Notebookcheck Logo

Google Pixel 6 Pro Review - Eye Candy with Vanilla Android

More Premium. Google's Pixel 6 Pro offers more features than its smaller sibling, mostly focused on cameras and display. Find out in our review whether or not the premium is really worth it.

Google’s Pixel 6 Pro is the better equipped competitor to the Pixel 6. It features a larger display with both a higher resolution and a higher refresh rate, a larger battery, and more RAM. The camera setup looks very similar at first glance but unlike the Pixel 6 the Pixel 6 Pro comes with an optical zoom.

In Europe, the device is available in two trims, one with 128 GB and one with 256 GB of storage starting at $899 and $999, respectively. US customers are also treated to a 512 GB storage option for another $100.

Google Pixel 6 Pro (Pixel 6 Series)
Processor
Google Tensor 8 x 1.8 - 2.8 GHz, Exynos X1 / Cortex-A76 / A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
12288 MB 
, LPDDR5
Display
6.70 inch 19.5:9, 3120 x 1440 pixel 513 PPI, Capacitive, 10 multi touch points, LTPO-OLED, Corning Gorilla Glass Victus, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 114 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer, OTG, eSIM
Networking
Wi-Fi 6E (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.2, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 19), LTE (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 66, 71), 5G-Sub6 (Band 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 20, 25, 28, 30, 38, 40, 41, 48, 66, 71, 77, 78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.9 x 163.9 x 75.9 ( = 0.35 x 6.45 x 2.99 in)
Battery
5003 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.85, 25 mm, 1/1.31", 1.2 µm) + 48 MPix (4x optical zoom, f/3.5, 104 mm, 1/2", 0.8 µm) + 12 MPix (ultra wide. f/2.2, 17 mm, 114°, 1.25 µm), Camera2-API: Full
Secondary Camera: 11.1 MPix (f/2.2, 20 mm, 1.22 µm, fix focus)
Additional features
Speakers: Dual, Keyboard: Onscreen, USB-Cabel, SIM-Needle, OTG-adapter, 24 Months Warranty, Body-SAR: 1.40 W/kg, Head-SAR: 0.99 W/kg; GNSS: GPS (L1, L5), Glonass (L1), Galileo (E1, E5a), BeiDou (B1, B1C, B2a), QZSS (L1), fanless, waterproof
Weight
210 g ( = 7.41 oz / 0.46 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
899 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Potential Competitors in Comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
89 %
04/2022
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20
210 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3120x1440
88.7 %
05/2022
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920
196 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.60"2340x1080
87.4 %
02/2022
Xiaomi 12 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
204 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.73"3200x1440
90.6 %
10/2021
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15, A15 GPU 5-Core
203 g256 GB NVMe6.10"2532x1170
89 %
04/2022
Oppo Find X5 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
221 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3216x1440

Case – Not Much Heavier Than the Pixel 6

Despite its larger display and larger battery the Google Pixel 6 Pro is only slightly larger and with an additional 3 g (0.1 oz) only ever so slightly heavier than the Pixel 6. Due to its slightly narrower display bezels and the curved glass along the sides we also find an improved display-to-body ratio of 89 %.

Our review unit’s metal frame was polished and thus as susceptible to fingerprints and smudges as the Corning Gorilla Glass Victus covering both sides. Build quality was good overall, with even and narrow gaps and only minor creaking when warped.

The Google Pixel 6 Pro is IP68-certified against ingress of dust and water and available in three colors: Stormy Black, Cloudy White, and Sorta Sunny.

Size Comparison

163.9 mm / 6.45 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 210 g0.463 lbs163.6 mm / 6.44 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.66 mm / 0.3409 inch 204 g0.4497 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 73.9 mm / 2.91 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs157.4 mm / 6.2 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 7.6 mm / 0.2992 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs146.7 mm / 5.78 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 7.65 mm / 0.3012 inch 203 g0.4475 lbs

Connectivity – Pixel 6 Pro with Fast USB

The Google Pixel 6 Pro features a fast USB 3.2 Gen 1 USB port for fast data transfers and USB OTG. Unfortunately, it does not support wired display output. Bluetooth 5.2 and NFC are supported.

