Notebookcheck

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review - Android One with real dual-SIM and SD card slot

For Android purists. The Nokia 6.2 is a cheap mid-range smartphone from the Android One program with no major weaknesses relative to the affordable starting price. However, there is one Android competitor that makes life hard for the Nokia phone and only really leaves it as an interesting alternative for Android purists.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Marius S.),
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Nokia has unveiled the successor of the Nokia 6.1 at this year's IFA exhibition. At first glance, it is hard to distinguish between the sister model Nokia 7.2, which we have already tested, and the Nokia 6.2. They both share the same weight, dimensions and even the 6.3-inch IPS display with HDR support and waterdrop notch. The Nokia 6.2 is available starting at around 200 Euros (~$223) for the model with 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of storage space or about 230 Euros (~$257) for a configuration with 4 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage space.

Nokia 6.2 (6 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 8 x 1.8 GHz, Kryo 260
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.3 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 48.6 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 512 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: proximity sensor, accelerometer (G-sensor), E-compass, gyroscope, USB Type-C, USB-OTG, status LED, Miracast, FM radio, triple slot
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850, 900, 1800, 1900; WCDMA: 1, 5, 8 | LTE: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 (120 MHz), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.25 x 159.9 x 75.15 ( = 0.32 x 6.3 x 2.96 in)
Battery
3500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix 16 MP (f/1.8, 27 mm, 1.0 µm) + 8 MP (f/2.2, 13 mm) + 5 MP
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0, 1/4", 1.12 µm
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: virtual, Quick start guide, USB Type-C cable, 5V/2A charger, headset, SIM tool, Android One, 24 Months Warranty, Head SAR: 0.976 W/kg, body SAR: 1.42, Widevine L1, fanless
Weight
180 g ( = 6.35 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 62 g ( = 2.19 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
199 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Competing Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
78 %
01/2020
Nokia 6.2
SD 636, Adreno 509
180 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
79 %
11/2019
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
SD 665, Adreno 610
190 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
81 %
11/2019
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4
200 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.53"2340x1080
80 %
04/2019
Samsung Galaxy A50
Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3
166 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
78 %
05/2019
Huawei P30 Lite
Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4
159 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.15"2312x1080
88 %
05/2019
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
SD 712, Adreno 616
155 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash5.97"2340x1080

Case - Nokia Smartphone with Notch

The case of the Nokia 6.2 largely consists of 3rd generation Corning Gorilla Glass. The construction quality of our test sample relative to the price is good. Similarly, the volume rocker and power button have well-defined actuation points. The Nokia 6.2 comes with a dedicated Google Assistant button, which directly invokes the virtual assistant. Additionally, the status LED of the Nokia smartphone resides inside of the power button.

The top and bottom bezels of the IPS panel are fairly large. While more specifically, only 80% of the front is occupied by the display, this is still decent for a budget smartphone.

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Size Comparison

161.35 mm / 6.35 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 8.79 mm / 0.3461 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 75.15 mm / 2.96 inch 8.25 mm / 0.3248 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs158.3 mm / 6.23 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 166 g0.366 lbs152.9 mm / 6.02 inch 72.7 mm / 2.86 inch 7.4 mm / 0.2913 inch 159 g0.3505 lbs147.5 mm / 5.81 inch 70.5 mm / 2.78 inch 7.45 mm / 0.2933 inch 155 g0.3417 lbs

Features - Nokia 6.2 with 3.5-mm Audio Jack

The internal eMMC storage has a capacity of 64 GB, although only 48 GB is available to users ex-factory. Those who need more space can expand the storage with an additional microSD card. However, the file system exFAT is not supported. Additional peripherals such as USB thumb drives can also be connected to the USB Type-C port via an OTG adapter. Data can be transferred over the USB port at 2.0 speeds.

On top of that, Miracast is available for wirelessly sharing screen content. Thanks to the DRM Widevine L1 certification, DRM-protected content can be played at HD resolution.

Software - Nokia Smartphone with Android One

For the operating system, the manufacturer relies on the Android One platform. Thus, the security patches for the Nokia 6.2 will always be up-to-date.

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Communication and GPS - Nokia 6.2 with NFC

The integrated Wi-Fi module supports the IEEE-802.11 standards a/b/g/n/ac for 2.4 and 5 GHz compatibility. While the transfer rates between the Nokia smartphone and our reference router Linksys EA 8500 are below those of the mid-range Redmi phone, they are still good for a 200-Euro (~$223) smartphone.

The dual-SIM smartphone can connect to mobile LTE networks with up to two nanoSIM cards. As per usual in this price category, the number of bands supported by the Nokia 6.2 is low. The mid-range phone can only access 10 LTE bands. However, users will not be limited when it comes to domestic use.

