Notebookcheck

Blackview BV9000 Pro Smartphone Review

Florian Schaar, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Martin Jungowski), 02/13/2018

Powerful brick. Back in August, we had the BV8000 Pro in review. Today, we are proud to present its successor, the BV9000, and you better watch out: That thing is a massive brick and most likely tougher than a human being. It also marks a point in time where Blackview is the only OEM with two current outdoor smartphones listed in our database. The newcomer shares several features with its own predecessor. In some aspects Blackview has managed to improve upon the phone, in others the company has made it worse. Let’s take a closer look and find out what exactly this means in our extensive review of the BV9000.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Blackview has not yet given up on the outdoor smartphone market. The BV8000 Pro failed to take off due to some annoying software bugs, particularly a flickering display that has since been addressed by a software update and focusing issues on the main camera. These two flaws ruined its final score, but Blackview is back once more and has improved upon these points of criticism. The camera now features a 13 MP dual lens, and internal storage has been doubled. At 5.7-inches, the display is now slightly larger than before albeit its resolution is lower for some reason, and at its heart the microprocessor has been upgraded to the faster MediaTek Helio P25 (MT6757). The ARM Mali T880 MP2 GPU remained the same.

We found it pretty difficult to find similar smartphones to compare the BV9000 to, other than last year’s BV8000 Pro: Most rugged outdoor smartphones in our database are rather exotic offerings, to say the least. Thus, we had to narrow our list down to the Caterpillar-certified CAT S31 and the Doogee Mix. The latter is not a rugged outdoor smartphone by any means, but its internal hardware is largely identical to the BV9000. As such, it is ideal for performance comparisons.

Blackview BV9000 Pro (BV Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
5.7 inch 2:1, 1440 x 720 pixel 282 PPI, 5-point touch, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB eMMC Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB-C, Card Reader: microSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, magnetometer, attitude, gyroscope, gravity, proximity
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.1, GSM: 1,800MHz, 1,900MHz, 850MHz, 900MHz WCDMA: 2,100MHz, 900MHz LTE: 2,100MHz, 800MHz, 1,800MHz, 2,600MHz, 900MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 12 x 163 x 82 ( = 0.47 x 6.42 x 3.23 in)
Battery
4180 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 7.1 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 13.3 MPix dual camera 13.3 + 5 MP camera
Secondary Camera: 8.3 MPix selfie camera
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: on-screen, Keyboard Light: yes, USB extension, OTG adapter, USB to audio jack adapter, headset, Cellbroadcast, Compass, Facemojis Lite, fanless, ruggedized
Weight
253 g ( = 8.92 oz / 0.56 pounds), Power Supply: 98 g ( = 3.46 oz / 0.22 pounds)
Price
260 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

You can tell the BV9000 is extremely robust simply by looking at it. Large visible screws on all sides of the case ensure that everything stays in place at all times. Massive and almost exuberant applications of surplus material further serve to reinforce this initial impression. Consequently, untrained arms and hands will find it all but impossible to twist and warp this phone at all. The price for all this rigidity: more than half a pound of heft that will require large pockets. One-handed operation is not only hampered by the not particularly uncommon large display but also by the device’s thickness and bulkiness. The inevitable result of this is that outdoor enthusiasts and members of the outside workforce, for whom this phone is intended, will have a hard time fitting it in their pockets. On the plus side, design and build quality are spot on, a feat that is somewhat ruined by the fact that we found scratches on the display after just a few days of testing.

As expected from a phone that is supposed to be completely water and dust-proof, the battery is not user-replaceable. A noteworthy change from the older BV8000 Pro design: The SIM and microSD slot are no longer hidden behind a flap secured with screws. Instead, they are now protected by a rubber flap above the speaker grille. Granted, it does make accessing both cards much easier but we have to admit that the older design left us feeling more secure and confident in the peace-of-mind department after the phone had been submerged in a bucket of water.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

A review of a water-proof phone without us dumping it in water would be incomplete.
A review of a water-proof phone without us dumping it in water would be incomplete.

Blackview did not skimp on memory and internal hardware. Both the RAM and storage memory are more than plentiful (6 GB and 128 GB, respectively), although we wonder whether the rather slow MediaTek Helio P25 processor will be capable of fully utilizing the massive amount of RAM at its disposal. When hunting for the GPU, Blackview decided to take one from the bottom of the shelf as the ARM Mali T880 has already been used in last year’s model. On the other hand, it is still powerful enough and therefore not necessarily a drawback, especially considering the even weaker and slower GPUs its competitors are equipped with.

