter

Input devices and operation: Vivo phone with huge fingerprint sensor

Display: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with OLED

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Performance: X90 Pro Plus with Qualcomm SoC

Emissions - Vivo X90 Pro Plus stays cool

Temperature

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

Loudspeaker

Vivo X90 Pro+ audio analysis

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G audio analysis

Power consumption: Vivo phone with 80 W charging

Energy consumption

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

Battery life

Pros

Cons

Verdict

Price and availability

More articles related to this device

Transparency

Pricecompare