For wirelessly communicating with peripherals, an NFC chip has been integrated as well. Furthermore, the Nokia phone supports Bluetooth version 5.0.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
353 (min: 330, max: 362) MBit/s ∼100% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB eMMC Flash
339 (min: 320, max: 349) MBit/s ∼96% +4%
Nokia 6.2
Adreno 509, SD 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
325 (min: 280, max: 342) MBit/s ∼92%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Adreno 616, SD 712, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
311 (min: 214, max: 346) MBit/s ∼88% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
294 (min: 278, max: 302) MBit/s ∼83% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=562)
267 MBit/s ∼76% -18%
Huawei P30 Lite
Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash
188 (min: 45, max: 237) MBit/s ∼53% -42%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
319 (min: 302, max: 325) MBit/s ∼100% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB eMMC Flash
303 (min: 242, max: 355) MBit/s ∼95% +7%
Nokia 6.2
Adreno 509, SD 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
284 (min: 240, max: 307) MBit/s ∼89%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Adreno 616, SD 712, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
279 (min: 229, max: 303) MBit/s ∼87% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
272 (min: 250, max: 285) MBit/s ∼85% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=562)
253 MBit/s ∼79% -11%
Huawei P30 Lite
Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash
218 (min: 95, max: 239) MBit/s ∼68% -23%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø325 (280-342)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø284 (240-307)
GPS indoors
GPS indoors
GPS outdoors
GPS outdoors

In order to test the real-world locating capabilities of our test device, we record the track with the GPS navigation system Garmin Edge 500 in parallel for comparison. The discrepancy between the GPS modules is small and only amounts to around 130 meters between the Nokia 6.2 and the professional Navi at the end of the 9 km test track. The position is determined via the satellite systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo as well as BeiDou.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Nokia 6.2
GPS Nokia 6.2
GPS Nokia 6.2
GPS Nokia 6.2
GPS Nokia 6.2
GPS Nokia 6.2

Telephony and Call Quality - Nokia Smartphone with VoLTE

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

When making calls inside of the German Vodafone mobile network, both the call quality and the maximum volume are decent. The integrated microphone does not negatively affect the experience either. Calls can also be made over Wi-Fi and VoLTE.

Cameras - Nokia 6.2 with Dual-Camera Setup

Front camera picture
Front camera picture

The main camera of the Nokia 6.2 has a resolution of 16 megapixels. While the light-sensitive f/1.8 aperture guarantees sufficiently bright pictures even in low-light scenarios, they turn out noisy and often lack sharpness. However, the mid-range smartphone is able to produce appealing results under good lighting conditions, although there is a noticeable red tint. Additionally, the camera could do a better job at expressing the contrast and dynamic range of a scene.

The wide-angle lens has appealing color accuracy as well. That being said, wide-angle shots suffer when it comes to details and sharpness. Video can only be recorded at 1080p and at 30 FPS.

Similarly, the front camera only supports FHD resolution in videos as well. Selfies taken with the 8-MP front camera in scenarios with good lighting conditions look good. While they lose sharpness and details compared to the main camera, we still like the Nokia 6.2's pictures.

Wide-angle shot
Wide-angle shot
Picture taken with the 16-MP camera
Picture taken with the 16-MP camera

Image Comparison

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

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
ColorChecker
26.7 ∆E
52.2 ∆E
38.7 ∆E
40.2 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
67.9 ∆E
52.7 ∆E
33.4 ∆E
39 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
67.4 ∆E
64.5 ∆E
29.1 ∆E
52.1 ∆E
33 ∆E
77.2 ∆E
39.1 ∆E
47.9 ∆E
90.2 ∆E
70.1 ∆E
51.2 ∆E
36.2 ∆E
23.4 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 6.2: 46.34 ∆E min: 13.36 - max: 90.21 ∆E
ColorChecker
20.6 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
14 ∆E
19.6 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
16.8 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
6.2 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
7 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
2 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 6.2: 9.97 ∆E min: 1.86 - max: 20.57 ∆E
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Accessories and Warranty - Nokia 6.2 without Surprises

Optional clear case for the Nokia 6.2
Optional clear case for the Nokia 6.2

The scope of delivery includes a modular 10-watt charger, a USB cable, earphones and the smartphone itself.

Nokia offers buyers of the smartphone a 24-month warranty.

Input Devices & Handling - Nokia Smartphone with Rear Fingerprint Sensor

The capacitive multi-touchscreen registers inputs precisely and the anti-fingerprint layer hides smudges well.