The BV9000 features a total of six different sensors: accelerometer, magnetometer, attitude sensor, gyroscope, ambient light sensor, and proximity sensor. The barometer that was present in the BV8000 Pro is now missing.

As usual, connectivity is limited to the bare minimum: a single USB port with support for USB-OTG. In order to ensure water and dust-resistance, it is protected by a rubber flap similar to the one used for the SIM slot. This leads to a somewhat shallow full-width insertion depth and could in theory conflict with wider cables. Fortunately, the manufacturer has thought this through and an adapter is included in the box.

Blackview claims complete dust and water-resistance, which - of course - we had to test ourselves. As can be seen in the photo above we can confirm that it had absolutely no issues with complete submersion in water.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Software

The BV9000 Pro runs Android 7.1 out of the box, with Android security patches as of November 2017 and thus still acceptable at the time of review. A quick scan with Kaspersky Internet Security revealed no malware infection whatsoever. Luckily, Chinese manufacturers have finally figured out how to produce smartphones without ad- and bloatware, and the only extra apps we were able to locate on our review unit besides Google’s default apps were a compass app, an app called “Cell-Broadcast”, the Facemoji keyboard, and some tools relevant for utilizing hardware features such as the built-in radio or the flashlight. Some apps can be uninstalled (such as for example the aforementioned compass app), some cannot (the Facemoji keyboard).

In addition, Blackview has once again updated its icons for Android’s default applications. They are now round and metallic, as can be seen on the screenshots below. In some cases, this design language can also be found in the applications themselves, for example in the telephone or settings app. This apparent theme modification aside the Android operating system has been left largely untouched and unmodified.

Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box
Preloaded applications out of the box

Communication and GPS

The same can be said about the device’s communication modules. In addition to the 802.11 n Wi-Fi modem that is fairly common for cheap Chinese brands these days, the BV9000 Pro also supports Bluetooth 4.1 and NFC. It has become slightly faster than before, but the differences were within margin of error.

All relevant European GSM frequencies and LTE bands are supported.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Blackview BV9000 Pro
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 128 GB eMMC Flash
111 MBit/s ∼100%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P20 MT6757, 64 GB eMMC Flash
101 MBit/s ∼91% -9%
Doogee Mix
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
50.5 MBit/s ∼45% -55%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.2 MBit/s ∼44% -56%
CAT S31
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 16 GB eMMC Flash
41.6 MBit/s ∼37% -63%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Doogee Mix
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
107 MBit/s ∼100% +7%
Blackview BV9000 Pro
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 128 GB eMMC Flash
99.8 MBit/s ∼93%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P20 MT6757, 64 GB eMMC Flash
96.1 MBit/s ∼90% -4%
CAT S31
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 16 GB eMMC Flash
39.3 MBit/s ∼37% -61%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
37.9 MBit/s ∼35% -62%
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

The GPS modem is usually of particular interest for outdoor enthusiasts and thus the BV9000 Pro’s target audience, and a dust and water-proof rugged outdoor smartphone is predestined to be used in rough and wet conditions, for example as a bicycle GPS. The BV8000 Pro did very well in this test last year, and the BV9000 Pro followed in its predecessor’s footsteps and did not disappoint either. Location lock is obtained very quickly and accurately. Indoor accuracy was measured at 5 m - many phones fail to achieve this level of accuracy outdoors! Outdoor accuracy was even better, at only 2-3 m. The device supports GPS and GLONASS.

In our test competing against a professional Garmin Edge 500 GPS we found these accuracy indicators to be, well, accurate. For what we think is the first time ever, the smartphone used in this test was more accurate than the Garmin reference unit. Recorded distance travelled was virtually identical between the two devices, and the Garmin results seem to be a lot choppier than the BV9000 Pro’s. Thus, we can safely conclude that our review unit was equipped with a similarly accurate and excellent GPS unit as its own predecessor, and it makes for an amazing outdoor GPS device.

Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Blackview BV9000 Pro
Test track Garmin Edge 500
Test track Garmin Edge 500
Test track Garmin Edge 500
Test track Garmin Edge 500
Test track Garmin Edge 500
Test track Garmin Edge 500

Telephony and Call Quality

As already mentioned, the BV9000 Pro uses a slightly modified version of Google’s default telephone app for all its telephony needs and services, and it worked quite well by and large. Our conversational partners were easily understandable and had no trouble understanding us either. Static was nonexistent on both ends of the line, and the volume was high enough thanks to the fact that the Blackview smartphone can get incredibly loud.

Our only gripe was that the phone itself felt rather clumsy and bulky when held in the hand for prolonged periods of time.

Cameras

Compared to its predecessor, the camera’s resolution has been reduced from 16 to 13 MP. However, the BV9000 Pro features a dual-camera sporting an extra 5 MP lens used for additional depth-of-field information and calculation. This extra lens is capable of producing amazing results, particularly in macro and close-up mode, and the resulting photos are very close to what a DSLR would be capable of. Aforementioned focus issues that were introduced on the BV8000 Pro following a software update were not present on our review unit at all. Overall, the cameras are decent but have failed to impress us. Colors are pale on both the front and the main shooter. Focus is decent as well; however, the camera is unable to keep up with the iPhone X or an actual DSLR. This becomes particularly evident under low-light conditions, where photos lose focus and turn out increasingly blurry instead.

The aperture can be adjusted to a certain extent, affecting the camera app’s depth-of-field effect. The differences, however, were minimal.

Depth of field
Depth of field
Depth of field
Depth of field
Unrealistic depth of field effect
Unrealistic depth of field effect
Front-facing camera
Front-facing camera

Image Comparison

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

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

Our subjective first impression was further confirmed under controlled conditions in our lab. Colors turned out pale and far from their respective reference. Black is closer to dark beige than actual black, which can be corrected by using professional photo-editing software. Focus was acceptable up close, yet at large the photos seem to be pretty blurry. All things considered, we would consider this camera to perform slightly below average. Fortunately, the days of horribly bad smartphone cameras are long gone.

Test chart
Test chart
Crop chart
ColorChecker

Accessories and Warranty

A specialty of the Blackview BV9000 Pro is its recessed USB port that can be hard to reach with some thicker cables. The phone also lacks an audio jack, rendering the included headset seemingly useless at first glance. Fortunately, the required dongles are included in the box in addition to a SIM tool and a USB-OTG cable.

Please read our notes on warranty and CE conformity regarding devices sold and shipped directly from China. As we speak, Blackview does not offer any sort of warranty at all, and potential buyers are thus restricted to seller warranty.

Input Devices & Handling

The extra hardware button on the right-hand side is user-programmable and can be used for various predefined tasks, for example for taking a photo. Unfortunately, this particular feature has not been thought and designed all the way through: While we were able to launch the camera app by pressing the button it did not act as a shutter button once the app was launched.

The preloaded keyboard application is Google’s default keyboard with Google’s multilingual Gboard app coming preloaded on the device as well.

The 5-point multitouch-capable screen turned out to be somewhat problematic. Running Gismart Real Piano we were unable to play the “Der Flohwalzer” (the "Flea Waltz") without short breaks in-between due to the screen’s failure to occasionally detect input at the bottom left corner. The rest of the screen worked flawlessly, and response times were reasonably fast in case input was detected.

The fingerprint reader sits at the back of the phone, and it is capable of waking up the phone from standby and unlocking it virtually instantaneously. Its position at the rear is far from perfect though: We did encounter occasional accidental triggering with other fingers resulting in too many failed unlock attempts and the necessity to put in the security code instead.

While playing Beach Buggy Racing the attitude sensor worked flawlessly and responded quickly. We had no trouble steering the vehicle, and there were no inconsistencies either (re: touch screen input detection problems).

Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard
F5 was very restrained at the start
F5 was very restrained at the start

Display

subpixel geometry
subpixel geometry

Blackview’s own information on the display is highly inconsistent. On the phone’s website, the display is initially listed as an 18:9 display running at 1080x2160, immediately followed by an alleged display resolution of 1440x720 on the exact same page. We find the latter to be much more believable since both AIDA64 and CPU-Z seem to agree on the lower display resolution and the screenshots we took during the review were saved with that exact resolution as well. Thus, the 2:1 display’s resolution is lower than it was on the previous model, which featured an FHD display. We should thus be able to identify individual pixels on the display when magnified. However, at the end of the day pixel densities far beyond the human eye’s level of perceptibility are of less concern in an outdoor smartphone than display brightness, and in this regard the BV9000 has managed to impress us. Not only does it literally outshine its own predecessor, it also bests the entire competition save for the CAT S31, whose unbelievable maximum brightness of 750 nits is the highest ever recorded by us on a smartphone display.

