Notebookcheck

LG Wing Smartphone Review - An ingenious dual-screen concept?

One of the most unusual smartphones in 2020! With the Wing model, LG takes a completely new look at smartphone operation. Instead of using a foldable OLED panel, the Korean manufacturer implements a second display below the main screen. Does this make sense, and is it a more robust alternative to a foldable smartphone such as the Galaxy Z Fold 2?
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Mark Riege), 🇩🇪 🇮🇹 ...
LG Wing smartphone

With the LG Wing, the Korean manufacturer introduces a new format into the smartphone segment. In contrast to flip phones or foldable smartphones such as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2 or Microsoft Surface Duo, the LG Wing allows you to miraculously produce a secondary 3.9-inch G-OLED display below the 6.8-inch P-OLED main screen. This is supposed to make the LG Wing suitable for optimal multitasking operation.  

In this country (Germany), only a single version of the heavy 262 gram (~9.2 oz) dual-screen smartphone that includes 8 GB of RAM and 128 GB of expandable storage is available at a suggested retail price of 1099 Euros (~$1334; $999 in the US).

LG Wing
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G 8 x 1.8 - 2.4 GHz, Kryo 475 Gold / Silver
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.80 inch 20.5:9, 2460 x 1080 pixel 395 PPI, capacitive touchscreen , P-OLED, rotating sub-display: 3.9", 1240x1080, OLED, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB Type-C, Card Reader: microSD up to 2 TB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C-OTG, Miracast, FM radio
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 5G: 700(n28)/850(n5)/1800(n3)/2100(n1)/2600(n7)/2600(n41)/3500(n78), LTE (4G): 2600, 2100, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1500, 900, 850, 800, 700 TDD LTE: 2600, 2500, 2300, 1900,, UMTS (3G): 850 900 1900 2100, GSM (2G) , Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 10.9 x 169.5 x 74.5 ( = 0.43 x 6.67 x 2.93 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix (/1.8, 25mm, 1/1.72", 0.8µm) + 13 MP (f/1.9, 117˚, 1.0µm) + 12 MP (f/2.2, 120˚, 1.4µm)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/1.9, 26mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm, pop-up)
Additional features
Speakers: mono, Keyboard: virtual, USB Type-C cable, case, charger, LG UI, 24 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR: 0.357W/​kg head, 1.304W/​kg body, fanless
Weight
260 g ( = 9.17 oz / 0.57 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
1099 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible Competitors in Our Comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
82 %
01/2021
LG Wing
SD 765G, Adreno 620
260 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.80"2460x1080
82 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
SD 855+, Adreno 640
183 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.70"2636x1080
87 %
10/2020
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
SD 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650
279 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash7.60"2208x1768
88 %
12/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
SD 865, Adreno 650
223 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.67"2340x1080
88 %
04/2020
OnePlus 8 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
199 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.78"3168x1440
85 %
07/2020
LG Velvet
SD 765G, Adreno 620
180 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.80"2460x1080

Case - LG smartphone without a notch

LG Wing in the "Illusion Sky" color option
LG Wing in the "Illusion Sky" color option

In the LG Wing, there is neither a notch nor a punch hole marring the view of the display, but instead a pop-up selfie cam slides up automatically on top of the case. However, the bezels around the 6.8-inch OLED panel still turned out slightly too large for this price class, resulting in a display-to-surface ratio of "only" 87%. 

By sliding the main display to the side, a second, square OLED panel will appear underneath. After that, users of the dual-display smartphone will see a T-shaped display configuration. Of course, you can also use the LG Wing in portrait format with the secondary display positioned on the side. 

The workmanship of the case is at a very attractive level and the gap clearances are even. However, in its opened state, the main display of our test unit can be wiggled slightly, but this might be normal considering the movable parts. According to LG, the rotating hinge, which is equipped with a sturdy, double guiding structure, is supposed to be very robust and able to withstand more than 200000 rotating movements.  

The case of the LG Wing is IP54 certified and also passed the nine tests of the MIL-STD 810G military standard, which is supposed to protect the dual-display smartphone against drops and extreme temperature changes. In addition, according to LG it also implemented a dust protection technology that is supposed to prevent the secondary display from getting scratched by the rotating movements.

LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone

Size Comparison

169.5 mm / 6.67 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 10.9 mm / 0.4291 inch 260 g0.573 lbs167.08 mm / 6.58 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 7.85 mm / 0.3091 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs167.3 mm / 6.59 inch 73.6 mm / 2.9 inch 7.2 mm / 0.2835 inch 183 g0.4034 lbs165.3 mm / 6.51 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 199 g0.4387 lbs162.38 mm / 6.39 inch 75.04 mm / 2.95 inch 9.45 mm / 0.372 inch 223 g0.4916 lbs159.2 mm / 6.27 inch 128.2 mm / 5.05 inch 6.9 mm / 0.2717 inch 279 g0.615 lbs

Equipment - LG smartphone storage can be expanded by 2 TB

The LG smartphone is charged using a USB Type-C connection at the bottom of the case, which only supports the USB-2.0 standard 2.0 and recognizes peripheral devices via OTG adapter. In the state of delivery, only 95 GB of the 128 GB internal UFS storage are still available to the user. However, the storage can be expanded by up to 2 TB (theoretically) using the microSD slot, but at this point microSD cards are only available up to 1 TB.

Video contents from streaming services can be viewed in HD quality on the LG Wing, since the Widevine DRM Level is specified as L1. 

Software - LG Wing with Android 10

Google's Android version 10 is preinstalled on the LG Wing and expanded by the manufacturer's own user interface. According to some reports, Android 11 is supposed to come later. At the time of our testing, the security updates are on the level of September 2020.

There are two main usage scenarios to use the second display in sensible ways. Either you can move the navigation elements of an app to the additional 3.9-inch display, such as with YouTube, for example, or you can look at two different apps in parallel. You can easily create the corresponding app groups. This will allow for some very comfortable multitasking with the LG Wing, such as chatting and watching videos, or some navigation and controlling music in parallel.  

Some third-party apps are preinstalled on the LG Wing, among them also some games that cannot be uninstalled.

LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone

Communication and GPS - LG smartphone with WiFi 5

In terms of the communication modules, as in the Velvet before, LG uses a Qualcomm SDX52 modem supporting the new 5G standard, as well as Bluetooth version 5.1. There is also an NFC chip for near-field communication including Google Pay onboard. As for LTE, the LG Wing covers all the frequencies relevant for Germany, including the LTE band 28.

Within the WLAN network at home, the LG smartphone delivers satisfactory and also relatively constant transfer rates with WiFi 5 and multi-user MIMO. In combination with our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router, the dual-display smartphone achieves maximum values of about 650 Mbit/s, which is not very high for a smartphone of this price class, though.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
896 (454min - 921max) MBit/s ∼100% +59%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
831 (745min - 872max) MBit/s ∼93% +48%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865+ (Plus), 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
766 (468min - 808max) MBit/s ∼85% +36%
LG Velvet
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
683 (656min - 691max) MBit/s ∼76% +21%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
605 (299min - 640max) MBit/s ∼68% +7%
LG Wing
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
563 (517min - 610max) MBit/s ∼63%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=664)
295 MBit/s ∼33% -48%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
OnePlus 8 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
876 (767min - 904max) MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865+ (Plus), 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
671 (626min - 693max) MBit/s ∼77% +3%
LG Wing
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 (499min - 678max) MBit/s ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
650 (568min - 698max) MBit/s ∼74% 0%
LG Velvet
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
618 (310min - 644max) MBit/s ∼71% -5%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
474 (405min - 541max) MBit/s ∼54% -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=664)
281 MBit/s ∼32% -57%
03570105140175210245280315350385420455490525560595630665561595590585545541558576557549551530525543547544517543532582562581579572575574577610592590561595590585545541558576557549551530525543547544517543532582562581579572575574577610592590610664667670670668614674672663612522499658678669666669665664667668669664664668666653673676Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø563 (517-610)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø651 (499-678)
Locating indoors
Locating indoors
Locating outdoors
Locating outdoors

In order to evaluate the locating accuracy our test unit in practice, we record a route in parallel with the Garmin Edge 520 bicycle computer for comparison. The measured discrepancies of the GPS module are very low at about 10 meters (~33 ft). The locating via the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, SBAS and BeiDou satellite systems also occurs fast and with an accuracy of 3 meters (~10 ft).

GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality - LG Wing with VoLTE

LG Wing smartphone

The dual-SIM smartphone supports VoLTE and calls using the WLAN at home are also allowed (WiFi calling).

The voice quality is inconspicuous in the LG Wing. Video calls via Skype using the built-in pop-up camera also work without any problems during our test. The voice quality using the built-in speaker is good, and the built-in microphone also conveys our voices easily understandable to our conversation partners.

Cameras - LG smartphone with triple-camera system

Selfie taken with the LG Wing
Selfie taken with the LG Wing

While the 32-MP pop-up camera delivers solid results, the LG Wing already starts to blur selfies in indoor light conditions, and some details are lost in slight blurriness. 

