Notebookcheck

Razer Phone 2 Smartphone Review

Inge Schwabe, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Finn D. Boerne), 11/30/2018

Game On. Razer is getting ready for round two. Following the first real gaming smartphone named simply, Phone, they have introduced the - surprise - Phone 2. Don't be fooled by its lackluster name though: the Phone 2 is everything but boring. Let's take a look at what the brand-new gaming smartphone can do and what its weaknesses are.

The pure looks of Razer’s latest smartphone gave us the heebie-jeebies already, and the high-quality gaming equipment manufacturer has pimped its smartphone with the Razer Chroma Technology genes. According to Razer, Chroma is the largest and most widespread RGB lighting system for gamers. In addition to some cosmetic software updates, the new phone also features the latest and greatest in smartphone technology: Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 845 with a vapor-chamber cooler for longer lasting high performance under sustained load.

A technology that can be also found in some competitors, namely the Asus ROG Phone and Xiaomi Black Shark gaming smartphones. Other rivals include the Sony Xperia XZ3 with its very tactile feedback engine and the iPhone Xs Max as a powerful, non-Android, gaming smartphone alternative.

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Razer Phone 2 (Phone Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Octa-Core, 64 Bit
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR4X
Display
5.72 inch 19,5:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 513 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, 10-point multitouch, 120 Hz sampling rate, IGZO LCD, UltraMotion 120 Hz Display, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 48 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: combined 3.5 mm headphone and microphone jack via 24-bit USB-C DAC, Card Reader: microSD up to 1 TB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: proximity sensor, accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, step sensor
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850/900/1,800/1,900, WCDMA: 1/2/3/4/5/8, FDD-LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/18/19/20/26/28/29/30/32/66/71, CAT18, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 158.5 x 78.99 ( = 0.33 x 6.24 x 3.11 in)
Battery
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix wide-angle (12 MP, f/1.75, OIS) + telephoto (12 MP, f/2.6), 4K video
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: stereo speakers, Keyboard: virtual, modular power supply, USB-C cable, 24-bit USB-C DAC, SIM tool, quick start guide, safety and warranty information, Nova-Launcher, ChromaKit, Dolby Atmos, Razer Cortex, Game-Booster, theme store, 24 Months Warranty, IP67, Qualcomm QuickCharge 4.0+, wireless charging, notifications via Razer Chroma RGB logo, LTE CAT18, head SAR: 0.508 W/kg, body SAR: 1.493 W/kg
Weight
219 g ( = 7.73 oz / 0.48 pounds), Power Supply: 94 g ( = 3.32 oz / 0.21 pounds)
Price
849 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Admittedly, we rarely consider the manufacturer logo on a smartphone to be a highlight. More likely than not it is going to be annoying if it grows too large. Not so with the Razer Phone 2. Not only is the large three-headed snake nice to look at, it also lights up in every single color in the RGB spectrum. In other words: up to 16.7 million colors or, alternatively, a preselected favorite color.

At the front we find wide speakers atop and below the display, which make for rather thick and not particularly contemporary display bezels. The case itself is incredibly sturdy and reminds us of Sony’s angular square-edged Xperia smartphones, just bulkier and more robust. At 219 g (~7.7 oz), the 8.5 x 159 x 79 mm (0.33 x 6.26 x 3.11 inches) large device turned out to be the heaviest smartphone of our test group, including the Phone 2017. This impression of bulkiness is further reinforced by the wide speaker grills, and haptics were not particularly impressive.

Nevertheless, the Razer Phone 2 is a very classy phone. The color on its backside is dubbed “Mirror Black” by Razer, and it is completely covered by glass thereby accentuating the either static or pulsating Razer Logo. The camera lens protrudes by around 1 mm from the case but the phone can be easily used face-up on a table.

In its own web store, Razer Mobile also has a model in “Satin Black” on offer. Both SKUs are IP67-certified for protection against dust and submersion in up to 1 m (around 3 ft) of fresh water.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

The device is equipped with the fastest mobile hardware currently available: Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 845 and 8 GB of LPDDR4X RAM. At just 64 GB storage space is a bit on the low side for a flagship smartphone, though. Many other smartphones are equipped similarly but we would have expected a gaming smartphone made for games with gigabytes of extra content to be more generously equipped. At least storage space can be expanded by use of a microSD card that can be formatted as internal storage and used for storing apps and games. By installing said microSD card you lose the secondary SIM slot and therefore the device’s dual SIM capabilities.