613
cd/m²
630
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
588
cd/m²
621
cd/m²
594
cd/m²
577
cd/m²
585
cd/m²
573
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 630 cd/m² Average: 597.7 cd/m² Minimum: 23.05 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 621 cd/m²
Contrast: 970:1 (Black: 0.64 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.5 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 5.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
Gamma: 2.52
Blackview BV9000 Pro
IPS, 1440x720, 5.7
Blackview BV8000 Pro
IPS, 1920x1080, 5
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
CAT S31
IPS, 1280x720, 4.7
Doogee Mix
AMOLED, 1280x720, 5.5
Screen
-45%
-20%
22%
-11%
Brightness middle
621
434
-30%
445
-28%
784
26%
358
-42%
Brightness
598
414
-31%
437
-27%
750
25%
354
-41%
Brightness Distribution
91
86
-5%
88
-3%
92
1%
90
-1%
Black Level *
0.64
0.64
-0%
0.67
-5%
0.45
30%
Contrast
970
678
-30%
664
-32%
1742
80%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.5
9.8
-78%
6.5
-18%
4.28
22%
4.9
11%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10
19.2
-92%
10.6
-6%
8.75
12%
11.8
-18%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.1
9.9
-94%
7.2
-41%
6.1
-20%
3.9
24%
Gamma
2.52 87%
2.64 83%
2.53 87%
2.49 88%
2.33 94%
CCT
7362 88%
9219 71%
8274 79%
7175 91%
7260 90%

* ... smaller is better

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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8773 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Brightness aside, the display did fairly well overall. While the CAT S31 turned out to be brighter it is also 50 Euros (~$61) more expensive and incapable of keeping up with the BV9000 in regard to performance. As such, the BV9000 Pro’s display was conspicuously inconspicuous. DeltaE deviations were okay overall, with a slight blue tint for grayscales detected by CalMAN but invisible to the naked eye. We strongly assume that the BV9000 Pro’s target audience will not be particularly interested in color accuracy and AdobeRGB coverage, except for maybe the odd graphic designer based in Nepal. Thus, the display is perfectly suited for its intended use case.

ColorChecker sRGB
ColorChecker sRGB
Colorspace sRGB
Colorspace sRGB
Grayscale sRGB
Grayscale sRGB
Saturation sRGB
Saturation sRGB

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
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 8.4 ms rise
↘ 17.2 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
62 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 29.2 ms rise
↘ 32.8 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. » 96 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

The display is easily and readily usable outdoors thanks to its high maximum brightness. It remained readable even in direct sunlight and is thus almost destined to become a bicycle GPS unit. If an even brighter display is required we suggest taking a closer look at the CAT S31.

In direct sunlight
In direct sunlight
In the shade
In the shade

Viewing angles were acceptable for an IPS panel. The screen remained undistorted at viewing angles of up to 45 ° but started to distort noticeably beyond that point when blacks started to turn bright grayish.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

Generally speaking, performance was on the low side and comparable to the similarly or identically equipped BV8000 Pro and Doogee Mix but much faster than the inferior Samsung XCover or CAT S31. Both the Doogee Mix and the BV9000 Pro are equipped with the same MediaTek Helio P25 CPU and an ARM Mali T880 GPU. The BV8000 Pro features an older Helio P20 CPU by MediaTek, which is very similar to the P25 by and large.

