Review TP-Link Neffos X20: Cheap smartphone with long battery life

Name: TP-Link Neffos X20
Brand: TP-Link

Motley - The Neffos X20 is an inexpensive entry-level smartphone, which is equipped with a large display, a dual camera and a powerful battery. In the test, the phone proves to be a solid representative of its trade and reveals both positive and negative surprises.

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 10/25/2019 🇩🇪 🇫🇷 ...

Android ARM Smartphone Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of TP-Link Deutschland

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

TP-Link Neffos X20 (Neffos Series)

Processor

Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 4 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A53

Graphics adapter

PowerVR GE8300

Memory

2048 MB

Display

6.26 inch 19:9, 1520 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes

Storage

32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB

, 24.75 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: Audioklinke (3,5 mm), Card Reader: microSD up to 128 GB (FAT, FAT32), 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration, proximity, compass

Networking

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1.800 and 1.900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (Band 1, 3 and 5), LTE (Band 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 20), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 8.55 x 159.7 x 77.3 ( = 0.34 x 6.29 x 3.04 in)

Battery

4100 mAh Lithium-Ion

Operating System

Android 9.0 Pie

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MPix (f/2.8, [email protected] Video) + 5 MPix (PDAF, dual flash); Camera2-API-Level: Full
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix (f/2.0)

Additional features

Speakers: Mono, Power supply unit (10 W), USB cable, screen protector, SIM tool, documentation, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: k. A., fanless

Weight

171 g ( = 6.03 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 58 g ( = 2.05 oz / 0.13 pounds)

Price

160 Euro

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

Comparison units

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
74 %	10/2019	TP-Link Neffos X20 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300	171 g	32 GB eMMC Flash	6.26"	1520x720
76 %	07/2019	Samsung Galaxy A20e Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2	141 g	32 GB eMMC Flash	5.80"	1560x720
73 %	06/2019	Huawei Y5 2019 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300	146 g	16 GB eMMC Flash	5.71"	1520x720
79 %	06/2019	Nokia 3.2 SD 429, Adreno 504	181 g	16 GB eMMC Flash	6.26"	1520x720

Case, equipment and operation

The Neffos X20 is available in the colours Aurora Purple, Black, Red and Blue and fits well in the hand. The quality of workmanship and choice of materials is on a good level, our red test device also looks good, although the back is quite susceptible to fingerprints. The battery is firmly installed, there is no IP certification.

The Micro-USB port now looks a bit old-fashioned, but supports USB-OTG. A memory expansion using a microSD card is possible, but the exFAT file system is not supported. After all, a full dual SIM solution is offered. There is also an audio jack and an analogue radio receiver.

The software used is Google Android 9.0 Pie, whose security updates are as of April 5, 2019 at the time of testing and are therefore no longer up-to-date. Regular updates are certainly not the case here.

At best, the Neffos X20 gets into the mobile Internet with LTE, the frequency coverage is limited to the regionally common bands. The reception was inconspicuous in the test and the Neffos delivers a decent call quality in everyday life. It also supports VoLTE, but no WLAN calling. The WLAN is very fast and stable in view of the price class.

The operation as such gives no cause for criticism, only by the weak SoC short waiting times arise again and again. The fingerprint sensor on the SoC recognizes our finger very reliably in the test. Face recognition is also offered, which is a bit faster, but also less secure.

Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks

under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1.000 USD/Euros

Best Displays, for University Students

Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera Smartphones The Best Smartphones for Less Than 160 Euros

Size comparison

TP-Link Neffos X20 Nokia 3.2 Samsung Galaxy A20e Huawei Y5 2019 ❌

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
TP-Link Neffos X20 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	275 (213^min - 287^max) MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei Y5 2019 802.11 b/g/n	55.5 (52^min - 59^max) MBit/s ∼20% -80%
Nokia 3.2 802.11 b/g/n	51.1 (46^min - 55^max) MBit/s ∼19% -81%
Samsung Galaxy A20e 802.11 b/g/n	39.7 (23^min - 50^max) MBit/s ∼14% -86%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
TP-Link Neffos X20 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	342 (323^min - 348^max) MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei Y5 2019 802.11 b/g/n	63 (56^min - 61^max) MBit/s ∼18% -82%
Samsung Galaxy A20e 802.11 b/g/n	60 (47^min - 67^max) MBit/s ∼18% -82%
Nokia 3.2 802.11 b/g/n	44.7 (32^min - 51^max) MBit/s ∼13% -87%

Cameras - Dual camera in the Neffos X20

The Neffos X20's dual camera offers neither an ultra wide angle nor a telephoto zoom, the second lens only collects depth information for Bokeh mode. The quality is good, but compared to top models it shows weaknesses in dynamic range and tends to be overexposed in bright image areas. The shutter release delay is also quite slow and the start of the camera takes almost two seconds.