In general, the Pixel 6 Pro follows its predecessor’s minimalist approach. It lacks support for microSD storage expansion, a notification LED, an IR blaster, an FM radio receiver, and more.

Software – Long Update Cycle including Android 15

The Google Pixel 6 Pro comes with Android 12 by default and, like the Pixel 6, a long update cycle with a minimum of three years of feature upgrades plus an additional two years of security updates for a total of five years.

The 6 Pro supports all the well-known Pixel features, and there are no third-party apps to be found preloaded out of the box.

Communication and GNSS – Fast Wi-Fi with Wi-Fi 6 and VHT160

The Google Pixel 6 Pro supports all modern communication standards, including Bluetooth 5.2, NFC, and 5G Sub6.

While in theory its Wi-Fi modem supports Wi-Fi 6E in practice it turned out to be very unstable and unreliable with regular signal loss when connected to our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router, something Google will need to address. Restricting ourselves to Wi-Fi 6 was more reliable and extremely fast thanks to support for VHT160.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1736 (874min - 1780max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1465 (1307min - 1536max) MBit/s ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
826 (765min - 881max) MBit/s ∼48% -52%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
820 (799min - 837max) MBit/s ∼47% -53%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72.5 - 1736, n=49, last 2 years)
636 MBit/s ∼37% -63%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1710 (876min - 1774max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1214 (516min - 1524max) MBit/s ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
899 (432min - 966max) MBit/s ∼53% -47%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
890 (433min - 934max) MBit/s ∼52% -48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78.3 - 1710, n=49, last 2 years)
657 MBit/s ∼38% -62%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1346 (696min - 1430max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (853 - 1768, n=6, last 2 years)
1337 MBit/s ∼99%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1565 (777min - 1666max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (943 - 1751, n=6, last 2 years)
1375 MBit/s ∼88%
iperf3 transmit AX12
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
698 (632min - 775max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1395, n=210, last 2 years)
485 MBit/s ∼69%
iperf3 receive AX12
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
660 (599min - 698max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1348, n=210, last 2 years)
472 MBit/s ∼72%
09018027036045054063072081090099010801170126013501440153016201710Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy S22+ Samsung Exynos 2200, Samsung Xclipse 920; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1323 (696-1430)
Samsung Galaxy S22+ Samsung Exynos 2200, Samsung Xclipse 920; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1538 (777-1666)
Google Pixel 6 Pro Google Tensor, ARM Mali-G78 MP20; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1705 (874-1780)
Samsung Galaxy S22+ Samsung Exynos 2200, Samsung Xclipse 920; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø825 (765-881)
Google Pixel 6 Pro Google Tensor, ARM Mali-G78 MP20; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1681 (876-1774)
Samsung Galaxy S22+ Samsung Exynos 2200, Samsung Xclipse 920; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø885 (432-966)
GPS test indoors
indoors
GPS test outdoors
outdoors

The Pixel 6 Pro supports all common location services and managed to obtain satellite lock at a high accuracy level indoors.

On our usual bicycle trip around the block, we compared its accuracy to that of a Garmin Venu 2. The Pixel 6 Pro turned out to be not particularly accurate with several deviations between the recorded track and our actual location. That said it was still good enough for everyday navigation. 

GPS test: around the lake
GPS test: around the lake
GPS test: turning point
GPS test: turning point
GPS test: summary
GPS test: summary

Telephony and Call Quality

In terms of telephony the Google Pixel 6 Pro is very similar to the Pixel 6 with dual SIM support via a single Nano SIM as well as an eSIM. It supports both VoLTE as well as Wi-Fi Calling.

Call quality was very good, at least when using the unit’s earphone. Voice transmissions were clear and natural with good ambient noise cancellation a few seconds into the conversation. The device’s three microphones and software algorithms did a fantastic job in this regard.

On speakerphone, however, we found the Pixel 6 Pro to sound slightly muddled and hollow with a somewhat limited microphone range.

Cameras – Improved Pixel 6 Setup

Pixel 6 Pro selfie
Pixel 6 Pro selfie

Both current Pixel phones feature very similar camera setups. The only difference is the optical zoom as well as a higher-resolution front-facing camera on the Pixel 6 Pro. Unfortunately, the latter still lacks an autofocus but offers a higher level of details thanks to its higher resolution.  It also supports [email protected] or [email protected] video recording.