Like its predecessor, the Phone 2 lacks a 3.5-mm headphone jack and offers no more than a single USB-C port for audio equipment. A first for Razer is the volume rocker that is no longer a rocker but two separate buttons instead. As they are located on the left side in the middle, they are a bit too low for the index finger and are closer to your middle finger instead.

Right: power button
Right: power button
Top: antennas, microphone
Top: antennas, microphone
Left: SIM slot, volume buttons
Left: SIM slot, volume buttons
Bottom: antennas, USB-C port
Bottom: antennas, USB-C port

Software

On top of Android 8.1 with security patches as of October 5, 2018, we find the Nova Launcher that is also available in Google’s Play Store and can be retroactively installed on other smartphones as well. The popular launcher is highly adjustable and allows individualization of the home screen, the overall look and feel, and several gestures. Razer created several icon themes in collaboration with various game studios, which are available in Razer’s own theme store. Among others, you can find icon themes for Fortnite, PUBG, and Tekken.

The games themselves are installed via either Razer’s Cortex app or Google’s Play Store. The Cortex App specifically lists games with support for 120 Hz displays. The Game Booster, a standalone application on the last model, has now been integrated into the Cortex app.

The RGB logo is not configured via a dedicated app but the phone’s settings menu. In addition to color and effect (static, spectrum, breathing) settings also include a battery-aware intensity and an option to turn the logo into a notification LED. The Razer logo is the only notification LED on this phone.

We were unable to uninstall any of the preloaded apps. While we did not mind the Razer software, the Dolby Atmos app, or even the YouTube app we were skeptical about Netflix despite the fact that the Razer Phone 2 is capable of HDR and Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 playback. If you do not use Netflix you should be able to remove the app completely.

Gaming profile
Gaming profile
Chroma RGB logo settings
Chroma RGB logo settings
Razer Theme Store
Razer Theme Store
Rival Theme lock screen
Rival Theme lock screen
Rival Theme home screen and icon set
Rival Theme home screen and icon set

Communication and GPS

Not every single aspect of the Razer Phone 2 is superior to its predecessor. When connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router, the transfer speeds of the Razer Phone were actually higher than the Razer Phone 2’s by a significant margin. Overall, the Razer Phone 2 still did very well in this test, and the connection remained rock solid even at a higher distance.

The only relevant LTE band missing is band 19 that is used by the Japanese provider NTT DoCoMo. Other than that, all important and widely used LTE bands are supported.

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

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼100% +10%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
624 MBit/s ∼94% +3%
Razer Phone 2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
604 (min: 420, max: 626) MBit/s ∼91%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=307)
211 MBit/s ∼32% -65%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
116 MBit/s ∼17% -81%
Asus ROG Phone
Adreno 630, 845, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
103 (min: 86, max: 109) MBit/s ∼15% -83%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100% +70%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
602 MBit/s ∼91% +55%
Razer Phone 2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
388 (min: 234, max: 484) MBit/s ∼59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=307)
207 MBit/s ∼31% -47%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
117 MBit/s ∼18% -70%
Asus ROG Phone
Adreno 630, 845, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
96.7 (min: 50, max: 106) MBit/s ∼15% -75%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630Tooltip
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø610 (568-626)
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø103 (86-109)
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø390 (269-484)
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø95.2 (50-106)
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors

GPS accuracy was pretty decent. Outdoors, the GPS test application attested an accuracy of 3m (~10 feet). Indoor accuracy was determined to be around 10 m (~33 feet). Both results are respectable.

We test every smartphone on a short biking trip around the block comparing it to a professional Garmin Edge 520 satnav. As can be seen on the photos below the Razer Phone 2 was not particularly accurate when on the move and placed us at quite a distance from our actual track in the woods and at an intersection.

The results seem to indicate that the phone did not skip any checkpoints but rather that its accuracy was low at these spots. Overall, the track recorded by the Razer Phone 2 was 260 m (850 ft) shorter than the one recorded by the Garmin Edge 520. You should keep that in mind if navigation track recording is of importance to you.

Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Garmin Edge 520 - woods
Garmin Edge 520 - woods
Razer Phone 2 - overview
Razer Phone 2 - overview
Razer Phone 2 - bridge
Razer Phone 2 - bridge
Razer Phone 2 - woods
Razer Phone 2 - woods

Telephony and Call Quality

Telephone app
Telephone app

Razer opted for the default Google telephone app. The Phone 2’s speakers are powerful enough for a very enjoyable hands-free experience. Voices sometimes seemed a bit distorted, and unfortunately, they were muffled when using a headset. This improved dramatically when using the included 3.5-mm USB-C DAC: a 3.5-mm headset connected to the Razer Phone 2 via this adapter carried voices much clearer and louder.