The active fingerprint sensor on the back is somewhat slow, but it is reliable. Although there is a FaceUnlock feature that relies on the front camera on top of that, it is only a 2D-based facial recognition and also relatively slow.

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Display - Nokia 6.2 with IPS Panel

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The IPS liquid crystal display measures 6.3 inches diagonally. At a resolution of 2340x1080 pixels, this amounts to a pixel density of 409 ppi, which results in sufficiently sharp display content during regular use and at common viewing distances.

The measured maximum brightness level of 611 cd/m² is satisfactory for a mid-range smartphone and it decreases to 544 cd/m² when the ambient light sensor for controlling the Nokia 6.2's brightness is disabled. The APL50 test (average picture level), which aims to mirror real-world conditions, includes evenly distributed bright and dark areas and returns an almost identical maximum brightness level of only 608 cd/m².

At a brightness level of below 24%, Nokia's model 6.2 uses pulse-width modulation for regulating the display's brightness. At 2,336 Hz, the frequency is very high, however.

553
cd/m²
604
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
556
cd/m²
611
cd/m²
597
cd/m²
560
cd/m²
588
cd/m²
565
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 611 cd/m² Average: 582.3 cd/m² Minimum: 5.74 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 611 cd/m²
Contrast: 1528:1 (Black: 0.4 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.2 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 6.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.21
Nokia 6.2
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.53
Samsung Galaxy A50
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Huawei P30 Lite
IPS LCD, 2312x1080, 6.15
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 5.97
Screen
23%
4%
22%
7%
31%
Brightness middle
611
656
7%
669
9%
644
5%
451
-26%
583
-5%
Brightness
582
643
10%
630
8%
628
8%
430
-26%
577
-1%
Brightness Distribution
91
95
4%
87
-4%
91
0%
90
-1%
97
7%
Black Level *
0.4
0.54
-35%
0.42
-5%
0.55
-38%
Contrast
1528
1215
-20%
1593
4%
820
-46%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.2
1.1
79%
4.8
8%
2.64
49%
1.4
73%
1.6
69%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.2
2.4
76%
9
12%
9.23
10%
4.4
57%
3.9
62%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.1
2.2
64%
6.2
-2%
2.5
59%
2.5
59%
2.7
56%
Gamma
2.21 100%
2.2 100%
2.24 98%
2.024 109%
2.22 99%
2.27 97%
CCT
8100 80%
6263 104%
7846 83%
6649 98%
6422 101%
6267 104%

* ... 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 2336 Hz ≤ 24 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2336 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 24 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2336 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17957 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

The IPS panel's black value of 0.4 cd/m² results in a good contrast ratio of about 1,500:1. The realistic APL50 measurements put the black value at 0.41 cd/m² for a slightly reduced contrast ratio.

We determine the color accuracy of the Nokia 6.2 with the help of the X-Rite spectrophotometer i1pro 2 and the analysis software CalMAN. The IPS panel covers most of the sRGB color space. At an average deltaE for the grayscale and colors of 6.1 and 5.2, respectively, the deltaE deviates significantly from the ideal range of <3.

CalMAN color accuracy (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color accuracy (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color saturation (reference color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color saturation (reference 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
22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6 ms rise
↘ 16 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 240 (maximum) ms. » 28 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
53.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 24.4 ms rise
↘ 28.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.1 ms).

The liquid crystal screen is bright enough to remain readable even on sunny days. The viewing angles are large and the perceived brightness only drops by a small amount even at extreme angles.

Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review

Performance - Nokia 6.2 with Snapdragon 636

Nokia installs a Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 in its mid-range model. The mid-range processor stems from the American semiconductor manufacturer that resides in San Diego and integrates eight 64-bit processing cores in the manufacturer's own 14-nm Kryo 260 architecture. The Adreno 509 graphics chip complements the aforementioned package. It offers support for the modern APIs Vulkan and OpenGL ES 3.1.

The system runs well thanks to the lean Android One UI. The Snapdragon 636 combined with 4 GB of RAM makes using the system on a daily basis a smooth experience for the most part. However, the performance level noticeably drops as soon as the processor is stressed and during multi-tasking in particular.

The Nokia smartphone performs well in our benchmarks. With that in mind, there is a substantial difference between the results of the Snapdragon 712 inside the Xiaomi Mi 9 SE or the MediaTek Helio G90T inside the Redmi Note 8 Pro and the Nokia 6.2.

The internal storage is about as fast as other eMMC competitors. The access times are slow due to the type of memory used, however. By contrast, the microSD card slot is faster than the average of other smartphones.