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

Display - Neffos with low-contrast panel

The Neffos X20's 6.26 inch (15.90 cm, 97.81 cm²) display turns out to be a solid panel with sufficient brightness. Only in the APL50 test (347 cd/m²) does it weaken a little, which underlines the impression of the somewhat too weak contrast (APL50: 667:1) in everyday life. Positive: the supposed PWM is rather a high-frequency flicker, so no problems are to be expected.

The color reproduction shows visible deviations, but no falsifications and is on a level usual in the class.


466 cd/m²	460 cd/m²	442 cd/m²
464 cd/m²	470 cd/m²	435 cd/m²
456 cd/m²	463 cd/m²	438 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 470 cd/m² Average: 454.9 cd/m² Minimum: 4.76 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 470 cd/m²
Contrast: 1146:1 (Black: 0.41 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 6.3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
94.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.06

	TP-Link Neffos X20 1520x720, 6.26	Samsung Galaxy A20e 1560x720, 5.80	Huawei Y5 2019 1520x720, 5.71	Nokia 3.2 1520x720, 6.26
Response Times		-29%	-7%	-31%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *	43.6 (24, 19.6)	44.4 (20, 24.4) -2%	30 (11, 19) 31%	40 (23, 17) 8%
Response Time Black / White *	23.6 (11.2, 12.4)	20.8 (7.6, 13.2) 12%	14 (5, 9) 41%	26 (15, 11) -10%
PWM Frequency	17860 (100)	349.7 (50) -98%	1000 (10) -94%	1866 (10) -90%
Screen		-6%	-3%	-8%
Brightness middle	470	475 1%	630 34%	415 -12%
Brightness	455	473 4%	593 30%	391 -14%
Brightness Distribution	93	93 0%	88 -5%	86 -8%
Black Level *	0.41	0.35 15%	0.66 -61%	0.55 -34%
Contrast	1146	1357 18%	955 -17%	755 -34%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *	6	6.8 -13%	5.79 3%	4.8 20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *	10.1	13.4 -33%	9.54 6%	9.51 6%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *	6.3	8.7 -38%	7 -11%	5.7 10%
Gamma	2.06 ^107%	2.33 ^94%	2.176 ^101%	2.255 ^98%
CCT	8064 ^81%	9385 ^69%	8420 ^77%	7824 ^83%
Total Average (Program / Settings)		-18% / -12%	-5% / -4%	-20% / -14%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
23.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 11.2 ms rise
23.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 12.4 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. » 37 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
43.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 24 ms rise
43.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 19.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 63 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.1 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

17860 Hz

≤ 100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 17860 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 17860 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 14825 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Performance, emissions and battery life

The TP-Link Neffos X20 is driven by a MediaTek Helio A22, which is located at the lowest end of the performance spectrum. This is not only noticeable in the benchmarks, but also in everyday life, because small pauses for thought are the rule, there is no room for elaborate 3D games.

The surface temperatures are almost identical in idle as well as under load and always remain pleasantly low.

The loudspeaker of the X20 at the lower edge delivers a solid sound output, which completely misses the low mids, but delivers a good sound image at medium volume. If you turn up the phone fully, you'll only get a distorted sound delivered to your ear. Alternatively, an audio jack or Bluetooth 5.0 is available. The latter even supports aptX and aptX HD.

The battery life is on a good level with over eleven hours in the practical WLAN test, even though the Neffos smartphone is the last in the comparison field. We positively noticed the low consumption values in standby in the test. Even after more than a week without use, the battery was still over 60 percent full.