The LG Wing presents a triple-camera setup in the back, which offers a "Gimbal" mode as a special feature, without having a gimbal camera system such as the Vivo X50 Pro, for example.

The Korean manufacturer does not reveal any technical details, but the special 12-MP gimbal motion camera is supposed to enable particularly stabilized 1080p video recordings via dual-compass, dual-acceleration, and dual-gyroscope sensors. The main display does not have to be moved, since the secondary display functions as the control element here. In the test, recordings in the Gimbal mode convince with good stabilization. However, the camera needs a lot of light to produce acceptable videos.  

The 64-MP main sensor also records the objects fairly dark and the dynamic could also turn out better. On the other had, the color reproduction and amount of detail in the photos are at a good level, while the sharpness is unable to keep up with the best camera smartphones on the market. The same goes for the wide-angle camera that reproduces attractive colors. You have to make some compromises in terms of the brightness, dynamic, and basic sharpness. 

The LG Wing records videos at most in UHD quality at up to 60 fps. It is possible to change between the camera lenses during the recording.  

Wide-angle
Wide-angle
Main camera
Main camera
10x zoom (max)
10x zoom (max)
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone

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.

HautpkameraHautpkameraLow LightWeitwinkel
click to load images
ColorChecker
12.6 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
12.5 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
13.7 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
9 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
14.9 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
ColorChecker LG Wing: 8.96 ∆E min: 3.91 - max: 14.93 ∆E
ColorChecker
14.9 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
15.3 ∆E
16.9 ∆E
16.4 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
13.7 ∆E
14.9 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
14.4 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
10 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
ColorChecker LG Wing: 10.86 ∆E min: 2.77 - max: 16.9 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - LG smartphone with a case

The box of the LG Wing includes a modular 25-Watt charger, a USB cable, and a protective case. 

The warranty is 24 months starting from the date of purchase.

Input Devices and Operation - LG Wing with an in-display fingerprint sensor

Inputs on the 6.8-inch display are registered accurately and quickly up to the corners of the the touchscreen. The LG Wing possesses a relatively reliable fingerprint sensor, which is placed below the OLED panel. However, the speed is not very high. There is no biometric identification via face recognition. 

LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone
LG Wing smartphone

Display - LG Wing with P-OLED

Subpixel grid display
Subpixel grid display

The P-OLED FullVision display offers a refresh rate of 60 Hz and resolution of 2460 x 1080 pixels, achieving a pixel density of about 400 ppi. The maximum brightness is very good, but could have been even higher considering the price point of the dual-screen smartphone. 

In automatic mode with the brightness sensor activated, we measure a maximum of 681 cd/m² with a pure white background. In the more realistic APL50 measurement, which simulates an even distribution of bright and dark areas on the panel, the brightness is also very good at 865 cd/m². 

The 3.9-inch G-OLED secondary display is visibly less bright, and we measure a brightness of 508 cd/m². As typical for OLED screens, LG uses PWM for brightness control, and the frequency in the Wing model is quite low at 200 Hz.  

672
cd/m²
668
cd/m²
695
cd/m²
672
cd/m²
677
cd/m²
696
cd/m²
682
cd/m²
678
cd/m²
685
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 696 cd/m² Average: 680.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.8 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 677 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.03 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
94.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.014
LG Wing
P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.80
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Dynamic AMOLED, 2636x1080, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
AMOLED, 2208x1768, 7.60
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.67
OnePlus 8 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78
LG Velvet
P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.80
Screen
10%
16%
40%
42%
7%
Brightness middle
677
705
4%
637
-6%
779
15%
796
18%
586
-13%
Brightness
681
709
4%
635
-7%
779
14%
779
14%
587
-14%
Brightness Distribution
96
97
1%
96
0%
96
0%
94
-2%
97
1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.03
3.1
23%
2.25
44%
0.8
80%
0.68
83%
2.8
31%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.52
5.4
37%
4.12
52%
1.4
84%
1.55
82%
6.3
26%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.5
2.7
-8%
2.2
12%
1.4
44%
1.1
56%
2.3
8%
Gamma
2.014 109%
2.11 104%
2.17 101%
2.25 98%
2.237 98%
2.01 109%
CCT
6814 95%
6264 104%
6689 97%
6250 104%
6310 103%
6827 95%

* ... 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 200 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 200 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 200 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9686 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

In addition to a pronounced contrast, the LG Wing offers a good color space coverage and attractive calibration. The analysis of the photo spectrometer and CalMAN software results in slightly high, but still satisfactory Delta-E deviations of 4 (colors) and 2.5 (Grayscale) on average compared to the sRGB color space (Profile: Natural). 