The BV9000 Pro did very well in benchmarks that depended heavily on the CPU. In return, it showed significant weaknesses in GPU and storage performance. It even had to succumb to its predecessor in pretty much every 3DMark benchmark despite the older model’s higher display resolution. The Doogee Mix performed better in these tests and seems to handle its hardware more efficiently.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
64441 Points ∼26%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
64833 Points ∼26% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
35379 Points ∼14% -45%
CAT S31
24865 Points ∼10% -61%
Doogee Mix
60164 Points ∼24% -7%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
3865 Points ∼37%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
3801 Points ∼37% -2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3446 Points ∼33% -11%
CAT S31
2300 Points ∼22% -40%
Doogee Mix
4908 Points ∼48% +27%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
4465 Points ∼34%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4477 Points ∼34% 0%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4508 Points ∼34% +1%
CAT S31
3080 Points ∼23% -31%
Doogee Mix
6127 Points ∼46% +37%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
945 Points ∼46%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
736 Points ∼36% -22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
661 Points ∼32% -30%
CAT S31
10 Points ∼0% -99%
Doogee Mix
813 Points ∼40% -14%
Graphics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1121 Points ∼4%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1118 Points ∼4% 0%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
253 Points ∼1% -77%
CAT S31
256 Points ∼1% -77%
Doogee Mix
1115 Points ∼4% -1%
Memory (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1028 Points ∼16%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1236 Points ∼20% +20%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1066 Points ∼17% +4%
CAT S31
328 Points ∼5% -68%
Doogee Mix
1243 Points ∼20% +21%
System (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
3238 Points ∼20%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
3052 Points ∼19% -6%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1396 Points ∼8% -57%
CAT S31
899 Points ∼5% -72%
Doogee Mix
3063 Points ∼19% -5%
Overall (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1370 Points ∼16%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1327 Points ∼16% -3%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
706 Points ∼8% -48%
CAT S31
1 Points ∼0% -100%
Doogee Mix
1363 Points ∼16% -1%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
2635 Points ∼6%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
2929 Points ∼7% +11%
Doogee Mix
2922 Points ∼7% +11%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
3818 Points ∼11%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4053 Points ∼11% +6%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1855 Points ∼5% -51%
CAT S31
1135 Points ∼3% -70%
Doogee Mix
3903 Points ∼11% +2%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
828 Points ∼13%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
851 Points ∼13% +3%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
629 Points ∼10% -24%
CAT S31
437 Points ∼7% -47%
Doogee Mix
840 Points ∼13% +1%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1353 Points ∼32%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1757 Points ∼42% +30%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
952 Points ∼23% -30%
CAT S31
560 Points ∼13% -59%
Doogee Mix
1876 Points ∼45% +39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
600 Points ∼11%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
628 Points ∼12% +5%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
85 Points ∼2% -86%
CAT S31
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Doogee Mix
649 Points ∼12% +8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
685 Points ∼14%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
733 Points ∼15% +7%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
107 Points ∼2% -84%
CAT S31
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Doogee Mix
759 Points ∼16% +11%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1505 Points ∼36%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1764 Points ∼43% +17%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
955 Points ∼23% -37%
Doogee Mix
1912 Points ∼46% +27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
921 Points ∼11%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
905 Points ∼11% -2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
157 Points ∼2% -83%
Doogee Mix
938 Points ∼11% +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
1008 Points ∼16%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
1015 Points ∼16% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
193 Points ∼3% -81%
Doogee Mix
1058 Points ∼16% +5%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
11176 Points ∼14%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
16603 Points ∼21% +49%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11459 Points ∼15% +3%
CAT S31
6396 Points ∼8% -43%
Doogee Mix
16619 Points ∼21% +49%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
10023 Points ∼2%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
14001 Points ∼3% +40%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3985 Points ∼1% -60%
CAT S31
5042 Points ∼1% -50%
Doogee Mix
14288 Points ∼3% +43%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
10258 Points ∼5%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
14506 Points ∼7% +41%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4661 Points ∼2% -55%
CAT S31
5291 Points ∼2% -48%
Doogee Mix
14748 Points ∼7% +44%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
21 fps ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
6.8 fps ∼0% -68%
CAT S31
5.6 fps ∼0% -73%
Doogee Mix
24 fps ∼0% +14%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
31 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11 fps ∼0% -65%
CAT S31
9.8 fps ∼0% -68%
Doogee Mix
35 fps ∼1% +13%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
10 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
10 fps ∼0% 0%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2.6 fps ∼0% -74%
CAT S31
1.9 fps ∼0% -81%
Doogee Mix
11 fps ∼0% +10%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
17 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
11 fps ∼0% -35%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
5.4 fps ∼0% -68%
CAT S31
4.3 fps ∼0% -75%
Doogee Mix
22 fps ∼1% +29%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
6.9 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
6.8 fps ∼0% -1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1.6 fps ∼0% -77%
Doogee Mix
6.8 fps ∼0% -1%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
15 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
6.8 fps ∼0% -55%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3.9 fps ∼0% -74%
Doogee Mix
16 fps ∼0% +7%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
4.1 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4.1 fps ∼0% 0%
Doogee Mix
4.1 fps ∼0% 0%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Blackview BV9000 Pro
8.2 fps ∼0%
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4.1 fps ∼0% -50%
Doogee Mix
8.3 fps ∼0% +1%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1.57 fps ∼4%
Doogee Mix
5.4 fps ∼14%
Basemark X 1.1
High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2790 Points ∼6%
Doogee Mix
10216 Points ∼23%
Medium Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
5895 Points ∼13%
Doogee Mix
20373 Points ∼45%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
43 Points ∼1%
Doogee Mix
216 Points ∼4%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
31.4 fps ∼51%
Doogee Mix
61.6 fps ∼100%