PCMark for Android - Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4777 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	5305 Points ∼67% +11%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4195 Points ∼53% -12%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	4631 Points ∼59% -3%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (4195 - 5511, n=11)	4831 Points ∼61% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=267, last 2 years)	7878 Points ∼100% +65%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	8435 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	11565 Points ∼29% +37%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	8452 Points ∼21% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	7920 Points ∼20% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (7228 - 8657, n=9)	8343 Points ∼21% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2920 - 117606, n=207, last 2 years)	40247 Points ∼100% +377%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	7609 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	11427 Points ∼20% +50%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	7514 Points ∼13% -1%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	6895 Points ∼12% -9%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (6349 - 7695, n=9)	7447 Points ∼13% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2177 - 224130, n=207, last 2 years)	58049 Points ∼100% +663%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	13609 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	12075 Points ∼52% -11%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	15004 Points ∼64% +10%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	16518 Points ∼71% +21%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (12725 - 15348, n=9)	14468 Points ∼62% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (8324 - 59268, n=207, last 2 years)	23323 Points ∼100% +71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	461 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	737 Points ∼22% +60%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	418 Points ∼12% -9%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	470 Points ∼14% +2%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (411 - 492, n=11)	453 Points ∼13% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 11256, n=260, last 2 years)	3369 Points ∼100% +631%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	414 Points ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	637 Points ∼16% +54%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	362 Points ∼9% -13%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	399 Points ∼10% -4%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (357 - 434, n=11)	401 Points ∼10% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (54 - 16670, n=260, last 2 years)	3943 Points ∼100% +852%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	769 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	1646 Points ∼60% +114%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	911 Points ∼33% +18%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1235 Points ∼45% +61%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (755 - 923, n=11)	840 Points ∼30% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (607 - 5301, n=260, last 2 years)	2756 Points ∼100% +258%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	506 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	759 Points ∼19% +50%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	509 Points ∼13% +1%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	462 Points ∼12% -9%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (442 - 521, n=11)	499 Points ∼13% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (149 - 11895, n=276, last 2 years)	3948 Points ∼100% +680%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	458 Points ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	659 Points ∼13% +44%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	451 Points ∼9% -2%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	393 Points ∼8% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (390 - 461, n=11)	445 Points ∼9% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (122 - 22052, n=276, last 2 years)	4986 Points ∼100% +989%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	798 Points ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	1624 Points ∼56% +104%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	924 Points ∼32% +16%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1195 Points ∼41% +50%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (775 - 954, n=11)	866 Points ∼30% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (620 - 5784, n=274, last 2 years)	2908 Points ∼100% +264%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	257 Points ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	526 Points ∼20% +105%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	239 Points ∼9% -7%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	189 Points ∼7% -26%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (239 - 298, n=10)	261 Points ∼10% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (78 - 9138, n=258, last 2 years)	2629 Points ∼100% +923%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	216 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	443 Points ∼16% +105%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	197 Points ∼7% -9%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	152 Points ∼5% -30%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (197 - 250, n=10)	218 Points ∼8% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (62 - 11573, n=258, last 2 years)	2786 Points ∼100% +1190%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	777 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	1630 Points ∼58% +110%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	918 Points ∼33% +18%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1207 Points ∼43% +55%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (738 - 918, n=10)	842 Points ∼30% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (435 - 5318, n=258, last 2 years)	2802 Points ∼100% +261%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	298 Points ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	525 Points ∼16% +76%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	299 Points ∼9% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	257 Points ∼8% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (238 - 301, n=10)	285 Points ∼9% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 9839, n=274, last 2 years)	3193 Points ∼100% +971%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	253 Points ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	440 Points ∼12% +74%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	250 Points ∼7% -1%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	210 Points ∼6% -17%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (197 - 253, n=10)	240 Points ∼7% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (73 - 12914, n=274, last 2 years)	3570 Points ∼100% +1311%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	787 Points ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	1628 Points ∼55% +107%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	940 Points ∼32% +19%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1233 Points ∼42% +57%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (780 - 940, n=10)	855 Points ∼29% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (620 - 5793, n=274, last 2 years)	2959 Points ∼100% +276%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	20 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	31 fps ∼54% +55%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	21 fps ∼37% +5%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	17 fps ∼30% -15%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (20 - 23, n=6)	21 fps ∼37% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (8.2 - 143, n=215, last 2 years)	57 fps ∼100% +185%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	14 fps ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	20 fps ∼19% +43%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	14 fps ∼13% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	11 fps ∼10% -21%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (14 - 14, n=6)	14 fps ∼13% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.3 - 322, n=215, last 2 years)	106 fps ∼100% +657%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	12 fps ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	20 fps ∼44% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	12 fps ∼27% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	8.9 fps ∼20% -26%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (11 - 15, n=6)	12.8 fps ∼28% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.5 - 120, n=213, last 2 years)	45 fps ∼100% +275%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	6.6 fps ∼11%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	11 fps ∼18% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	6.5 fps ∼10% -2%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	4.7 fps ∼8% -29%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (6.5 - 6.7, n=6)	6.57 fps ∼11% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 180, n=214, last 2 years)	62 fps ∼100% +839%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	8.1 fps ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	14 fps ∼40% +73%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	7.8 fps ∼22% -4%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	6.7 fps ∼19% -17%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (7.6 - 11, n=6)	8.78 fps ∼25% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 106, n=212, last 2 years)	35.4 fps ∼100% +337%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4.3 fps ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	6.5 fps ∼15% +51%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4.3 fps ∼10% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	3.1 fps ∼7% -28%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (2.5 - 4.3, n=6)	3.98 fps ∼9% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 121, n=212, last 2 years)	42.5 fps ∼100% +888%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	1.5 fps ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	8.6 fps ∼39% +473%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	3.2 fps ∼14% +113%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	3.6 fps ∼16% +140%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (1.5 - 4.1, n=6)	3.23 fps ∼15% +115%
Average of class Smartphone (1.5 - 61, n=211, last 2 years)	22.2 fps ∼100% +1380%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2 fps ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	4.2 fps ∼16% +110%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2 fps ∼8% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1.8 fps ∼7% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (1.9 - 2, n=6)	1.983 fps ∼8% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1.8 - 75, n=211, last 2 years)	25.5 fps ∼100% +1175%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4.4 fps ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	7.8 fps ∼35% +77%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	4.3 fps ∼19% -2%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	2 fps ∼9% -55%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (2.3 - 6.1, n=11)	4.73 fps ∼21% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (1.5 - 73, n=280, last 2 years)	22.2 fps ∼100% +405%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2.3 fps ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	4 fps ∼16% +74%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2.3 fps ∼9% 0%
Nokia 3.2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048	1.8 fps ∼7% -22%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (1.9 - 4.2, n=11)	2.51 fps ∼10% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (0.95 - 257, n=279, last 2 years)	25.6 fps ∼100% +1013%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2.8 fps ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	4.8 fps ∼32% +71%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	2.8 fps ∼19% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (2.7 - 3.9, n=11)	3.13 fps ∼21% +12%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 60, n=280, last 2 years)	14.8 fps ∼100% +429%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	0.84 fps ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072	1.4 fps ∼14% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019 Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048	0.8 fps ∼8% -5%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761 (0.7 - 0.85, n=11)	0.809 fps ∼8% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (0.35 - 101, n=279, last 2 years)	10.1 fps ∼100% +1102%