CalMan Color Accuracy (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Accuracy (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: AdobeRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: AdobeRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: P3, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: P3, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Color Space (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Grayscale (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Grayscale (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Saturation (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)
CalMan Saturation (Target Color Space: sRGB, Profile: Natural)

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 5 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.5 ms).

Due to the high brightness and very good contrast, the main display of the LG Wing can be used without any problems outdoors, but you have to make some smaller compromises in the secondary display.

The viewing angle stability of the OLED panel is at an attractive level. 

LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing
LG Wing

Performance - LG smartphone with a Snapdragon 765G

Despite the suggested retail price of more than 1000 Euros (~$1214), the LG Wing is equipped with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G. The chipset of the US manufacturer integrates a fast Prime core with a top clock speed of 2.4 GHz and a Gold core at 2.2 GHz. Both those cores are Cortex-A76 cores, while the six remaining Cortex-A55 cores have a clock speed of 1.8 GHz. The Adreno 620 integrated into the Snapdragon 765G forms the graphics subsystem.

In everyday operation, the midrange processor and built-in 8 GB of RAM ensure a convincing system performance. Due to the UFS storage, the load times of apps are short and animations are fairly smooth. However, the Wing still shows some small performance drops from time to time, so that even a change of the start screen will produce a short stutter.  

In our benchmark measurements, the LG Wing achieves very similar values to the LG Velvet, which is also based on the Snapdragon 765G. Considering the price class, the performance capabilities of the LG Wing turn out low.