Legend

 
Blackview BV9000 Pro Mediatek Helio P25, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 128 GB eMMC Flash
 
Blackview BV8000 Pro Mediatek Helio P20 (LP4) MT6757, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
CAT S31 Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Qualcomm Adreno 304, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Doogee Mix Mediatek Helio P25, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Browser performance is highly inconsistent, with the BV9000 Pro trumping the JetStream benchmark yet falling behind even the CAT S31 in the Kraken benchmark.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Blackview BV9000 Pro (Chrome Mobile 53)
32.424 Points ∼100%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
24.6 Points ∼76% -24%
Blackview BV8000 Pro (Crome Version 51)
24.288 Points ∼75% -25%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
20.988 Points ∼65% -35%
CAT S31
12.442 Points ∼38% -62%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
4175 Points ∼100% 0%
Blackview BV9000 Pro (Chrome Mobile 53)
4155 Points ∼100%
Blackview BV8000 Pro (Crome Version 51)
3609 Points ∼86% -13%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
3133 Points ∼75% -25%
CAT S31
2010 Points ∼48% -52%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Blackview BV8000 Pro (Crome Version 51)
23223.7 ms * ∼100% -42%
CAT S31
17827.9 ms * ∼77% -9%
Blackview BV9000 Pro (Chrome Mobile 53)
16298.4 ms * ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
11130 ms * ∼48% +32%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
10305.6 ms * ∼44% +37%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
77 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
61 Points ∼79%

* ... smaller is better

Storage performance is almost identical on the BV9000 Pro and the BV8000 Pro, and it seems like Blackview has opted for the exact same memory chips on both models. The same can be said for the memory card reader: When benchmarked with our Toshiba Exceria M501 reference card both smartphones achieved virtually identical results. While storage can be expanded via microSD card, it is questionable whether or not this will ever be necessary thanks to the device’s 128 GB of onboard storage (110 GB user-accessible).

Blackview BV9000 ProBlackview BV8000 ProSamsung Galaxy XCover 4CAT S31Doogee Mix
AndroBench 3-5
-1%
-32%
-34%
-4%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
68.46 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
68.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
55.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-19%
59.5
-13%
69.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
76.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
79.34 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
68.97 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-10%
81.8
7%
78 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
Random Write 4KB
12.72
15.05
18%
11.9
-6%
14.81
16%
11.2
-12%
Random Read 4KB
72.6
52.74
-27%
21.8
-70%
14.28
-80%
66.5
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB
174.62
177.09
1%
73.6
-58%
62.13
-64%
165
-6%
Sequential Read 256KB
244.73
246.42
1%
181.6
-26%
71.06
-71%
249
2%

Gaming

We ran extensive tests playing Beach Buggy Racing, which served as benchmark for both graphics performance and the attitude sensor’s capabilities. The game ran very smoothly with default graphics settings, and the attitude sensor worked flawlessly as well. We started to notice slight stuttering at maximum details, and it only serves to prove our point: The ARM Mali T880 is no more than an aged lower mid-range GPU at best. On the other hand, most games in Google’s Play Store are aimed specifically at this level of performance.

Beach Buggy Racing
Beach Buggy Racing
Beach Buggy Racing
Beach Buggy Racing
Sonic Boom
Sonic Boom
Sonic Boom
Sonic Boom

Emissions

Temperature

Surface temperatures are slightly different from what we came to expect from a smartphone thanks to its robust and exuberant packaging. This was already the case with the BV8000 Pro, which kept its average surface temperatures only slightly above body temperature. Without being any faster, the newer model is around 4-6 °F (2-3 °C) warmer. We must admit that we were a little bit disappointed, but overall this certainly cannot be considered a downside per se.