	TP-Link Neffos X20	Samsung Galaxy A20e	Huawei Y5 2019	Nokia 3.2	Average 32 GB eMMC Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		29%	9%	20%	17%	324%
Sequential Read 256KB	279.01	300.36 8%	272.1 -2%	282.4 1%	240 (25.8 - 452, n=226) -14%	752 (41.9 - 2037, n=285, last 2 years) 170%
Sequential Write 256KB	90.58	103.57 14%	45.2 -50%	106.3 17%	97.9 (14.8 - 189, n=226) 8%	327 (11.9 - 1321, n=285, last 2 years) 261%
Random Read 4KB	39.39	79.76 102%	62.1 58%	35 -11%	41.9 (3.59 - 117, n=226) 6%	134 (13.5 - 325, n=285, last 2 years) 240%
Random Write 4KB	8.65	13.18 52%	13.1 51%	17.5 102%	19.9 (0.75 - 89.5, n=226) 130%	120 (4.97 - 330, n=285, last 2 years) 1287%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	82.64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	79.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -4%	81.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -1%	87.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 6%	71.8 (8.2 - 96.5, n=178) -13%	75.9 (13.4 - 154, n=175, last 2 years) -8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	63.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	64.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 2%	63.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0%	65.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 4%	52.9 (3.4 - 87.1, n=178) -16%	58.2 (8.4 - 83.3, n=175, last 2 years) -8%

