Is Vivo cheating in benchmarks?
In the past, there have been repeated instances where manufacturers have deliberately used different performance profiles for benchmarks in order to achieve better results. This can result in thermal limits being exceeded or higher performance limits being set for the hardware. The most recent example of this is certainly the RedMagic 11 Pro (as we reported), but similar cases have also been documented in the past with Oppo, Huawei, and Samsung.
The Vivo X Fold6 is powered by a high-performance SoC, the MediaTek Dimensity 9500, which is paired with 12 GB of LPDDR5x RAM. The chipset is among the fastest in this segment, and its performance should be beyond reproach; however, high performance also generates a lot of heat, which must be properly dissipated to prevent a drop in performance.
During our testing of the X Fold6, we initially noticed that the 3DMark stress tests were being aborted after just a few runs. We initially attributed this to thermal issues, but UL suggested that it could also be an early indication that the app was being recognized as a benchmark. UL then provided us with a “disguised” 3DMark app, and sure enough, all the stress tests ran without a hitch.
Next, we looked at the other 3DMark benchmark scores. In our tests, the results from the Play Store version were consistently more than 30% higher than those from the disguised app. For example, the Play Store version scored 2,962 points on the Steel Nomad test, while the other version scored only 1,981 points. In this case, the official version is 49.5% faster - a huge difference. The situation is similar in the Solar Bay Extreme test: 1,363 vs. 883 points, with the Play Store version being a whopping 54.4% faster. These are very strong indications that Vivo is performing benchmark-specific optimization, which is prohibited according to UL.
Despite all this, the Vivo X Fold6 remains a great foldable, but we nevertheless had to lower our rating.
Source
Add as a preferred source on Google