Both the main camera and the ultra-wide-angle lens are identical to the Pixel 6, and you can find more details on these two cameras in our Pixel 6 review. The additional 4x periscope zoom allows for a total digital zoom of 20x, at least according to Google. In reality, zoom levels of less than 8x continue to use the main lens and only shift to the periscope lens above 8x. Keep in mind that this is only true of the main object is no further away than 3 ft. The results are decent albeit not usable for large printouts anymore.

Videos are recorded in UHD at 60 FPS with zoom limited to 7x. You can, however, also utilize the camera’s full zoom capabilities if you either lower the FPS or the video resolution.

2x zoom
4x optical zoom
10x zoom
20x zoom

Pixel 6 Pro zoom (left to right): 2x, 4x, 10x, and 20x zoom

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.

HauptkameraHauptkameraUltraweitwinkel5-facher ZoomLow-Light
click to load images
ColorChecker
3.9 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
0.5 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
4 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Google Pixel 6 Pro: 4.78 ∆E min: 0.5 - max: 11.13 ∆E
ColorChecker
30 ∆E
54.8 ∆E
39.9 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
45.2 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
53.8 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
43.7 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
64.9 ∆E
63.9 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
37.7 ∆E
75.8 ∆E
44.5 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
92.9 ∆E
71 ∆E
52.5 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Google Pixel 6 Pro: 47.12 ∆E min: 13.91 - max: 92.93 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty – Pixel Smartphone without Charger

The Google Pixel 6 Pro comes with a USB-C cable, a USB OTG dongle (USB-C to A), and a SIM tool. Compatible wired or wireless chargers have to be purchased separately.

Unlike European models units sold in the United States are limited to just 12 months of warranty with optional warranty extensions for up to two years available for $199 or up to three years for a monthly fee of $9.

Input Devices & Handling – No Face Detection

The Google Pixel 6 Pro’s capacitive touchscreen worked flawlessly and felt very smooth. It can detect up to ten inputs simultaneously and turned out to be very accurate overall. The built-in vibration motor was very firm and crisp.

The device features an in-display fingerprint reader that while very fast was not particularly accurate and reliable. Face detection is not available.

Display – LTPO OLED with up to 120 Hz

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The 6.7-inch display runs at a native QHD+ resolution that cannot be lowered in software. Furthermore, this LTPO OLED display supports adaptive refresh rate switching between 60 and 120 Hz.

Illumination was very even and consistent, and the display reached a peak brightness of 814 nits on an all-white image and up to 1,053 nits (center) in our APL50 test with evenly distributed black and white tiles. With the ambient light sensor disabled maximum brightness is limited to just 489 nits.

PWM flickering was identical to the Pixel 6 with uneven flickering between 176.1 and 376.6 Hz at minimum brightness and a more flatlined amplitude with increasing levels of brightness. Nevertheless, sensitive users might experience issues with the device, especially since DC dimming is not supported.

797
cd/m²
800
cd/m²
814
cd/m²
796
cd/m²
794
cd/m²
813
cd/m²
793
cd/m²
792
cd/m²
809
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 814 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 800.9 cd/m² Minimum: 1.91 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 794 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
98.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.23
Google Pixel 6 Pro
LTPO-OLED, 3120x1440, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy S22+
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.60
Xiaomi 12 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.73
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
OLED, 2532x1170, 6.10
Oppo Find X5 Pro
AMOLED, 3216x1440, 6.70
Screen
-38%
-8%
8%
1%
Brightness middle
794
1090
37%
959
21%
1050
32%
746
-6%
Brightness
801
1097
37%
977
22%
1058
32%
744
-7%
Brightness Distribution
97
98
1%
96
-1%
98
1%
97
0%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.9
2.5
-178%
1.1
-22%
1
-11%
0.9
-0%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
2.2
3.8
-73%
3.1
-41%
2.4
-9%
1.6
27%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.5
2.3
-53%
1.9
-27%
1.5
-0%
1.6
-7%
Gamma
2.23 99%
2.04 108%
2.22 99%
2.2 100%
2.23 99%
CCT
6654 98%
6492 100%
6498 100%
6504 100%
6499 100%

* ... 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 detected 360.5 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 360.5 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 360.5 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 21805 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

minimum brightness
min
25 % brightness
25 %
50 % brightness
50 %
75 % brightness
75 %
maximum manual brightness
100%

Fixed zoom with various brightness settings

We found the color profile “Natural” to produce the most accurate colors. Keep in mind that it is limited to the smaller sRGB color space. If you want to use the larger DCI-P3 color space, you need to enable either the “Adaptive” or “Vivid” color modes. Both feature a very similar white balance with different levels of saturation.