Geekbench 5
Vulkan Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
143 Points ∼10%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
422 Points ∼31% +195%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
422 Points ∼31% +195%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
1218 Points ∼89% +752%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
143 Points ∼10% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (143 - 3794, n=45)
1362 Points ∼100% +852%
OpenCL Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
425 Points ∼24%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
363 Points ∼20% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
1793 Points ∼100% +322%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
425 Points ∼24% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (183 - 4593, n=53)
1738 Points ∼97% +309%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1256 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1327 Points ∼73% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
1612 Points ∼89% +28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
1256 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=65)
1821 Points ∼100% +45%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
278 Points ∼54%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
314 Points ∼61% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
391 Points ∼75% +41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
278 Points ∼54% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=65)
519 Points ∼100% +87%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5965 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6498 Points ∼65% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
9967 Points ∼100% +67%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5827 Points ∼58% -2%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6483 Points ∼65% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
6832 Points ∼69% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (5611 - 6277, n=11)
5833 Points ∼59% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=490)
5834 Points ∼59% -2%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6696 Points ∼45%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7446 Points ∼50% +11%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
14946 Points ∼100% +123%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7029 Points ∼47% +5%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
8125 Points ∼54% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
8346 Points ∼56% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (6040 - 7618, n=11)
6624 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=648)
6373 Points ∼43% -5%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2175 Points ∼83%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2250 Points ∼85% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2543 Points ∼96% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2338 Points ∼89% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2175 - 2282, n=2)
2229 Points ∼85% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4057, n=149)
2636 Points ∼100% +21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
789 Points ∼27%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
898 Points ∼31% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
1978 Points ∼68% +151%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
1907 Points ∼65% +142%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (789 - 809, n=2)
799 Points ∼27% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=149)
2916 Points ∼100% +270%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
926 Points ∼35%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1036 Points ∼39% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2087 Points ∼79% +125%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
1988 Points ∼76% +115%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (926 - 944, n=2)
935 Points ∼36% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6644, n=149)
2626 Points ∼100% +184%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2337 Points ∼70%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2298 Points ∼69% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3326 Points ∼100% +42%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2266 Points ∼68% -3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2550 Points ∼77% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2506 Points ∼75% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2258 - 2644, n=11)
2372 Points ∼71% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=496)
2175 Points ∼65% -7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
855 Points ∼37%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
980 Points ∼42% +15%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2322 Points ∼100% +172%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1188 Points ∼51% +39%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
843 Points ∼36% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2146 Points ∼92% +151%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (645 - 872, n=11)
841 Points ∼36% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=496)
2075 Points ∼89% +143%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
977 Points ∼41%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1134 Points ∼47% +16%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2412 Points ∼100% +147%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1328 Points ∼55% +36%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
981 Points ∼41% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2217 Points ∼92% +127%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (765 - 1016, n=11)
980 Points ∼41% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=497)
1926 Points ∼80% +97%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2288 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2348 Points ∼70% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3362 Points ∼100% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2241 Points ∼67% -2%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2578 Points ∼77% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2506 Points ∼75% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2288 - 2683, n=11)
2386 Points ∼71% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=526)
2085 Points ∼62% -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1389 Points ∼50%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1668 Points ∼60% +20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2323 Points ∼84% +67%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1553 Points ∼56% +12%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1336 Points ∼48% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2146 Points ∼78% +54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1358 - 1406, n=11)
1395 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=526)
2762 Points ∼100% +99%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1568 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1778 Points ∼74% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2412 Points ∼100% +54%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1667 Points ∼69% +6%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1494 Points ∼62% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2217 Points ∼92% +41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1525 - 1568, n=11)
1541 Points ∼64% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=526)
2321 Points ∼96% +48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2335 Points ∼71%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2408 Points ∼73% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3280 Points ∼100% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2351 Points ∼72% +1%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2489 Points ∼76% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2480 Points ∼76% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2251 - 2634, n=11)
2358 Points ∼72% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=576)
2062 Points ∼63% -12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
809 Points ∼36%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
967 Points ∼44% +20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2218 Points ∼100% +174%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1149 Points ∼52% +42%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
819 Points ∼37% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
1980 Points ∼89% +145%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (797 - 818, n=11)
812 Points ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=576)
1735 Points ∼78% +114%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
945 Points ∼40%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1114 Points ∼47% +18%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2390 Points ∼100% +153%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1296 Points ∼54% +37%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
963 Points ∼40% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2073 Points ∼87% +119%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (934 - 962, n=11)
950 Points ∼40% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=577)
1658 Points ∼69% +75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2339 Points ∼72%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2378 Points ∼73% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3267 Points ∼100% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2432 Points ∼74% +4%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2490 Points ∼76% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2480 Points ∼76% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1349 - 2626, n=11)