Geekbench 5.3
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1283 Points ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
3533 Points ∼100% +175%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3199 Points ∼91% +149%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1242 Points ∼35% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1242 - 1302, n=9)
1269 Points ∼36% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=78)
2011 Points ∼57% +57%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
168 Points ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
3545 Points ∼100% +2010%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3011 Points ∼85% +1692%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1187 Points ∼33% +607%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (168 - 1278, n=11)
1050 Points ∼30% +525%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=80)
1781 Points ∼50% +960%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1926 Points ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2665 Points ∼79% +38%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
3012 Points ∼90% +56%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3356 Points ∼100% +74%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3318 Points ∼99% +72%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1797 Points ∼54% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1520 - 1966, n=16)
1779 Points ∼53% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=185)
1931 Points ∼58% 0%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
626 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
738 Points ∼75% +18%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
983 Points ∼100% +57%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
911 Points ∼93% +46%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
909 Points ∼92% +45%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
554 Points ∼56% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (554 - 673, n=16)
602 Points ∼61% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (63 - 1604, n=185)
557 Points ∼57% -11%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
7793 Points ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10261 Points ∼81% +32%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
12457 Points ∼99% +60%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12596 Points ∼100% +62%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11153 Points ∼89% +43%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
7808 Points ∼62% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (7245 - 9989, n=16)
8215 Points ∼65% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=583)
6149 Points ∼49% -21%
Work performance score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
9738 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12665 Points ∼84% +30%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
14606 Points ∼97% +50%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
14989 Points ∼100% +54%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13471 Points ∼90% +38%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
9154 Points ∼61% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8687 - 10876, n=15)
9647 Points ∼64% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=731)
6786 Points ∼45% -30%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2887 Points ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3259 Points ∼84% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
3386 Points ∼87% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
2562 Points ∼66% -11%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3888 Points ∼100% +35%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2145 Points ∼55% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2145 - 2979, n=16)
2737 Points ∼70% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=226)
2632 Points ∼68% -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3109 Points ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4250 Points ∼51% +37%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
7613 Points ∼92% +145%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8262 Points ∼100% +166%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8279 Points ∼100% +166%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3193 Points ∼39% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2145 - 3198, n=16)
3045 Points ∼37% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 11259, n=226)
2999 Points ∼36% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3091 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3981 Points ∼60% +29%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
5960 Points ∼90% +93%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5434 Points ∼82% +76%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6618 Points ∼100% +114%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2877 Points ∼43% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2287 - 3130, n=16)
2959 Points ∼45% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=226)
2642 Points ∼40% -15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3482 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4348 Points ∼79% +25%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4536 Points ∼82% +30%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5012 Points ∼91% +44%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5506 Points ∼100% +58%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1898 Points ∼34% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1898 - 3765, n=16)
3277 Points ∼60% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=589)
2309 Points ∼42% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3543 Points ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5424 Points ∼54% +53%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
10043 Points ∼100% +183%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9302 Points ∼93% +163%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9379 Points ∼93% +165%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3547 Points ∼35% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2814 - 3592, n=16)
3461 Points ∼34% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=589)
2342 Points ∼23% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3601 Points ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5141 Points ∼63% +43%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
7909 Points ∼98% +120%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7817 Points ∼96% +117%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8111 Points ∼100% +125%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2934 Points ∼36% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2934 - 3605, n=16)
3405 Points ∼42% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=590)
2154 Points ∼27% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3459 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4344 Points ∼79% +26%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4642 Points ∼85% +34%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4642 Points ∼85% +34%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5384 Points ∼98% +56%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5480 Points ∼100% +58%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1790 Points ∼33% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1790 - 3651, n=16)
3264 Points ∼60% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=616)
2213 Points ∼40% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5302 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7751 Points ∼61% +46%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
11617 Points ∼91% +119%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
11617 Points ∼91% +119%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12779 Points ∼100% +141%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12665 Points ∼99% +139%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5437 Points ∼43% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (4036 - 5437, n=16)
5168 Points ∼40% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 22052, n=618)
3161 Points ∼25% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4791 Points ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6601 Points ∼67% +38%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
8709 Points ∼89% +82%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
8709 Points ∼89% +82%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9760 Points ∼100% +104%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9807 Points ∼100% +105%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3678 Points ∼38% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3678 - 4893, n=16)
4548 Points ∼46% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=618)
2597 Points ∼26% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3345 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4201 Points ∼84% +26%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4266 Points ∼86% +28%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4987 Points ∼100% +49%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4987 Points ∼100% +49%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3312 Points ∼66% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2964 - 3556, n=16)
3330 Points ∼67% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=665)
2167 Points ∼43% -35%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3254 Points ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6314 Points ∼70% +94%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
9008 Points ∼100% +177%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8237 Points ∼91% +153%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8106 Points ∼90% +149%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3289 Points ∼37% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2048 - 3342, n=16)
3128 Points ∼35% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=665)
1910 Points ∼21% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3283 Points ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5679 Points ∼79% +73%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
7224 Points ∼100% +120%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7182 Points ∼99% +119%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7117 Points ∼99% +117%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3278 Points ∼45% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2261 - 3346, n=16)
3153 Points ∼44% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=666)
1811 Points ∼25% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3398 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4133 Points ∼82% +22%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4369 Points ∼87% +29%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
4369 Points ∼87% +29%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5021 Points ∼100% +48%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4928 Points ∼98% +45%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1689 Points ∼34% -50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1689 - 3529, n=16)
3229 Points ∼64% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5301, n=708)
2044 Points ∼41% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5192 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9480 Points ∼76% +83%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
11107 Points ∼89% +114%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
11107 Points ∼89% +114%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12473 Points ∼100% +140%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11371 Points ∼91% +119%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5005 Points ∼40% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2844 - 5832, n=16)
4866 Points ∼39% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=707)
2563 Points ∼21% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4603 Points ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7363 Points ∼78% +60%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
8272 Points ∼88% +80%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
8272 Points ∼88% +80%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9387 Points ∼100% +104%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8811 Points ∼94% +91%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3576 Points ∼38% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2972 - 4693, n=16)
4300 Points ∼46% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=710)
2186 Points ∼23% -53%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
19273 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
42240 Points ∼92% +119%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
45923 Points ∼100% +138%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
45863 Points ∼100% +138%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
32240 Points ∼70% +67%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
18769 Points ∼41% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (14891 - 28331, n=16)
20508 Points ∼45% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=852)
16095 Points ∼35% -16%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
69202 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
108418 Points ∼72% +57%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
128372 Points ∼85% +86%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