Grayscale (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Colors (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Colors (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Color space (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Color space (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color profile: Natural; target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color profile: Natural; target color space: 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
1.354 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.73 ms rise
↘ 0.624 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 0.8 (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 (23.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
0.692 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.346 ms rise
↘ 0.346 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 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.8 ms).

Outdoor usability is very good overall but not as good as with other devices, such as for example the Galaxy S22 Plus.

As expected, viewing angles are superb with only a minor decrease in brightness and no visible color tint at extreme angles.

outdoors
outdoors
viewing angles
viewing angles

Performance – Pixel Smartphone with Google SoC

Like its sibling the Google Pixel 6 Pro features Google’s own Google Tensor SoC. It has access to 12 GB of LPDDR5 RAM, the Titan M2 security chip, and an integrated ARM Mali-G78 MP20 GPU. This combination is definitely to be found in the high-end spectrum of mobile devices and should make for a very smooth system and gaming performance.

Overall, the SoC performed very well but turned out to be unable to keep up with more recent competitors. Last year’s SoCs, however, are more likely to be worthy competitors with the exception of memory write performance that was slightly slower than expected. This, however, should not make any difference in everyday use.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
1749 Points ∼100% +65%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1257 Points ∼72% +19%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1192 Points ∼68% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1133 Points ∼65% +7%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
1057 Points ∼60%
Average Google Tensor
  (1041 - 1057, n=2)
1049 Points ∼60% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=255, last 2 years)
670 Points ∼38% -37%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
4829 Points ∼100% +64%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3738 Points ∼77% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3599 Points ∼75% +22%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3488 Points ∼72% +19%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
2941 Points ∼61%
Average Google Tensor
  (2805 - 2941, n=2)
2873 Points ∼59% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=255, last 2 years)
2192 Points ∼45% -25%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
962824 Points ∼100% +34%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
856953 Points ∼89% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
850401 Points ∼88% +18%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
800608 Points ∼83% +11%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
720905 Points ∼75%
Average Google Tensor
  (702981 - 720905, n=2)
711943 Points ∼74% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1041980, n=110, last 2 years)
557265 Points ∼58% -23%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
14998 Points ∼100% +29%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13131 Points ∼88% +13%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12144 Points ∼81% +5%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
11605 Points ∼77%
Average Google Tensor
  (10409 - 11605, n=2)
11007 Points ∼73% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=146, last 2 years)
10218 Points ∼68% -12%
CrossMark - Overall
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
1135 Points ∼100% +25%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1129 Points ∼99% +25%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
956 Points ∼84% +6%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
906 Points ∼80%
Average Google Tensor
  (849 - 906, n=2)
878 Points ∼77% -3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
811 Points ∼71% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1169, n=50, last 2 years)
747 Points ∼66% -18%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
7186 Points ∼100% +19%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6799 Points ∼95% +12%
Average Google Tensor
  (6053 - 6287, n=2)
6170 Points ∼86% +2%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
6053 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6007 Points ∼84% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (895 - 8124, n=170, last 2 years)
4235 Points ∼59% -30%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
0 Points ∼0% -100%
System
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
11373 Points ∼100% +26%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10340 Points ∼91% +15%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10006 Points ∼88% +11%
Average Google Tensor
  (9009 - 9085, n=2)
9047 Points ∼80% 0%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
9009 Points ∼79%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1542 - 19657, n=170, last 2 years)
7514 Points ∼66% -17%
Memory
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6844 Points ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6523 Points ∼95% +3%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
6336 Points ∼93%
Average Google Tensor
  (6071 - 6336, n=2)
6204 Points ∼91% -2%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5125 Points ∼75% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1012 - 9044, n=170, last 2 years)
4849 Points ∼71% -23%
Graphics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
21944 Points ∼100% +65%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
17475 Points ∼80% +31%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
15216 Points ∼69% +14%
Average Google Tensor
  (13319 - 15303, n=2)
14311 Points ∼65% +7%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
13319 Points ∼61%
Average of class Smartphone
  (478 - 25642, n=170, last 2 years)
7349 Points ∼33% -45%
Web
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1960 Points ∼100% +11%
Average Google Tensor
  (1765 - 1851, n=2)
1808 Points ∼92% +2%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
1765 Points ∼90%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1669 Points ∼85% -5%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1444 Points ∼74% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (718 - 2392, n=170, last 2 years)
1387 Points ∼71% -21%
AImark - Score v2.x
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
105536 Points ∼100% +1725%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
72572 Points ∼69% +1155%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 286905, n=130, last 2 years)
60228 Points ∼57% +942%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6323 Points ∼6% +9%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5982 Points ∼6% +3%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
5782 Points ∼5%
Average Google Tensor
  (5723 - 5782, n=2)
5753 Points ∼5% -1%
UL Procyon AI Inference - Overall Score
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
68880 Points ∼100% +146%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
63613 Points ∼92% +128%
Average Google Tensor
  (27946 - 28581, n=2)
28264 Points ∼41% +1%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Google Tensor, Mali-G78 MP20, 12288
27946 Points ∼41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1555 - 80599, n=62, last 2 years)
14009 Points ∼20% -50%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
2864 Points ∼100% +43%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2523 Points ∼88% +26%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2513 Points ∼88% +26%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1998 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1935 Points ∼68% -3%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
3059 Points ∼100% +55%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2609 Points ∼85% +32%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2575 Points ∼84% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2202 Points ∼72% +12%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1973 Points ∼64%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
11700 Points ∼100% +66%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10384 Points ∼89% +47%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10175 Points ∼87% +44%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7890 Points ∼67% +12%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7057 Points ∼60%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9927 Points ∼100% +52%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9826 Points ∼99% +51%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
9386 Points ∼95% +44%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7710 Points ∼78% +18%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