Heat-map front
Heat-map front
Heat-map rear
Heat-map rear
Max. Load
 37.8 °C
100 F
38.6 °C
101 F
39.3 °C
103 F
 
 39 °C
102 F
38.5 °C
101 F
41.7 °C
107 F
 
 39.3 °C
103 F
39.3 °C
103 F
41.3 °C
106 F
 
Maximum: 41.7 °C = 107 F
Average: 39.4 °C = 103 F
35.5 °C
96 F
37.7 °C
100 F
38.2 °C
101 F
35.6 °C
96 F
36.8 °C
98 F
38.3 °C
101 F
35.9 °C
97 F
36.5 °C
98 F
38.3 °C
101 F
Maximum: 38.3 °C = 101 F
Average: 37 °C = 99 F
Power Supply (max.)  28.2 °C = 83 F | Room Temperature 20.9 °C = 70 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.4 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.7 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 35.8 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the bottom side is 38.3 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 34.3 °C / 94 F, ranging from 22 to 326 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.

Speakers

Pink Noise
Pink Noise

Another aspect where the older model beats its own successor is speaker performance, where the head-to-head comparison between the BV8000 and BV9000 reveals the older model’s all-out superiority.

The only feature where the BV9000 manages to differentiate itself from its competitors is maximum volume: It gets really loud when you crank up the volume! Other than that, the speakers are nothing to write home about: almost no bass, decent highs, acceptable mids. That’s really all there is to say.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.244.12532.937.63137.239.14031.739.55039.639.76328.3358027.331.310026.937.312526.738.41602435.120020.936.225020.94231519.553.840018.560.150017.562.363017.568.380015.776.6100015.878.6125016.677.2160015.876.6200015.479250015.580.231501681.5400015.882.150001679.2630016.375.7800016.367.21000016.2711250016.463.71600016.454.7SPL28.690.3N1.178.8median 16.4median 68.3Delta2.113.231.640.625.436.525.337.132.939.333.643.231.642.628.4432744.320.845.22245.821.348.620.853.821.257.319.465.719.570.517.773.917.977.217.88117.384.517.482.116.782.217.282.618.280.917.978.717.67817.780.117.880.817.977.418.17418.265.330921.395median 17.9median 77.21.310.931.634.125.433.425.332.332.927.633.628.131.634.428.430.12736.520.833.42241.221.347.620.852.121.255.219.457.419.560.317.765.417.968.617.87017.370.617.47216.771.317.269.718.27117.972.417.666.317.761.417.857.917.95818.149.218.246.63080.41.347.4median 17.9median 60.31.310.725.926.325.925272526.529.626.531.131.631.132.734.632.726.728.326.725.628.325.626.530.926.532.823.932.832.322.432.337.222.537.239.824.139.844.222.844.247.521.247.551.819.351.854.116.554.160.115.660.164.716.364.765.21565.266.214.866.267.214.567.266.614.366.667.51467.567.413.967.465.413.965.461.813.961.860.313.860.357.213.857.253.613.853.653.413.853.476.928.176.935.71.135.7median 57.2median 15median 57.211.24.111.231.633.525.429.825.328.732.93033.623.631.629.128.425.42726.120.824.42221.921.324.420.832.221.241.519.450.919.559.917.765.717.968.717.869.717.369.317.46716.768.117.27018.268.117.97117.674.617.775.117.869.717.968.418.163.818.255.63081.81.351.2median 17.9median 671.312.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseBlackview BV9000 ProBlackview BV8000 ProSamsung Galaxy XCover 4CAT S31Doogee Mix
Blackview BV9000 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 55% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Blackview BV8000 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.99 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

CAT S31 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 47% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Doogee Mix audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 38.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 65% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 79% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency diagram (checkboxes selectable/deselectable!)