Cameras

Selfie
Selfie
Selfie with bokeh
Selfie with bokeh

Thanks to optical image stabilization (OIS) and a wide open f/1.75 aperture the rear-facing dual 12 MP camera was capable of taking decent photos even in poor lighting conditions. Two dual-tone LEDs ensure natural lighting conditions and serve as flashlights.

Videos were also very brightly lit even when filmed indoors under somewhat fading light. Unfortunately, focus suffered under these conditions. The front-facing camera records videos in HD, the rear-facing camera is capable of 4K recording.

Both sensors are made by Sony. The secondary lens is a tele-lens with an aperture of f/2.6. Both lenses are used for portrait mode.

When using the front-facing 8 MP f/2.0 camera the portrait mode effect is rendered by software only. The results were pretty impressive and comparable to other top-range smartphones. Color representation was generally very natural.

Compared to other top-range smartphone cameras the Phone 2 stood out thanks to its very accurate focus. Details were very clear and well pronounced even when zoomed-in.

Main camera
Main camera
Main camera portrait mode
Main camera portrait mode
Main camera standard
Main camera 2x tele

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 Passport photo
ColorChecker Passport photo

We test every camera under normalized conditions as well. Looking at the ColorChecker Passport depicting the reference color in the top half of each square we can clearly see that the Razer Phone 2 captured colors and grayscale a bit too dark.

The test chart, in return, was crisp and in focus not just in the center but also around the sides in the top half of the photo. Unfortunately, the bottom half was a bit blurry towards both sides.

Reference card
Reference card
Reference card details
Reference card details

Accessories and Warranty

Razer Chroma Charger
Razer Chroma Charger

Like its predecessor, the Razer Phone 2 does not have a 3.5-mm headphone jack, and Razer also decided not to include a USB-C headset. Instead, we found a high-quality 3.5-mm USB-C DAC that can be used to connect any 3.5-mm headset to the Razer Phone 2. The difference between a normal adapter and this high-quality model was very noticeable. In addition to the DAC, the box also includes a power supply and a USB cable with USB-C connectors on both ends. The cable can thus be used to connect the Phone 2 to a MacBook. Older computers with USB-A ports will require an extra adapter.

For $99 you can purchase the Razer Phone 2 Wireless Charger, a wireless charging dock with integrated Chroma RGB lighting in its base.

The phone itself and all of its accessories come with a 12-month warranty by default.

Input Devices and Handling

The only preloaded keyboard app on the Phone 2 is Google’s Gboard, a well-known and highly customizable keyboard application. In addition to settings for form and function, such as color, background, position and size, the keyboard also includes an optional extra numerical row above the standard rows of keys and a setting to determine whether or not the secondary key assignment is displayed next to the primary assignment.

The 120 Hz display was very smooth and responsive, and it is accompanied by a 120 Hz sampling rate.

The fingerprint reader required some getting used to, at least if you are already used to sensors that react to fingers placed on them. On the Razer Phone 2, the side-mounted fingerprint reader has to be pressed first, which then triggers the scanner. Once pressed the reader was as fast as expected.

Display

The 5.72-inch 19.5:9 display runs at a native resolution of 2,560 x 1,440. Considering its size the resolution is not particularly high, and the reason is its high refresh rate of 120 Hz. After all the SoC needs to render each pixel twice as often as on a regular 60 Hz display. The resolution can be further lowered to FHD and the refresh rate can be lowered to 90 Hz and even 60 Hz in order to go easy on the battery.

The display itself remains an HDR10-compatible IGZO LCD. Unlike OLED displays it requires a backlight, and its black level of 0.31 nits was slightly higher than on its predecessor. Because Razer managed to increase the maximum display brightness from 436 to 600 nits the contrast ratio remained comparable. Brightness distribution was determined to be a good 92%.