6516 Points ∼66%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4150 Points ∼100% +6%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3919 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3909 Points ∼94% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3902 Points ∼94% 0%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
1852 Points ∼45% -53%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18090 Points ∼100% +69%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
16221 Points ∼90% +51%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
14680 Points ∼81% +37%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13950 Points ∼77% +30%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10733 Points ∼59%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10005 Points ∼100% +29%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9149 Points ∼91% +18%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9105 Points ∼91% +18%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7742 Points ∼77%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
5956 Points ∼60% -23%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12123 Points ∼100% +26%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
11221 Points ∼93% +16%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10958 Points ∼90% +14%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9654 Points ∼80%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
7773 Points ∼64% -19%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
31940 Points ∼100% +105%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
25285 Points ∼79% +63%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
23949 Points ∼75% +54%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
20842 Points ∼65% +34%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
15556 Points ∼49%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4296 Points ∼100% +4%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4147 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4120 Points ∼96% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3923 Points ∼91% -5%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
2130 Points ∼50% -49%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
121 fps ∼100% +20%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼98% +18%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps ∼83%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼50% -41%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% -41%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
425 fps ∼100% +240%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
417 fps ∼98% +234%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
380 fps ∼89% +204%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
320 fps ∼75% +156%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
125 fps ∼29%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼100% +83%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
117 fps ∼98% +80%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
65 fps ∼55%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼50% -8%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% -8%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
251 fps ∼100% +182%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
229 fps ∼91% +157%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
214 fps ∼85% +140%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
181 fps ∼72% +103%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
89 fps ∼35%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
114 fps ∼100% +171%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps ∼76% +107%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼53% +43%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 fps ∼49% +33%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼37%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
169 fps ∼100% +160%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
151 fps ∼89% +132%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
130 fps ∼77% +100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
111 fps ∼66% +71%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
65 fps ∼38%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
73 fps ∼100% +143%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼82% +100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼53% +30%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼49% +20%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps ∼41%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
95 fps ∼100% +98%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
72 fps ∼76% +50%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼75% +48%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
63 fps ∼66% +31%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
48 fps ∼51%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼100% +88%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
54 fps ∼90% +69%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼60% +13%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
32 fps ∼53%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
27 fps ∼45% -16%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
40 fps ∼100% +33%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
39 fps ∼98% +30%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps ∼85% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps ∼78% +3%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps ∼75%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67 fps ∼100% +56%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼90% +40%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
53 fps ∼79% +23%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps ∼66% +2%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
43 fps ∼64%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
119 fps ∼100% +72%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
94 fps ∼79% +36%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼77% +33%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
69 fps ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% -13%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
181.6 Points ∼100% +98%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
107.364 Points ∼59% +17%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
103 Points ∼57% +12%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
91.7 Points ∼50%
Average Google Tensor (90.1 - 91.7, n=2)
90.9 Points ∼50% -1%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
84.1 Points ∼46% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 182.6, n=170, last 2 years)
62.1 Points ∼34% -32%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
413.7 Points ∼100% +118%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
189.6 Points ∼46%
Average Google Tensor (180.4 - 189.6, n=2)
185 Points ∼45% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
172.8 Points ∼42% -9%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
147.5 Points ∼36% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
135.54 Points ∼33% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 414, n=170, last 2 years)
114.4 Points ∼28% -40%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
243 runs/min ∼100% +119%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
111 runs/min ∼46%
Average Google Tensor (104 - 111, n=2)
107.5 runs/min ∼44% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
105 runs/min ∼43% -5%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
104 runs/min ∼43% -6%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
73.5 runs/min ∼30% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 244, n=156, last 2 years)
60.8 runs/min ∼25% -45%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
248 Points ∼100% +136%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
153 Points ∼62% +46%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
133 Points ∼54% +27%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
119 Points ∼48% +13%
Average Google Tensor (105 - 110, n=2)
107.5 Points ∼43% +2%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
105 Points ∼42%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 265, n=178, last 2 years)
91.8 Points ∼37% -13%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
64222 Points ∼100% +46%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
44398 Points ∼69% +1%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
44034 Points ∼69%
Average Google Tensor (43376 - 44034, n=2)
43705 Points ∼68% -1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
38407 Points ∼60% -13%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
29750 Points ∼46% -32%
Average of class Smartphone (3526 - 65969, n=184, last 2 years)
23241 Points ∼36% -47%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 15230, n=184, last 2 years)
3183 ms * ∼100% -248%
Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Chrome 100.0.4896.127)
1557.9 ms * ∼49% -70%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
1330 ms * ∼42% -45%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
1125 ms * ∼35% -23%
Average Google Tensor (915 - 1034, n=2)
975 ms * ∼31% -7%
Google Pixel 6 Pro (Chrome 100)
915 ms * ∼29%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro (Safari 15)
413.6 ms * ∼13% +55%