2280 Points ∼70% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=618)
1924 Points ∼59% -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1322 Points ∼58%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1607 Points ∼71% +22%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2219 Points ∼97% +68%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1279 Points ∼56% -3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1256 Points ∼55% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
1980 Points ∼87% +50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1313 - 1353, n=11)
1331 Points ∼58% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=617)
2277 Points ∼100% +72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1467 Points ∼61%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1728 Points ∼72% +18%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2390 Points ∼100% +63%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1430 Points ∼60% -3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1414 Points ∼59% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2073 Points ∼87% +41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1458 - 1493, n=11)
1475 Points ∼62% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=620)
1961 Points ∼82% +34%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
15876 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
20354 Points ∼89% +28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
22928 Points ∼100% +44%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14353 Points ∼63% -10%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
12023 Points ∼52% -24%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
13686 Points ∼60% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (15766 - 19365, n=11)
17020 Points ∼74% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=766)
15263 Points ∼67% -4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
21067 Points ∼48%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
24654 Points ∼57% +17%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
39137 Points ∼90% +86%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16593 Points ∼38% -21%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
21643 Points ∼50% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
43514 Points ∼100% +107%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (20610 - 21067, n=11)
20839 Points ∼48% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=764)
25897 Points ∼60% +23%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
19635 Points ∼58%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
23534 Points ∼70% +20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
33832 Points ∼100% +72%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16037 Points ∼47% -18%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
18377 Points ∼54% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
29316 Points ∼87% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (19525 - 20404, n=11)
19846 Points ∼59% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=764)
20366 Points ∼60% +4%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
35 fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
36 fps ∼44% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
82 fps ∼100% +134%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
39 fps ∼48% +11%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
33 fps ∼40% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
74 fps ∼90% +111%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (35 - 36, n=12)
35.6 fps ∼43% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=772)
43.9 fps ∼54% +25%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
32 fps ∼55%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
33 fps ∼57% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +81%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
36 fps ∼62% +13%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
31 fps ∼53% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +81%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (30 - 40, n=12)
34.3 fps ∼59% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=781)
30.5 fps ∼53% -5%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
16 fps ∼33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
19 fps ∼39% +19%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
49 fps ∼100% +206%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23 fps ∼47% +44%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
17 fps ∼35% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
36 fps ∼73% +125%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (16 - 16, n=12)
16 fps ∼33% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=677)
25.8 fps ∼53% +61%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
15 fps ∼36%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
17 fps ∼40% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +180%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
21 fps ∼50% +40%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
16 fps ∼38% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
33 fps ∼79% +120%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (13 - 18, n=12)
15 fps ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=685)
21.8 fps ∼52% +45%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.3 fps ∼22%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
13 fps ∼45% +106%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
29 fps ∼100% +360%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼48% +122%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
12 fps ∼41% +90%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
26 fps ∼90% +313%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (6.3 - 10, n=12)
9.68 fps ∼33% +54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=540)
20.8 fps ∼72% +230%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.7 fps ∼22%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
12 fps ∼46% +111%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
26 fps ∼100% +356%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
13 fps ∼50% +128%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
11 fps ∼42% +93%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
24 fps ∼92% +321%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (5.7 - 12, n=12)
9.47 fps ∼36% +66%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=542)
18.9 fps ∼73% +232%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2.3 fps ∼21%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
4.4 fps ∼39% +91%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
6.8 fps ∼61% +196%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4.9 fps ∼44% +113%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
4.2 fps ∼38% +83%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
9.1 fps ∼81% +296%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2 - 4.4, n=9)
3.27 fps ∼29% +42%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=288)
11.2 fps ∼100% +387%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
3.5 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2.8 fps ∼25% -20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
11 fps ∼100% +214%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.1 fps ∼28% -11%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2.6 fps ∼24% -26%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
5.8 fps ∼53% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (2.2 - 3.5, n=9)
2.36 fps ∼21% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=286)
8.07 fps ∼73% +131%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.4 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7.2 fps ∼42% +33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
17 fps ∼100% +215%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.2 fps ∼48% +52%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6.4 fps ∼38% +19%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
14 fps ∼82% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (4.9 - 6.9, n=9)
5.59 fps ∼33% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=292)
16.6 fps ∼98% +207%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6 fps ∼31%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
8.1 fps ∼42% +35%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
19 fps ∼98% +217%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9 fps ∼47% +50%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
7 fps ∼36% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
16 fps ∼83% +167%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (5.4 - 6.1, n=9)
5.93 fps ∼31% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=291)
19.3 fps ∼100% +222%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.3 fps ∼39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6.9 fps ∼43% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
16 fps ∼100% +154%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.9 fps ∼56% +41%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6.9 fps ∼43% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
15 fps ∼94% +138%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (6.3 - 6.3, n=12)
6.3 fps ∼39% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=465)
14 fps ∼88% +122%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.4 fps ∼39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6.1 fps ∼44% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
14 fps ∼100% +159%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.1 fps ∼58% +50%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6.5 fps ∼46% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