557
cd/m²
555
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
585
cd/m²
600
cd/m²
578
cd/m²
574
cd/m²
588
cd/m²
601
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 601 cd/m² Average: 576.9 cd/m² Minimum: 8.9 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 600 cd/m²
Contrast: 1935:1 (Black: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.43 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.388
Razer Phone 2
IGZO LCD, UltraMotion 120 Hz Display, 2560x1440, 5.72
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
Asus ROG Phone
AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6
Apple iPhone Xs Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5
Xiaomi Black Shark
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Screen
-5%
-31%
31%
-34%
Brightness middle
600
436
-27%
597
0%
656
9%
549
-8%
Brightness
577
417
-28%
637
10%
659
14%
541
-6%
Brightness Distribution
92
92
0%
83
-10%
88
-4%
95
3%
Black Level *
0.31
0.16
48%
0.42
-35%
Contrast
1935
2725
41%
1307
-32%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.43
3.88
-13%
5.12
-49%
1.7
50%
6.08
-77%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.36
7.96
-25%
10.9
-71%
2.8
56%
10.69
-68%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.4
5.8
-32%
7.3
-66%
1.7
61%
6.6
-50%
Gamma
2.388 92%
2.45 90%
2.203 100%
1.998 110%
2.305 95%
CCT
6069 107%
7657 85%
7371 88%
6487 100%
8399 77%

* ... 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 2451 Hz ≤ 20 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2451 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2451 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8933 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Colors can be adjusted in the display menu, and the phone comes with three different presets. Unfortunately, according to CalMAN, all three profiles suffered from noticeable color distortions. The two profiles “Normal” and “Intense” resulted in a slight blue tint. The profile “Lively” increased color intensity noticeably and evenly.

CalMAN grayscale (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN colors (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN color space (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Natural; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Intense; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Lively; color space: sRGB)
CalMAN saturation (profile: Lively; 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
12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 7 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. » 9 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
18 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9 ms rise
↘ 9 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
Reflections on a sunny slightly overcast day
Reflections on a sunny slightly overcast day

The IGZO LCD display was very reflective, particularly under a bright sky. Fortunately, the display’s high viewing angles allowed us to look at the display from the side, and the auto-brightness feature was very fast to increase the brightness to a maximum if necessary. This adaptive auto-brightness can be disabled in the display menu of the settings. The quick settings only include a slider to increase or decrease brightness but no option to disable auto-brightness.

Viewing angles were as wide as expected, and the display remained readable from all angles. We failed to notice any color distortions or a drop in brightness.

Razer Phone 2 viewing angles
Razer Phone 2 viewing angles

Performance

Samsung and Huawei are the two manufacturers that use their own SoCs. All other manufacturers opt for Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 (MSM845) with the Adreno 630 GPU in case performance is of utmost importance. This SoC was not yet available last year when the Razer Phone was released, but the same chipset is featured in the Xiaomi Black Shark, the Sony Xperia XZ2, and the Asus ROG Phone. Accordingly, those four competitors are head to head in most benchmarks, with the Asus ROG Phone leading by a slight margin most of the time. Asus claims to have a very rigid pre-screening process when selecting the chips for their gaming smartphones, and it shows. Apple’s Bionic CPU plays in a different league, and is significantly faster than all of its competitors. It was only outperformed in the OpenGL benchmarks. However, ever since the introduction of Metal in iOS, OpenGL has become more or less insignificant in the Apple universe.

Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
13896 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼55% -43%
Asus ROG Phone
14489 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Black Shark
13620 Points ∼94% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
13194 Points ∼91% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼94% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼31% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
9018 Points ∼80%
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼60% -25%
Asus ROG Phone
9231 Points ∼82% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
11244 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8453 Points ∼75% -6%
Sony Xperia XZ3
7934 Points ∼71% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼77% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼38% -52%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
2409 Points ∼50%
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼41% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
2500 Points ∼52% +4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4774 Points ∼100% +98%
Xiaomi Black Shark
2437 Points ∼51% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
2272 Points ∼48% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼27% -47%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8701 Points ∼92%
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼75% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
9430 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8309 Points ∼88% -5%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼85% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=256)
4551 Points ∼48% -48%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
10006 Points ∼87%
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼69% -20%
Asus ROG Phone
9707 Points ∼85% -3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
11474 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼88% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼43% -50%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3540 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
3148 Points ∼84% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
3040 Points ∼81% -14%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2723 Points ∼72% -23%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3577 Points ∼95% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3764 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼83% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼45% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5825 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
4490 Points ∼77% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
5673 Points ∼97% -3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4828 Points ∼83% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5770 Points ∼99% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5810 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5094 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
4101 Points ∼79% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
4757 Points ∼92% -7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4121 Points ∼79% -19%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5078 Points ∼98% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5184 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼90% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼26% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3532 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
3189 Points ∼85% -10%
Asus ROG Phone
3763 Points ∼100% +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2961 Points ∼79% -16%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3570 Points ∼95% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3672 Points ∼98% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼82% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼45% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8389 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
6475 Points ∼62% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
8345 Points ∼80% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
10374 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8451 Points ∼81% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8369 Points ∼81% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼74% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼20% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
6425 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
5269 Points ∼79% -18%
Asus ROG Phone
6568 Points ∼99% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
6667 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Black Shark
6482 Points ∼97% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
6517 Points ∼98% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼87% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼26% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3557 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼85% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
3637 Points ∼98% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3027 Points ∼82% -15%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3408 Points ∼92% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3703 Points ∼100% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼88% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼44% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5113 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼78% -21%
Asus ROG Phone
5174 Points ∼99% +1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3726 Points ∼71% -27%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5220 Points ∼100% +2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5092 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
4660 Points ∼99%
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼81% -18%
Asus ROG Phone
4730 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3544 Points ∼75% -24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
4668 Points ∼99% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
4700 Points ∼99% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3587 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼84% -14%
Asus ROG Phone
3668 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2713 Points ∼74% -24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3443 Points ∼94% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3603 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼85% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼42% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8006 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼74% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
8243 Points ∼99% +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
7055 Points ∼85% -12%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8312 Points ∼100% +4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8014 Points ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼94% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
6285 Points ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼78% -20%
Asus ROG Phone
6454 Points ∼100% +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
5205 Points ∼81% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
6324 Points ∼98% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
6300 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼91% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼21% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
35578 Points ∼95%
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼57% -40%
Asus ROG Phone
37475 Points ∼100% +5%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
27717 Points ∼74% -22%
Xiaomi Black Shark
31384 Points ∼84% -12%
Sony Xperia XZ3
36794 Points ∼98% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼34% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
80333 Points ∼50%
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼37% -27%
Asus ROG Phone
80283 Points ∼50% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
159735 Points ∼100% +99%
Xiaomi Black Shark
82423 Points ∼52% +3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
83927 Points ∼53% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼11% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
62783 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼54% -33%
Asus ROG Phone
64029 Points ∼83% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
77599 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60543 Points ∼78% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
65330 Points ∼84% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼79% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼19% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
152 fps ∼67%
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼52% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
150 fps ∼66% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
226 fps ∼100% +49%
Xiaomi Black Shark
151 fps ∼67% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
152 fps ∼67% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼64% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼14% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
89 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼89% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
89 fps ∼100% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ3
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼70% -30%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼28% -72%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
83 fps ∼78%
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼40% -48%
Asus ROG Phone
83 fps ∼78% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
107 fps ∼100% +29%
Xiaomi Black Shark
82 fps ∼77% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
83 fps ∼78% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼68% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼16% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
56 fps ∼75%
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼53% -29%
Asus ROG Phone
75 fps ∼100% +34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
59 fps ∼79% +5%
Xiaomi Black Shark
59 fps ∼79% +5%
Sony Xperia XZ3
50 fps ∼67% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼73% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼21% -71%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
61 fps ∼88%
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼30% -66%
Asus ROG Phone
60 fps ∼87% -2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
69.3 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼87% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
57 fps ∼82% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼78% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼21% -77%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
37 fps ∼63%
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼37% -41%
Asus ROG Phone
54 fps ∼92% +46%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
58.9 fps ∼100% +59%
Xiaomi Black Shark
53 fps ∼90% +43%
Sony Xperia XZ3
31 fps ∼53% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% +26%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼24% -62%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
15 fps ∼47%
Asus ROG Phone
21 fps ∼65% +40%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
32.1 fps ∼100% +114%
Sony Xperia XZ3
14 fps ∼44% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼62% +32%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼32% -32%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
14 fps ∼86%
Asus ROG Phone
14 fps ∼86% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
16.3 fps ∼100% +16%
Sony Xperia XZ3
14 fps ∼86% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼94% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼40% -54%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
23 fps ∼49%
Asus ROG Phone
34 fps ∼72% +48%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
47 fps ∼100% +104%
Sony Xperia XZ3
21 fps ∼45% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼61% +24%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼31% -37%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Asus ROG Phone
37 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
36.8 fps ∼99%
Sony Xperia XZ3
37 fps ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼42%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
35 fps ∼88%
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼63% -29%
Asus ROG Phone
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
40 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Black Shark
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼85% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼25% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
22 fps ∼71%
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼48% -32%
Asus ROG Phone
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Black Shark
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Sony Xperia XZ3
19 fps ∼61% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼91% +29%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼29% -60%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
285952 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼69% -27%
Asus ROG Phone
299878 Points ∼99% +5%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
302955 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Black Shark
290397 Points ∼96% +2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
292268 Points ∼96% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼91% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼39% -59%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
232418 Points ∼96%
Asus ROG Phone
242953 Points ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Black Shark
230642 Points ∼95% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
226853 Points ∼93% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=390)
76481 Points ∼31% -67%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
1226 Points ∼71%
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼71% 0%
Asus ROG Phone
1336 Points ∼77% +9%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
1731 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Black Shark
1243 Points ∼72% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
1390 Points ∼80% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼78% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼40% -43%
Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8001 Points ∼51%
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼40% -22%
Asus ROG Phone
7957 Points ∼51% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
15659 Points ∼100% +96%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5846 Points ∼37% -27%
Sony Xperia XZ3
7989 Points ∼51% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼50% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼11% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3906 Points ∼74%
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼77% +5%
Asus ROG Phone
5296 Points ∼100% +36%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
1815 Points ∼34% -54%
Xiaomi Black Shark
2871 Points ∼54% -26%
Sony Xperia XZ3
2317 Points ∼44% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼68% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼23% -68%
System (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8120 Points ∼70%
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼48% -30%
Asus ROG Phone
8613 Points ∼74% +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
11675 Points ∼100% +44%
Xiaomi Black Shark
7105 Points ∼61% -12%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8135 Points ∼70% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼66% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼22% -69%
Overall (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
4200 Points ∼86%
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼75% -13%
Asus ROG Phone
4693 Points ∼96% +12%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4895 Points ∼100% +17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3489 Points ∼71% -17%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3804 Points ∼78% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼84% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼26% -70%