151466 Points ∼100% +119%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
149017 Points ∼98% +115%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
68764 Points ∼45% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (56690 - 69645, n=16)
67370 Points ∼44% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 224130, n=850)
29331 Points ∼19% -58%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
43987 Points ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
80419 Points ∼80% +83%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
91762 Points ∼92% +109%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
100182 Points ∼100% +128%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
82562 Points ∼82% +88%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
43325 Points ∼43% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (38137 - 48201, n=16)
44183 Points ∼44% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=850)
22459 Points ∼22% -49%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
96 fps ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
166 fps ∼81% +73%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
171 fps ∼83% +78%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
205 fps ∼100% +114%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
206 fps ∼100% +115%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
96 fps ∼47% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (48 - 97, n=14)
88.1 fps ∼43% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=845)
49.5 fps ∼24% -48%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
60 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
114 fps ∼96% +90%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
119 fps ∼100% +98%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼50% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (43 - 86, n=14)
62.7 fps ∼53% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 142, n=854)
33 fps ∼28% -45%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
54 fps ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
73 fps ∼58% +35%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
110 fps ∼87% +104%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
125 fps ∼99% +131%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
126 fps ∼100% +133%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
55 fps ∼44% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (31 - 56, n=14)
50.8 fps ∼40% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 180, n=750)
29.6 fps ∼23% -45%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
45 fps ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
56 fps ∼51% +24%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
75 fps ∼69% +67%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
109 fps ∼100% +142%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼55% +33%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
47 fps ∼43% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (30 - 55, n=14)
46.1 fps ∼42% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 119, n=758)
24.3 fps ∼22% -46%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
37 fps ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
51 fps ∼58% +38%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
75 fps ∼85% +103%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼98% +132%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼100% +138%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
37 fps ∼42% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (22 - 38, n=14)
35.1 fps ∼40% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=613)
23.5 fps ∼27% -36%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
31 fps ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼53% +32%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼59% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
78 fps ∼100% +152%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼77% +94%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
32 fps ∼41% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (21 - 34, n=14)
31.1 fps ∼40% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=615)
21.1 fps ∼27% -32%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
12 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
34 fps ∼100% +183%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
23 fps ∼68% +92%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
31 fps ∼91% +158%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
31 fps ∼91% +158%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
12 fps ∼35% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8.8 - 13, n=16)
12.1 fps ∼36% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=382)
12 fps ∼35% 0%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8.5 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
39 fps ∼100% +359%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
22 fps ∼56% +159%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
21 fps ∼54% +147%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼51% +135%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
8.5 fps ∼22% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (5.3 - 13, n=16)
8.38 fps ∼21% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=380)
8.32 fps ∼21% -2%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
23 fps ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
23 fps ∼48% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
34 fps ∼71% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
47 fps ∼98% +104%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
48 fps ∼100% +109%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
20 fps ∼42% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (13 - 23, n=16)
20.1 fps ∼42% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 64, n=386)
17.9 fps ∼37% -22%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
12 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
16 fps ∼29% +33%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼84% +283%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
55 fps ∼100% +358%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼98% +350%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
23 fps ∼42% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (12 - 24, n=16)
21.5 fps ∼39% +79%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=386)
20.4 fps ∼37% +70%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
21 fps ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
31 fps ∼60% +48%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼88% +119%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
52 fps ∼100% +148%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼98% +143%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
21 fps ∼40% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (12 - 21, n=14)
19.6 fps ∼38% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 75, n=538)
15.7 fps ∼30% -25%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
17 fps ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
25 fps ∼54% +47%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
29 fps ∼63% +71%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
46 fps ∼100% +171%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼98% +165%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
18 fps ∼39% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (11 - 19, n=14)
17.5 fps ∼38% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=542)
13.8 fps ∼30% -19%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
314771 Points ∼53%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
463291 Points ∼79% +47%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
589249 Points ∼100% +87%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
577725 Points ∼98% +84%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
585231 Points ∼99% +86%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
308878 Points ∼52% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (285731 - 332074, n=13)
311264 Points ∼53% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (16982 - 700592, n=162)
327127 Points ∼56% +4%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1425 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1446 Points ∼67% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
1331 Points ∼61% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
2169 Points ∼100% +52%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1496 Points ∼69% +5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1226 Points ∼57% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1139 - 1462, n=13)
1365 Points ∼63% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 2169, n=775)
849 Points ∼39% -40%
Graphics (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4672 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9334 Points ∼78% +100%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
11992 Points ∼100% +157%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11765 Points ∼98% +152%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11842 Points ∼99% +153%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5153 Points ∼43% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2525 - 5247, n=13)
4696 Points ∼39% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=775)
2672 Points ∼22% -43%
Memory (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4938 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5434 Points ∼75% +10%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
6141 Points ∼85% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6894 Points ∼95% +40%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7240 Points ∼100% +47%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
4556 Points ∼63% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (4556 - 5683, n=13)
5099 Points ∼70% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=775)
2013 Points ∼28% -59%
System (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
6794 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8507 Points ∼85% +25%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
9196 Points ∼91% +35%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9545 Points ∼95% +40%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10058 Points ∼100% +48%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
6430 Points ∼64% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (5411 - 6936, n=13)
6485 Points ∼64% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 49782, n=775)
3694 Points ∼37% -46%
Overall (sort by value)
LG Wing
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3847 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4998 Points ∼78% +30%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ (Plus), Adreno 650, 12288
5480 Points ∼86% +42%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6402 Points ∼100% +66%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5993 Points ∼94% +56%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3674 Points ∼57% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3237 - 4094, n=13)
3797 Points ∼59% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6402, n=775)
1873 Points ∼29% -51%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (Chrome 85)
75.493 Points ∼100% +34%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
63.374 Points ∼84% +12%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
63.087 Points ∼84% +12%
LG Wing (Chrome 87)
56.403 Points ∼75%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
50.998 Points ∼68% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (15.8 - 60.5, n=12)
47.7 Points ∼63% -15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra (Mi Browser V12)
47.128 Points ∼62% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=237)
43.2 Points ∼57% -23%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra (Mi Browser V12)
117 Points ∼100% +46%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (Chrome 85)
114 Points ∼97% +43%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
104 Points ∼89% +30%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
98 Points ∼84% +23%
LG Wing (Chrome 87)
80 Points ∼68%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
76 Points ∼65% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=307)
71.2 Points ∼61% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=12)
71 Points ∼61% -11%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (Chrome 85)
26906 Points ∼100% +42%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra (Mi Browser V12)
23849 Points ∼89% +26%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
23781 Points ∼88% +26%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
23678 Points ∼88% +25%
LG Wing (Chrome 87)
18924 Points ∼70%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
18546 Points ∼69% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=13)
16767 Points ∼62% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=840)
8529 Points ∼32% -55%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=866)
9416 ms * ∼100% -253%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2359 - 15230, n=13)
3781 ms * ∼40% -42%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
2665.8 ms * ∼28% -0%
LG Wing (Chrome 87)
2665.4 ms * ∼28%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra (Mi Browser V12)
2657.4 ms * ∼28% -0%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
2076.8 ms * ∼22% +22%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
1944.7 ms * ∼21% +27%
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (Chrome 85)
1930.7 ms * ∼21% +28%