13 fps ∼93% +141%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (5.1 - 7.4, n=12)
5.96 fps ∼43% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=469)
12.5 fps ∼89% +131%
Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
8.24 (min: 5.77, max: 20.65) fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
18.1 (min: 2.3, max: 44.7) fps ∼94%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
0 fps ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14.51 fps ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
14.23 (min: 8.05, max: 26.52) fps ∼74%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
7.5 fps ∼39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.73 - 85.6, n=73)
19.2 fps ∼100%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6.65 (min: 3.4, max: 18.65) fps ∼31%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
21.2 (min: 4.9, max: 40.7) fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
11.59 fps ∼55%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
12.76 (min: 7.68, max: 27.7) fps ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
6.63 fps ∼31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.57 - 63, n=64)
16 fps ∼75%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7.44 (min: 3.6, max: 21.99) fps ∼37%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
19.4 (min: 3.7, max: 33.6) fps ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
13.03 fps ∼65%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
14.18 (min: 8.4, max: 36.6) fps ∼71%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.88 - 71.6, n=62)
19.9 fps ∼100%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
876 Points ∼75%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
937 Points ∼80% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
1145 Points ∼98% +31%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
927 Points ∼79% +6%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1024 Points ∼87% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
1172 Points ∼100% +34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (876 - 1088, n=10)
1037 Points ∼88% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=709)
807 Points ∼69% -8%
Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1632 Points ∼47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1881 Points ∼54% +15%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3419 Points ∼99% +109%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1957 Points ∼57% +20%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1478 Points ∼43% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
3453 Points ∼100% +112%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1590 - 1632, n=10)
1608 Points ∼47% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=709)
2428 Points ∼70% +49%
Memory (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2024 Points ∼56%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2808 Points ∼78% +39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3609 Points ∼100% +78%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2492 Points ∼69% +23%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
3036 Points ∼84% +50%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2969 Points ∼82% +47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1236 - 2492, n=10)
1958 Points ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=709)
1805 Points ∼50% -11%
System (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4498 Points ∼73%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
5006 Points ∼81% +11%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
6155 Points ∼100% +37%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5112 Points ∼83% +14%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
5146 Points ∼84% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
5932 Points ∼96% +32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (4320 - 5348, n=10)
4559 Points ∼74% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=709)
3374 Points ∼55% -25%
Overall (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1907 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2254 Points ∼74% +18%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3054 Points ∼100% +60%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2193 Points ∼72% +15%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2201 Points ∼72% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712, Adreno 616, 6144
2906 Points ∼95% +52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
  (1734 - 2156, n=10)
1957 Points ∼64% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=709)
1716 Points ∼56% -10%
AnTuTu v8
UX (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
27466 Points ∼51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
27535 Points ∼51% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
27535 Points ∼51% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
45630 Points ∼84% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
27466 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6969 - 110361, n=95)
54293 Points ∼100% +98%
MEM (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
30326 Points ∼51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
38271 Points ∼65% +26%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
38271 Points ∼65% +26%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
59227 Points ∼100% +95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
30326 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9394 - 122714, n=94)
55473 Points ∼94% +83%
GPU (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
24483 Points ∼24%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
33000 Points ∼33% +35%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
33000 Points ∼33% +35%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
79602 Points ∼79% +225%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
24483 Points ∼24% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (29020 - 224320, n=94)
100510 Points ∼100% +311%
CPU (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
62945 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
70889 Points ∼68% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
70889 Points ∼68% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
97626 Points ∼94% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
62945 Points ∼60% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (23816 - 185108, n=94)
104274 Points ∼100% +66%
Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
145220 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
169695 Points ∼54% +17%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
169695 Points ∼54% +17%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
282085 Points ∼89% +94%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
145220 Points ∼46% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=94)
315184 Points ∼100% +117%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=171)
40.2 Points ∼100% +52%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73)
37.214 Points ∼93% +41%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78)
35.298 Points ∼88% +34%
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74)
31.781 Points ∼79% +20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78)
30.65 Points ∼76% +16%
Nokia 6.2 (Chrome 79)
26.434 Points ∼66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (26 - 26.4, n=2)
26.2 Points ∼65% -1%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=155)
43.1 runs/min ∼100% +69%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78)
41.6 runs/min ∼97% +63%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73)
37.5 runs/min ∼87% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73)
33.07 runs/min ∼77% +30%
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74)
31.7 runs/min ∼74% +24%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78)
30.8 runs/min ∼71% +21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (25.5 - 27.4, n=2)
26.5 runs/min ∼61% +4%
Nokia 6.2 (Chrome 79)
25.5 runs/min ∼59%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73)
72 Points ∼100% +57%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=236)
69.8 Points ∼97% +52%
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74)
66 Points ∼92% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼86% +35%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78)
55 Points ∼76% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (46 - 61, n=9)
54.4 Points ∼76% +18%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78)
52 Points ∼72% +13%
Nokia 6.2 (Chrome 79)
46 Points ∼64%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78)
15606 Points ∼100% +78%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73)
13562 Points ∼87% +55%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
10322 Points ∼66% +18%
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74)
9779 Points ∼63% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78)
9405 Points ∼60% +7%
Nokia 6.2 (Chrome 79)
8756 Points ∼56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (8163 - 9746, n=12)
8665 Points ∼56% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=767)
7690 Points ∼49% -12%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=793)
9892 ms * ∼100% -95%
Nokia 6.2 (Chrome 79)
5065.7 ms * ∼51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4105 - 5066, n=12)
4687 ms * ∼47% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78)
4561.76 ms * ∼46% +10%
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74)
4137.8 ms * ∼42% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
3897 ms * ∼39% +23%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78)
3001.5 ms * ∼30% +41%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73)
2911.8 ms * ∼29% +43%