Legend

 
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, Apple A12 Bionic GPU, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Black Shark Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Sony Xperia XZ3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

We saw basically the same results in the browser benchmarks, although in this category Apple’s Bionic chip wiped the floor with its competitors. This benchmark shows the importance of fine-tuning and harmonizing hardware and software.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
273.01 Points ∼100% +207%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
90.938 Points ∼33% +2%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
88.869 Points ∼33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼28% -13%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
63.3 Points ∼23% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼13% -59%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Points ∼0% -100%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
43114 Points ∼100% +153%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
18275 Points ∼42% +7%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
17067 Points ∼40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼36% -10%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
13663 Points ∼32% -20%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼29% -26%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=558)
5562 Points ∼13% -67%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -403%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼30% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -26%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
2287 ms * ∼20% -0%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
2282.6 ms * ∼20%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
2154 ms * ∼19% +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
603.1 ms * ∼5% +74%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
155 Points ∼100% +61%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
103 Points ∼66% +7%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
96 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
90 Points ∼58% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼55% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼41% -34%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
347 Points ∼100% +32%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
266 Points ∼77% +1%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
263 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
246 Points ∼71% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼67% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼32% -58%

* ... smaller is better

With our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card the Phone 2 offered decent read and write performance. The integrated 64 GB UFS 2.1 memory, on the other hand, performed rather poorly. Nevertheless, even demanding large games loaded very quickly on the Razer Phone 2.

Razer Phone 2Razer Phone 2017Sony Xperia XZ3Xiaomi Black SharkAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-19%
95%
13%
-47%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
52.5
-16%
30.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-51%
50.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=25)
-19%
45.6 (3.4 - 87.1, n=319)
-27%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
86.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
79.4
-8%
34.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-61%
66.4 (18 - 86.6, n=25)
-23%
63.8 (8.2 - 96.5, n=319)
-26%
Random Write 4KB
23.99
14.3
-40%
22.22
-7%
114.1
376%
50.5 (8.77 - 156, n=34)
111%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-33%
Random Read 4KB
124.31
142.5
15%
135.67
9%
127.2
2%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=34)
8%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-69%
Sequential Write 256KB
194.81
202.5
4%
196.14
1%
199.6
2%
193 (133 - 229, n=34)
-1%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-59%
Sequential Read 256KB
733.22
732.3
0%
680.98
-7%
741.5
1%
727 (529 - 895, n=34)
-1%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-69%

Gaming Performance

Smartphone Gaming is definitely the Razer Phone 2’s strongest side thanks to its display with not just a refresh rate but also a sampling rate of 120 Hz. This helps to reduce latencies to a minimum.

In addition to resolution, anti-aliasing, and a maximum CPU speed each game can be assigned a refresh rate that goes beyond the system settings of 60, 90 or 120 Hz and also includes 40 and 50 Hz.