* ... smaller is better

Google Pixel 6 ProSamsung Galaxy S22+Xiaomi 12 ProOppo Find X5 ProGoogle Pixel 5Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
130%
203%
80%
-18%
81%
18%
Sequential Read 256KB
1560
1629.99
4%
1620
4%
1410
-10%
851
-45%
1573 ?(1030 - 1898, n=34)
1%
929 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=248, last 2 years)
-40%
Sequential Write 256KB
242.5
1001.67
313%
1465
504%
894
269%
190
-22%
753 ?(233 - 1095, n=34)
211%
471 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=248, last 2 years)
94%
Random Read 4KB
129.4
306.7
137%
324.9
151%
183.7
42%
138.9
7%
233 ?(126.2 - 322, n=34)
80%
165.9 ?(13.5 - 345, n=248, last 2 years)
28%
Random Write 4KB
178.5
297.67
67%
448.9
151%
210.4
18%
155.9
-13%
234 ?(121.4 - 323, n=34)
31%
159.3 ?(56.5 - 458, n=249, last 2 years)
-11%

Emissions – Google Tensor with Short-Term Performance Burst

Temperature

When idle, the Google Pixel 6 Pro remained mostly cool and even under load it only warmed up slightly and selectively.

Inside its cool shell, however, things are quite a bit different. When running the 3DMark Wild Life stress test Google’s Tensor Soc suffered immensely and had to thermal throttle its performance by up to 56 %. The Google Pixel 6 Pro is in very good company though as this was very similar to Samsung’s Galaxy S21 FE's Snapdragon 888.