Temperature

Max. Load

Idle


31.3 °C 88 F	31.3 °C 88 F	31.4 °C 89 F
31 °C 88 F	31.2 °C 88 F	31.7 °C 89 F
29.9 °C 86 F	30.9 °C 88 F	31.9 °C 89 F

Maximum: 31.9 °C = 89 F
Average: 31.2 °C = 88 F


29 °C 84 F	29.7 °C 85 F	32.1 °C 90 F
29 °C 84 F	29.6 °C 85 F	32 °C 90 F
28.9 °C 84 F	29.6 °C 85 F	31.9 °C 89 F

Maximum: 32.1 °C = 90 F
Average: 30.2 °C = 86 F

Power Supply (max.) 33.3 °C = 92 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.2 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.9 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Loudspeakers

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

TP-Link Neffos X20 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A20e audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 47% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
Nokia 3.2 SD 429, Adreno 504, Wh	958 min ∼36% +42%
Average of class Smartphone (425 - 2000, n=295, last 2 years)	898 min ∼34% +33%
Samsung Galaxy A20e Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, Wh	715 min ∼27% +6%
Huawei Y5 2019 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 0 Wh	709 min ∼27% +5%
TP-Link Neffos X20 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, Wh	674 min ∼26%

Battery Runtime


NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Neffos Browser 9.0)		11h 14min

Pros

+ good workmanship

+ fast WLAN

+ full Dual-SIM + microSD

+ long battery life

Cons

- slow SoC

- no NFC

- low-contrast panel

Verdict - Long runtimes and good audio properties

Under review: TP-Link Neffos X20. Test device provided by TP-Link Germany.

The TP-Link-Neffos X20 is a solid entry-level smartphone with a stylish look and good battery life. It also features an audio jack, analogue radio reception and even Bluetooth 5.0 with aptX HD. The latter is certainly a rarity in this price range. Just as positive, if you want to use Dual-SIM (2x Nano), you don't have to do without a microSD card.

The camera delivers rather moderate results, which are sufficient for simple social media needs, but quickly reaches its limits in low light. However, it offers many setting options and shooting modes.

The Neffos X20 is a colourful beginner's smartphone that convinces above all with its battery life.

Although the display is pleasantly large, it delivers a weak contrast ratio in everyday life. Outside, the panel is quickly overwhelmed. The system performance is quite slow, but this is no different for most competitors in this price range.

The smartphone is particularly suitable for occasional users who prefer to use their mobile phone for writing messages and otherwise leave it lying around more often. Especially the latter will be pleased that the battery only empties very slowly, especially in standby mode.

TP-Link Neffos X20 - 2019-10-25 10/25/2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis

84%

Keyboard

66 / 75 → 88%

Pointing Device

81%

Connectivity

44 / 70 → 63%

Weight

91%

Battery

89%

Display

80%

Games Performance

4 / 64 → 6%

Application Performance

50 / 86 → 58%

Temperature

93%

Noise

100%

Audio

80 / 90 → 89%

Camera

42%

Average

70%

74%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Linked Articles

TP-Link Neffos X20 (Neffos Series)

Review

•

TP-Link Neffos C9 Smartphone R...

Review

•

TP-Link Neffos C9A Smartphone ...

Review

•

TP-Link Neffos N1 Smartphone R...

Review

•

TP-Link Neffos C5 Smartphone R...

Pricecompare

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Daniel Schmidt - Managing Editor Mobile - 375 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2013

As a child I was fascinated by my Commodore 16, and this sparked my enthusiasm for computers. Using my first modem, I surfed the BTX videotext system and later the World Wide Web. I have always been captivated by the latest technologies, and this is especially true for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. I’ve been part of the Notebookcheck team since 2013 and have also on occasion written for Notebookinfo.de, and I’m looking forward to testing new innovations for our readers. I like to spend my spare time indulging in photography and barbecues and being with my family.

contact me via: @Tellheim, Facebook, tellheim1763, LinkedIn, Xing

Translator: Ninh Duy - Editorial Assistant - 186362 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2017

My main responsibility as an editorial assistant is maintaining the Library section, which aggregates reviews from other publications and channels. In addition, my daily breakfast is Notebookcheck's long list of new content, which I comb through to select the most interesting topics for translation from English to French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch."

contact me via: Facebook

Please share our article, every link counts!