However, limiting resource hogs such like Pokémon Go to just 40 fps is not going to solve anything. This particular outdoor game is an excellent example for what a huge difference these different settings can make. When limited to just 40 Hz even scrolling through your inventory is everything but smooth and skipping frames like there is no tomorrow. And do not even get me started on the animations when catching Pokémon. On the other hand, when set to 120 Hz the refresh and sampling rate are increased simultaneously. Accordingly, you need to adjust your curve balls unless you want them to go far. Really far.

Truth be told we were surprised by the fact that games like Pokémon Go come with support for different refresh and sampling rates that are hitherto only available on a single smartphone, and not the Toyota of smartphones either. However, several studios have updated their games in 2017 already and we are hoping that manufacturers other than Razer and Asus (90 Hz) are going to follow. Some games managed to yield a constant frame rate of 120 fps in our tests, others did not. The level of performance depends on how well a game has been optimized, however even at “just” 100 fps the games were buttery smooth.

The orientation sensor and accelerometer worked flawlessly during our tests in games like Real Racing.

Battle Bay
Battle Bay
Real Racing
Real Racing
Battle Bay
 SettingsValue
 half resolution60 fps
 full resolution109 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Real Racing 3
 SettingsValue
 high101 fps
 low60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!

Emissions

Temperature

Razer Phone 2, GFXBench Manhattan battery test (OpenGL ES 3.1): performance
Razer Phone 2, GFXBench Manhattan battery test (OpenGL ES 3.1): performance
Razer Phone 2, GFXBench Manhattan battery test (OpenGL ES 3.1): temperature
Razer Phone 2, GFXBench Manhattan battery test (OpenGL ES 3.1): temperature

In order to secure high frame rates when gaming, the Razer Phone 2 is equipped with a vapor-chamber cooling solution. The same cooler can also be found on the Xiaomi Black Shark and the Asus ROG Phone.

This particular cooling solution is designed to dissipate the heat away from its source as quickly as possible. The result is a gaming phone capable of sustaining a high level of performance over long periods, as can be seen in the GFXBench battery tests.

In return, the exterior surfaces used for heat dissipation get quite warm. The maximum of 40.8 °C (~105 °F) was high but not critical.

Max. Load
 39.7 °C
103 F
39.4 °C
103 F
39.8 °C
104 F
 
 39.4 °C
103 F
39.4 °C
103 F
40.7 °C
105 F
 
 38.7 °C
102 F
38.9 °C
102 F
39.6 °C
103 F
 
Maximum: 40.7 °C = 105 F
Average: 39.5 °C = 103 F
37.6 °C
100 F
38.8 °C
102 F
40.8 °C
105 F
38.3 °C
101 F
38.4 °C
101 F
38.9 °C
102 F
38.3 °C
101 F
38.6 °C
101 F
38 °C
100 F
Maximum: 40.8 °C = 105 F
Average: 38.6 °C = 101 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.2 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.9 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.8 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.

Speakers

Pink noise
Pink noise

The speakers have remained largely identical to last year’s Razer Phone. Compared to other top-tier smartphone speakers they are more balanced and even capable of producing a little bit of bass. They are, of course, incapable of fully taking advantage of the Dolby Atmos support, and neither can a headset. The included THX-certified 24-bit DAC (digital audio converter) put out 5.1 sound and produced much higher quality analog sound than a regular adapter.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2030.331.52538.130.83128.537.94031.434.15036.634.26324.6288024.126.510020.524.81251925.816016.936.120019.150.525016.652.431513.955.44001561.350014.663.163012.364.280011.865.1100011.866.8125011.967160011.465200011.265.6250011.565315011.364.5400010.963.8500010.561.4630010.764.9800010.667.61000010.567.31250010.663.51600010.654.2SPL60.264.357.22477.1N14.116.810.40.541.3median 11.8median 63.8Delta2.2729.525.929.526.427.726.426.526.526.526.628.326.625.525.225.523.922.723.926.523.626.533.623.333.640.230.540.245.821.145.852.420.652.455.322.955.357.921.157.960.921.560.964.822.364.869.117.569.171.520.171.569.719.969.77018.27069.51669.570.715.770.771.614.871.669.614.569.666.914.266.968146867.813.867.868.913.968.966.51466.562.71462.758.613.858.681.229.381.251.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.97.13.57.140.441.73634.540.928.533.230.441.14224.734.524.624.622.930.22038.717.545.718.849.818.951.11749.915.655.918.955.614.653.312.856.512.759.81264.31166.71168.91169.410.768.210.962.910.961.61162.711641161.911.158.111.152.862.324.877.215.60.637median 12median 58.135.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseRazer Phone 2Razer Phone 2017Apple iPhone Xs Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Razer Phone 2 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 14% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple iPhone Xs Max audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life