* ... smaller is better

Nokia 6.2Xiaomi Redmi Note 8Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 ProSamsung Galaxy A50Huawei P30 LiteXiaomi Mi 9 SEAverage 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
82%
215%
21%
80%
45%
7%
8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
52.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
57.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-7%
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
67.85 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
57.6 (11.2 - 74.7, n=121)
-6%
50.7 (1.7 - 87.1, n=509)
-18%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.36 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
71.63 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
71.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
73.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-11%
76.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-8%
76.6 (21.1 - 87.2, n=121)
-8%
68.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=509)
-18%
Random Write 4KB
14.88
91.23
513%
180.4
1112%
18.2
22%
87.29
487%
21.86
47%
27 (3.4 - 133, n=138)
81%
33.1 (0.14 - 319, n=856)
122%
Random Read 4KB
78.83
84.76
8%
156.22
98%
98.9
25%
71.57
-9%
115.83
47%
56.3 (11.4 - 149, n=138)
-29%
57.1 (1.59 - 324, n=856)
-28%
Sequential Write 256KB
158.54
160.53
1%
193.54
22%
192.1
21%
158.63
0%
190.1
20%
174 (40 - 254, n=138)
10%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=856)
-23%
Sequential Read 256KB
296.76
297.65
0%
534.5
80%
507.3
71%
293.23
-1%
492.48
66%
274 (95.6 - 704, n=138)
-8%
329 (12.1 - 1802, n=856)
11%

Gaming - Nokia Smartphone Adreno 509

While the integrated Adreno 509 does not offer a lot of performance, even more-demanding 3D games are still playable. With the Nokia 6.2's GPU, demanding Android games from the Play Store run fairly smoothly at minimum settings, although users will consistently experience drops in terms of the frame rate, as our measurements of the Adreno 509 show.

Both the touchscreen and the gyroscope controls were precise and responsive in our tests.

Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends
PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile

Emissions - Speakers of the Nokia 6.2 with Weaknesses

Temperature

The surface temperatures according to our measurements are low and the heat development of the Nokia 6.2 remains largely unnoticeable even under load.

Max. Load
 36.7 °C
98 F
36.9 °C
98 F
37.3 °C
99 F
 
 35.9 °C
97 F
36.3 °C
97 F
37.7 °C
100 F
 
 35 °C
95 F
35.2 °C
95 F
36 °C
97 F
 
Maximum: 37.7 °C = 100 F
Average: 36.3 °C = 97 F
33 °C
91 F
34.4 °C
94 F
36.2 °C
97 F
32.1 °C
90 F
34.8 °C
95 F
36.5 °C
98 F
33.2 °C
92 F
34.7 °C
94 F
35.4 °C
96 F
Maximum: 36.5 °C = 98 F
Average: 34.5 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  27.2 °C = 81 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.5 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.5 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone
Nokia 6.2 Smartphone

Speaker

Speaker test: Pink noise
Speaker test: Pink noise

During daily use, the Nokia smartphone's mono speaker on the bottom of the case, which is able to reach a maximum volume level of 84 dB according to our measurements, only begins to distort at higher volume levels. As expected, the audio experience is defined by relatively imbalanced mids and highs.