Max. Load
 34.5 °C
94 F
33.9 °C
93 F
34.2 °C
94 F
 
 35.5 °C
96 F
36.8 °C
98 F
34.7 °C
94 F
 
 34.2 °C
94 F
37.3 °C
99 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
Maximum: 37.3 °C = 99 F
Average: 35 °C = 95 F
33.7 °C
93 F
35 °C
95 F
35.1 °C
95 F
33.8 °C
93 F
35.5 °C
96 F
36 °C
97 F
33.4 °C
92 F
36 °C
97 F
35.5 °C
96 F
Maximum: 36 °C = 97 F
Average: 34.9 °C = 95 F
Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.3 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.3 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
81.2 (47.5min) % ∼100% +87%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 (37.2min) % ∼77% +44%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
58.2 (27.4min) % ∼72% +34%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
47.2 (27.4min) % ∼58% +9%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
43.4 (17.4min) % ∼53%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 256 GB NVMe
70.7 (13.1min) % ∼100% +61%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 (9.64min) % ∼89% +43%
Samsung Galaxy S22+
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60.9 (8.06min) % ∼86% +38%
Google Pixel 6 Pro
Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 (5.37min) % ∼62%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
% ∼0% -100%
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Google Pixel 6 Pro Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø7.56 (5.37-12.2)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø10.9 (9.64-15.4)
Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.7.2: Ø5.44 (5.09-9.07)
Google Pixel 6 Pro Mali-G78 MP20, Tensor, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø27.6 (17.4-40.2)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø41.7 (37.2-59.4)
Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø22.6 (20-34.1)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø43.7 (38.1-60.9)

Speaker

The Google Pixel 6 Pro’s two speakers performed comparatively well overall, with a lack of bass that became more pronounced and noticeable only at high volume.

Wired sound output is supported via USB-C only, and a compatible dongle is not included and has to be purchased separately. Wireless Bluetooth audio output supports high definition audio via SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, and LDAC.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2037.435.9252829.73132.624.34027.727.1503435.6632722.88023.619.410022.327.512517.738.816016.148.320012.852.525013.156.53151256400959.55001166.463010.767.680010.373.3100010.972.2125012.169.5160011.869.720001263.7250011.863.6315011.965.1400012.974.7500013.379.6630013.476.6800013.570.61000013.664.11250014.8691600014.164.6SPL24.684.6N0.658.7median 12.8median 65.1Delta1.16.737.434.32836.532.636.327.731.23441.32736.523.635.922.338.317.739.516.151.612.850.913.156.312609631167.910.770.910.374.310.977.112.17911.879.61281.511.881.711.983.312.980.813.378.613.472.713.578.613.671.414.868.914.16424.691.30.686.3median 12.8median 71.41.110.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseGoogle Pixel 6 ProSamsung Galaxy S22+
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Google Pixel 6 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 94% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy S22+ audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Energy Management – Pixel 6 Pro with over 5,000 mAh

Power Consumption

In our tests, the Google Pixel 6 Pro’s power consumption turned out to be inconspicuous and fairly low overall.

Its 5,003 mAh battery supports wired charging with up to 30 W, with the optional 29 W power supply available from Google. Third-party power supplies will need to support USB-PD 3.0 in order to allow for fast charging.

Alternatively, the Pixel 6 Pro can also be charged wirelessly. The optional Google Pixel Stand 2 charges with up to 23 W. Other Qi-certified EPP power supplies are limited to just 12 W. The devices supports reverse wireless charging.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.11 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.7 / 1 / 1.04 Watt
Load midlight 6.87 / 9.87 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        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.
Google Pixel 6 Pro
5003 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S22+
4500 mAh
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
3095 mAh
Oppo Find X5 Pro
5000 mAh
Average Google Tensor
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
-10%
6%
-15%
3%
-24%
Idle Minimum *
0.7
0.71
-1%
0.94
-34%
0.51
27%
1.24
-77%
0.69 ?(0.68 - 0.7, n=2)
1%
0.913 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=194, last 2 years)
-30%
Idle Average *
1
1.1
-10%
1.24
-24%
1.54
-54%
1.39
-39%
1 ?(1 - 1, n=2)
-0%
1.67 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=194, last 2 years)
-67%
Idle Maximum *
1.04
1.19
-14%
1.34
-29%
1.57
-51%
1.42
-37%
1.03 ?(1.02 - 1.04, n=2)
1%
1.897 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=194, last 2 years)
-82%
Load Average *
6.87
7.74
-13%
5.7
17%
3.06
55%
3.58
48%
6.13 ?(5.39 - 6.87, n=2)
11%
4.49 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=194, last 2 years)
35%
Load Maximum *
9.87
9.64
2%
8.12
18%
4.59
53%
6.99
29%
9.44 ?(9 - 9.87, n=2)
4%
7.33 ?(3.56 - 11.9, n=194, last 2 years)
26%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
Google Pixel 6 Pro Google Tensor: Ø5.64 (1.196-10.2)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: Ø5.27 (0.963-10.9)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