Power Consumption

At first glance it seems that Razer managed to improve power consumption over last year’s model. However, this is only true for low-load scenarios. Under load, the Razer Phone 2 required more power than its predecessor and more than all of its competitors.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.6 / 1.5 / 2.6 Watt
Load midlight 7.2 / 12.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Razer Phone 2
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Asus ROG Phone
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3174 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-2%
21%
11%
6%
6%
12%
Idle Minimum *
0.6
0.83
-38%
0.6
-0%
1
-67%
0.8
-33%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-34%
0.88 (0.2 - 3.4, n=637)
-47%
Idle Average *
1.5
2.11
-41%
1.4
7%
1.4
7%
1.5
-0%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-15%
1.719 (0.6 - 6.2, n=636)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.6
2.24
14%
1.7
35%
1.7
35%
2.3
12%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
19%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=637)
23%
Load Average *
7.2
4.94
31%
3.8
47%
4.6
36%
4.8
33%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
33%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=631)
44%
Load Maximum *
12.3
9.08
26%
10.6
14%
6.7
46%
10.1
18%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
25%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=631)
53%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Accordingly, battery life is a mixed bag. Low- and medium-load tasks such as reading eBooks or watching movies resulted in a fairly decent battery life. High load, on the other hand, drained the battery much faster than expected.

On the plus side, the Razer Phone 2 supports QuickCharge 4+, which means that the 4,000 mAh battery can be charged from empty to 50% in almost exactly 30 minutes, and to 100% in about an hour. Fast wireless charging is also supported, for example with Razer’s own Chroma Wireless Charger.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
27h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
8h 51min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 22min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 26min
Razer Phone 2
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Asus ROG Phone
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3174 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
44%
-5%
9%
17%
Reader / Idle
1630
1110
-32%
1305
-20%
1753
8%
H.264
742
800
8%
801
8%
747
1%
WiFi v1.3
531
762
44%
533
0%
742
40%
711
34%
Load
206
216
5%
223
8%
253
23%

Pros

+ 120 Hz display
+ powerful SoC with decent cooler
+ 8 GB of RAM
+ expandable storage
+ unique RGB logo
+ dual SIM
+ high-quality DAC included
+ camera with OIS
+ stereo speakers
+ wireless charging
+ QuickCharge

Cons

- heavy
- small internal storage
- wide bezels above and below the display
- poor battery life

Verdict

In review: Razer Phone 2 (Phone 2)
In review: Razer Phone 2 (Phone 2)

If you are looking for something special, the Razer Phone 2 will be perfect for you, and not just because of the logo. The Asus ROG Phone offers something similar albeit with a 90 Hz display. Thus, the 120 Hz display is unique to Razer’s phone - an exotic contender in the smartphone market that depends on game developers to support this unique feature. And support it they do - the number of games with 120 Hz support is growing fast. Maybe even fast enough to turn the exotic contender into a gaming smartphone pioneer that every mobile gamer is going to lust for.

Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 845 and 8 GB of RAM are fast and powerful, however they are neither unique to the Razer Phone 2 nor are they significantly faster and better than Samsung’s and Huawei’s own high-performance chips. Notably, those can be even more expensive than the $799 that Razer is asking for. Its only real weakness is its lack of stamina - if battery life is important to you, you may want to take a closer look at the competition.

On the cheaper side of the spectrum is the Xiaomi Black Shark. A smartphone that did almost as well as the Razer Phone 2 in our tests but only costs around half as much. If you insist on a Razer you may want to consider last year’s model as well, although at the time of writing it was just $100 cheaper. It lacks the sophisticated cooling system, wireless charging, the IP67 certification, and the Chroma RGB logo.

In some countries, Razer’s phones are already available as subsidized cellular service provider offerings. We strongly advise you to look at the phone in person first, though, and make sure its square-edged shape fits your hands and ears. And even if it does not its overwhelming performance practically sells itself.

Razer Phone 2 - 11/28/2018 v6
Inge Schwabe

Chassis
91%
Keyboard
89 / 75 → 100%
Pointing Device
100%
Connectivity
53 / 60 → 88%
Weight
88%
Battery
92%
Display
88%
Games Performance
65 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
76 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
78 / 91 → 86%
Camera
82%
Average
84%
90%
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 > Razer Phone 2 Smartphone Review
Inge Schwabe, 2018-11-30 (Update: 2018-12- 1)