The 3.5-mm audio jack allows for clean audio output for traditional headphones without any adapters.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2029.832.82525.224.33121.623.14024.722.65029.631.86322.519.88025.120.610020.120.612519.92216020.830.220017.631.825017.638.931517.445.240016.151.850013.957.763014.559.680016.167.3100014.572.4125014.470.6160013.668.6200013.972.8250014.576.1315014.475.2400014.871.4500014.775630014.869.2800014.963.31000015.161125001550.61600015.144.3SPL26.983.9N0.952.3median 14.9median 61Delta1.514.634.933.929.124.125.424.329.426.239.43427.324.821.622.1242320.722.519.938.51840.916.847.516.253.315.957.613.559.213.962.312.964.91465.414.766.614.168.214.268.714.569.815.470.614.97014.867.51562.815.360.815.360.515.64415.535.12779.30.942.8median 15.3median 60.81.311.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseNokia 6.2Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 6.2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 91% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life - Nokia 6.2 with 3,500 mAh Battery

Energy Consumption

The strong 3,500-mAh battery can be charged via the USB Type-C port on the bottom of the Nokia 6.2. The energy consumption is nothing out of the ordinary and similar to other Snapdragon 636 smartphones.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.11 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.72 / 2.22 / 2.23 Watt
Load midlight 3.98 / 6.86 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Nokia 6.2
3500 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Huawei P30 Lite
3340 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
3070 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
15%
-11%
-5%
-14%
35%
-13%
3%
Idle Minimum *
0.72
0.62
14%
0.79
-10%
0.8
-11%
0.91
-26%
0.53
26%
0.944 (0.6 - 1.75, n=12)
-31%
0.887 (0.2 - 3.4, n=866)
-23%
Idle Average *
2.22
1.77
20%
2.32
-5%
1.5
32%
2.41
-9%
1.18
47%
2.22 (1.4 - 4.48, n=12)
-0%
1.754 (0.6 - 6.2, n=865)
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.23
1.8
19%
2.38
-7%
1.7
24%
2.43
-9%
1.2
46%
2.54 (2 - 4.5, n=12)
-14%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=866)
9%
Load Average *
3.98
3.42
14%
4.72
-19%
5.9
-48%
4.57
-15%
3.04
24%
4.51 (3.65 - 7.92, n=12)
-13%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=860)
-3%
Load Maximum *
6.86
6.14
10%
7.68
-12%
8.3
-21%
7.57
-10%
4.83
30%
7.37 (5.1 - 13.6, n=12)
-7%
6.04 (1.2 - 14.2, n=860)
12%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Nokia phone lasts more than 10 hours in our Wi-Fi test with the brightness level set to 250 cd/m². This is a decent runtime, although the Redmi competition is able to last significantly longer.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 11min
Nokia 6.2
3500 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Huawei P30 Lite
3340 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
3070 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
611
824
35%
864
41%
701
15%
515
-16%
510
-17%

Pros

+ solid build quality
+ long-term update support
+ bright IPS display
+ full-fledged dual-SIM
+ long battery life

Cons

- PWM
- speakers
- microSD without exFAT support
- weak SoC

Verdict Nokia 6.2 - Subtle, but Good

In review: Nokia 6.2. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Nokia 6.2. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

The Nokia 6.2 delivers a convincing performance thanks to its modern design, high-quality feel and bright IPS panel. The full-featured dual-SIM functionality and smooth system performance combined with the cheap price of about 200 Euros (~$223) make the latest offering from Nokia's 6-series an interesting proposition. Unfortunately, Nokia once again uses pulse-width modulation for regulating the display's brightness and although the frequency is high enough for it not to affect many users it may still cause issues for PWM-sensitive people.

The Nokia 6.2 is a good choice for price-conscious Android purists.  

That being said, the Redmi Note 8 is a strong competitor, particularly due to the price, which is currently lower and the fact that it does some things better than the Nokia 6.2. In return, the latter offers longer update support and security patches that are always up-to-date.

Nokia 6.2 - 01/03/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
49 / 70 → 70%
Weight
90%
Battery
88%
Display
83%
Games Performance
11 / 64 → 18%
Application Performance
53 / 86 → 62%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
67 / 90 → 74%
Camera
58%
Average
72%
78%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Nokia 6.2 Smartphone Review - Android One with real dual-SIM and SD card slot
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-01- 3 (Update: 2020-01- 5)
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