0123456789101112Tooltip
Google Pixel 6 Pro Google Tensor; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø10.3 (9.15-12.5)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.58 (7.9-10.8)
Google Pixel 6 Pro Google Tensor; Idle 1min: Ø0.843 (0.767-1.248)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; Idle 1min: Ø0.933 (0.856-1.058)

Battery Life

Despite its large battery the Pixel 6 Pro performed almost identical to the Pixel 6 with its much smaller 4,614 mAh battery in our tests. Further improvements would have been possible, for example by supported a more modern and flexible adaptive display refresh rate.

All things considered the device should easily make it through a long day.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 99)
11h 07min
Google Pixel 6 Pro
5003 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
Apple iPhone 13 Pro
3095 mAh
Oppo Find X5 Pro
5000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-11%
15%
49%
18%
Reader / Idle
1430
2036
2614
1269
WiFi v1.3
667
594
-11%
766
15%
993
49%
788
18%
Load
388
337
333
367
H.264
934
788
1493
1142

Pros

+ bright and color-accurate 120 Hz OLED
+ fast SoC
+ IP68 certification
+ powerful triple-camera
+ long update cycle

Cons

- no storage expansion
- adaptive refresh rate only between 60 and 120 Hz
- poor voice quality in speakerphone
- no display output via USB

Verdict – Powerful Device

In review: Google Pixel 6 Pro. Review unit provided by Cyberport
In review: Google Pixel 6 Pro. Review unit provided by Cyberport

The Google Pixel 6 Pro improves upon the more affordable Pixel 6 in several ways. Its rounded display means it is more comfortable to hold in hand, and you can barely notice its increased size. The higher refresh rate of 120 Hz means it looks and feels smoother. The improved camera array comes with not only a telephoto lens at the rear but also a higher resolution front-facing camera.

Wireless and reverse wireless charging, IP68 certification against ingress of dust and water, fast Wi-Fi, and modern 5G connectivity complete the package, and even the most spacious SKU comes with an MSRP of only slightly over $1,000.

The Google Pixel 6 Pro is a powerful high-end smartphone with pure Android and a good triple-camera array.

Compared to its more expensive competitors, the Google Pixel 6 Pro does suffer from a few shortcomings. For example, its USB 3.2 port does not carry a display output signal, and its adaptive display only supports either 60 or 120 Hz. Battery life would have most certainly benefitted from a more flexible approach. Its Wi-Fi 6E support turned out to be very flaky and unreliable in our tests. The Pixel 6 Pro’s update cycle is very long but we have experienced issues with update distribution and delays in the past. Having said that the most current April update came in time and did not cause any issues.

If you want a long update cycle you can also take a closer look at Samsung’s Galaxy S22-series of smartphones that promises an additional feature update over Google’s Pixel 6-series. Other powerful Android smartphones include the Xiaomi 12 Pro and Find X5 Pro, although these come at a higher price and are not available in every market.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and Availability

The Pixel 6 Pro can be purchased directly through Google as well as the usual retail channels, such as Amazon.

Google Pixel 6 Pro - 04/12/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
91%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
68 / 70 → 97%
Weight
88%
Battery
89%
Display
92%
Games Performance
62 / 64 → 96%
Application Performance
81 / 86 → 94%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
76 / 90 → 84%
Camera
81%
Average
83%
89%
Smartphone - Weighted Average