Battery Life

Power Consumption

Despite identical battery capacity the BV9000 Pro’s power consumption was around 20% higher than the BV8000 Pro’s, most likely due to its bigger and brighter display. The results look even worse when compared to the BV9000 Pro’s rivals. As before, the included charger is fairly powerful and capable of recharging the phone in less than two hours.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.44 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.04 / 2.14 / 2.17 Watt
Load midlight 5.11 / 6.37 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Blackview BV9000 Pro
4180 mAh
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4180 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
CAT S31
4000 mAh
Doogee Mix
3360 mAh
Power Consumption
14%
23%
20%
20%
Idle Minimum *
1.04
0.85
18%
0.56
46%
0.73
30%
1.13
-9%
Idle Average *
2.14
1.56
27%
1.57
27%
2.21
-3%
1.7
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.17
1.67
23%
1.68
23%
2.25
-4%
1.74
20%
Load Average *
5.11
4.37
14%
4.6
10%
2.99
41%
2.78
46%
Load Maximum *
6.37
7.06
-11%
5.92
7%
4.12
35%
5.01
21%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

No surprises here: Blackview has failed to improve upon battery life. Despite its identical capacity the BV9000 Pro falls behind its own predecessor, and it is barely capable of keeping up with the Samsung XCover (whose battery is only two-thirds the size of the BV9000’s). This can be partly explained with the BV9000’s bigger and, more importantly, brighter display. On the other side, the even brighter CAT S31 is living proof that a bright display does not necessarily have to result in shorter battery life.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
18h 59min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
9h 39min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 37min
Blackview BV9000 Pro
4180 mAh
Blackview BV8000 Pro
4180 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
CAT S31
4000 mAh
Doogee Mix
3360 mAh
Battery Runtime
43%
4%
85%
-1%
Reader / Idle
1139
1576
38%
1388
22%
WiFi v1.3
579
688
19%
668
15%
1074
85%
573
-1%
Load
277
474
71%
205
-26%
H.264
681

Pros

+ decent memory configuration
+ dual SIM
+ water and dust-proof
+ robust case
+ fingerprint reader
+ configurable button
+ excellent GPS
+ storage expansion via microSD
+ Gorilla Glass 5
+ IP68-certified
+ huge variety of sensors
+ quick charging
+ decent speaker and call quality
+ dual-camera

Cons

- worse than its own predecessor in many aspects
- SIM card only protected by rubber flap
- no CE marking
- no warranty
- battery not user-replaceable
- massive weight

Verdict

In review: Blackview BV9000 Pro. Review unit courtesy of Blackview.
In review: Blackview BV9000 Pro. Review unit courtesy of Blackview.

Our verdict is best served as direct comparison between the two Blackview smartphones. Long story short: If not for its camera’s focusing issues, the BV8000 Pro would be the superior smartphone in almost all regards. More specifically, this means that the newer version is not really any faster than the older one despite its updated processor. The newer model’s display resolution is lower, and it is around 50 Euros (~$61) more expensive to boot.

The only areas of improvement are the brighter display and the internal storage that has been doubled in size. Thus, before purchasing the BV9000 Pro we would recommend trying to figure out whether or not Blackview has managed to address and fix the BV8000 Pro’s focusing issues first.

Decent overall package with only minor deficiencies yet somehow still inferior to its own predecessor.

At the end of the day it is all a moot point given the predecessor’s critical flaw that has seemingly been addressed by Blackview in the BV9000 Pro.

The BV9000 Pro certainly is a very robust smartphone. All things considered it worked as expected even if it turned out to be slightly slower than hoped for. These minor slowdowns should be completely unnoticeable in everyday use, and we have failed to find anything even remotely comparable at the BV9000 Pro’s cross point of price and performance.

The only hindrance for its target audience could be the BV9000 Pro’s massive size and heft, and if that turns out to be the case the CAT S31 might be the better choice. It is smaller and, more importantly, brighter - two critical criteria for any rugged smartphone. But as always at the end of the day it boils down to personal preference.

If you are satisfied with the BV9000 Pro’s level of performance and happen to be in the market for a rugged smartphone and are not particularly concerned by its size and weight, the BV9000 Pro might be the perfect smartphone for you.

Blackview BV9000 Pro - 02/07/2018 v6
Florian Schaar

Chassis
85%
Keyboard
70 / 75 → 94%
Pointing Device
82%
Connectivity
44 / 60 → 74%
Weight
87%
Battery
92%
Display
82%
Games Performance
32 / 63 → 50%
Application Performance
45 / 70 → 65%
Temperature
87%
Noise
100%
Audio
66 / 91 → 73%
Camera
63%
Average
72%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Blackview BV9000 Pro Smartphone Review
Florian Schaar, 2018-02-13 (Update: 2018-03- 1)