* ... smaller is better

LG WingSamsung Galaxy Z FlipSamsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5GXiaomi Mi 10 UltraOnePlus 8 ProLG VelvetAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
36%
64%
59%
53%
-5%
-17%
-50%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
66.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.29 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-9%
60.2 (8.4 - 72.4, n=42)
-9%
51.8 (1.7 - 87.1, n=576)
-22%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-11%
76.4 (13.4 - 88.3, n=42)
-12%
69.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=576)
-20%
Random Write 4KB
135.03
212.87
58%
220.6
63%
219.47
63%
197.7
46%
135.87
1%
115 (18.2 - 290, n=74)
-15%
42 (0.14 - 319, n=953)
-69%
Random Read 4KB
146.32
184.51
26%
232.1
59%
209.92
43%
208.3
42%
154.28
5%
144 (92.6 - 239, n=74)
-2%
64.7 (1.59 - 325, n=953)
-56%
Sequential Write 256KB
472.34
523.39
11%
756.6
60%
739.74
57%
730.4
55%
409.21
-13%
250 (182 - 511, n=74)
-47%
144 (2.99 - 1321, n=953)
-70%
Sequential Read 256KB
961.23
1442.56
50%
1681
75%
1674.23
74%
1627.3
69%
924.54
-4%
779 (427 - 999, n=74)
-19%
370 (12.1 - 2037, n=953)
-62%

Games - LG Wing with an Adreno GPU

The graphics power of the Adreno 620 is sufficient even for demanding 3D games from the Android Play Store. "PUBG Mobile" and "Asphalt 9" are reproduced mostly smoothly at high details, but there are still some visible drops in the frame rate from time to time.

Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

Emissions - LG smartphone with low heat development

Temperature

While the heat development of the case is uneven, it is not very pronounced and unproblematic in everyday operation.

Max. Load
 37 °C
99 F
36.3 °C
97 F
34.8 °C
95 F
 
 37.1 °C
99 F
36 °C
97 F
35.6 °C
96 F
 
 37.5 °C
100 F
36.4 °C
98 F
35.4 °C
96 F
 
Maximum: 37.5 °C = 100 F
Average: 36.2 °C = 97 F
36.1 °C
97 F
38.5 °C
101 F
38.2 °C
101 F
34.9 °C
95 F
38.1 °C
101 F
38.8 °C
102 F
34.5 °C
94 F
38.2 °C
101 F
39.4 °C
103 F
Maximum: 39.4 °C = 103 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
Power Supply (max.)  35 °C = 95 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.5 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.4 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.9 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
LG Wing
LG Wing

Speaker

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The LG Wing has only a single speaker, which is rare at this point in this price class. With a maximum volume of 81 dB, the speaker is not very loud, but our measurements show a fairly linear frequency reproduction for the mids in the dual-screen smartphone, and there is also only a slight drop in the high frequencies. Bass is not present in the sound spectrum. 

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.9422539.334.53131.126.44033.530.95034.5346325.425.78019.221.910018.528.312516.833.916014.93920011.639.725010.944.431511.650.940010.757.150010.760.363010.260.780017.765.5100015.268.7125010.767.616009.571200010.472.7250010.672.6315010.970.1400012.269500012.671630013.270.3800013.866.61000014.567.41250015.459.31600016.157.2SPL66.75966.424.981.6N19.91220.40.649.3median 12.2median 65.5Delta2.3103839.728.925.423.82825.330.33928.123.433.819.333.316.136.210.536.415.344.31546.29.653.212.460.410.164.711.467.41168.614.572.910.974.613.57810.88011.480.71282.712.582.91378.413.176.513.674.113.476.513.575.613.973.414.765.724.890.80.681.4median 13median 73.41.69.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseLG WingXiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
LG Wing audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life - LG Wing with a good battery life

Power Consumption

The battery of the LG Wing offers a 4000-mAh capacity and can be recharged within 2 hours via Quick Charge 4.0+ using the included 25-Watt charger. The smartphone can also be charged wirelessly at up to 12 watts.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.1 / 1.5 / 2.1 Watt
Load midlight 6.3 / 10.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
LG Wing
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
4500 mAh
OnePlus 8 Pro
4510 mAh
LG Velvet
4300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
36%
-15%
14%
-54%
31%
13%
16%
Idle Minimum *
1.1
0.59
46%
1
9%
0.82
25%
2.2
-100%
0.66
40%
0.965 (0.66 - 1.8, n=15)
12%
0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=939)
19%
Idle Average *
1.5
0.88
41%
2.1
-40%
1.67
-11%
3.3
-120%
1.58
-5%
1.899 (0.82 - 2.55, n=15)
-27%
1.758 (0.6 - 6.2, n=938)
-17%
Idle Maximum *
2.1
0.95
55%
2.8
-33%
1.69
20%
3.7
-76%
1.6
24%
2.07 (0.85 - 2.9, n=15)
1%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=939)
3%
Load Average *
6.3
4.97
21%
6.8
-8%
4.33
31%
5.9
6%
3.3
48%
3.98 (2.73 - 6.8, n=15)
37%
4.14 (0.8 - 10.8, n=933)
34%
Load Maximum *
10.3
8.37
19%
10.5
-2%
9.72
6%
8.3
19%
5.46
47%
6.19 (4.4 - 10.3, n=15)
40%
6.16 (1.2 - 14.2, n=933)
40%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In our WLAN test with the display brightness adjusted to 150 cd/m², the battery of the LG Wing lasts for almost 12 hours. If you use the LG smartphone in dual-screen mode, the displays turn off after 571 minutes. 

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 41min
LG Wing
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
4500 mAh
OnePlus 8 Pro
4510 mAh
LG Velvet
4300 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
701
647
-8%
736
5%
729
4%
923
32%
741
6%

Pros

+ bright OLED panel
+ additional second display
+ good locating capabilities
+ good mono speaker ...

Cons

- ... but no stereo
- only 60 Hz
- short battery life in dual-screen mode
- size and weight

Verdict on the LG Wing - The individualist in 2020

Testing the LG Wing. Test unit provided by LG Germany
Testing the LG Wing. Test unit provided by LG Germany

The LG Wing is a midrange smartphone at a price point of a high-end smartphone. For this, the dual-display smartphone offers a very special concept that is unique at this point. Those who have only little use for this should better choose another smartphone. 

If you disregard the hidden secondary display, the LG Wing does not offer any more than an LG Velvet (suggested retail price: 599 Euros, ~$727), which corresponds to the higher midrange. The latter also represents an interesting alternative to the LG Wing, since a Velvet also offers the option of a dual-screen mode in the Galaxy Fold style if you use it with the corresponding case - but at a considerably cheaper purchase price. 

The benefit of LG's dual-screen completely hinges on the software. At this point, only few apps or games are adjusted for the secondary screen, so that at times its additional value can turn out low in your favorite apps. 

Price and Availability

The LG Wing is currently available at a price of about 950 to 1100 Euros (~$1153 - 1335; $999 - $1050 in the US from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile). 

LG Wing - 12/30/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
68 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
92%
Connectivity
52 / 70 → 75%
Weight
87%
Battery
89%
Display
86%
Games Performance
36 / 64 → 57%
Application Performance
73 / 86 → 85%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
70 / 90 → 78%
Camera
71%
Average
77%
82%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 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 > LG Wing Smartphone Review - An ingenious dual-screen concept?
Marcus Herbrich, 2021-01- 3 (Update: 2021-01- 3)
Marcus Herbrich
Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Editor
My great passion has always been mobile technologies, especially smartphones. As a technology enthusiast, the half-life of my devices is not exactly high and the latest hardware is just good enough - manufacturer or operating system plays a minor role, the main thing is state-of-the-art