Notebookcheck

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

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 10/25/2019

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.

TP-Link Neffos X20 (Neffos Series)
Graphics adapter
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.

 

Comparison units

RatingDateModelWeightDriveSizeResolutionBest Price
74%10/2019TP-Link Neffos X20
Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300
171 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.26"1520x720
76%07/2019Samsung Galaxy A20e
7884B, Mali-G71 MP2
141 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.8"1560x720
73%06/2019Huawei Y5 2019
Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300
146 g16 GB eMMC Flash5.71"1520x720
79%06/2019Nokia 3.2
429, Adreno 504
181 g16 GB eMMC Flash6.26"1520x720

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

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. 

Size comparison

159.7 mm / 6.29 inch 77.3 mm / 3.04 inch 8.55 mm / 0.3366 inch 171 g0.377 lbs159.4 mm / 6.28 inch 76.2 mm / 3 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 181 g0.399 lbs147.4 mm / 5.8 inch 69.7 mm / 2.74 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 141 g0.3109 lbs147.1 mm / 5.79 inch 70.8 mm / 2.79 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 146 g0.3219 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
TP-Link Neffos X20
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
342 (min: 323, max: 348) MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei Y5 2019
802.11 b/g/n
63 (min: 56, max: 61) MBit/s ∼18% -82%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
60 (min: 47, max: 67) MBit/s ∼18% -82%
Nokia 3.2
802.11 b/g/n
44.7 (min: 32, max: 51) MBit/s ∼13% -87%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
TP-Link Neffos X20
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
275 (min: 213, max: 287) MBit/s ∼100%
Huawei Y5 2019
802.11 b/g/n
55.5 (min: 52, max: 59) MBit/s ∼20% -80%
Nokia 3.2
802.11 b/g/n
51.1 (min: 46, max: 55) MBit/s ∼19% -81%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
39.7 (min: 23, max: 50) MBit/s ∼14% -86%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø338 (323-348)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø275 (213-287)

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 1Scene 2Scene 3
ColorChecker Photo
28 ∆E
53.5 ∆E
39.6 ∆E
38.9 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
67.2 ∆E
53.4 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
41.3 ∆E
26.4 ∆E
66.6 ∆E
64.1 ∆E
30.4 ∆E
50.7 ∆E
35.7 ∆E
76.6 ∆E
42.3 ∆E
48.4 ∆E
93.1 ∆E
70.8 ∆E
51.8 ∆E
36.8 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
ColorChecker TP-Link Neffos X20: 47.14 ∆E min: 13.85 - max: 93.09 ∆E
ColorChecker Photo
13.4 ∆E
16.3 ∆E
18.3 ∆E
15.6 ∆E
18.6 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
15.3 ∆E
20.1 ∆E
16.5 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
15 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
2 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
ColorChecker TP-Link Neffos X20: 12.33 ∆E min: 2.01 - max: 20.11 ∆E
Testchart @2.500 Lux
Testchart-Ausschnitt
Testchart @1 Lux

Display - Neffos with low-contrast panel

Subpixel structure

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 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 6.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
94.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.06
TP-Link Neffos X20
1520x720, 6.26
Samsung Galaxy A20e
1560x720, 5.8
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

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
↘ 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. » 34 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
43.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 24 ms rise
↘ 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 64 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.5 ms).

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 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9331 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


Grayscale (target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (target color space: sRGB)
Color space (target color space: sRGB)
Color space (target color space: sRGB)
Outdoor use
Viewing angles

Performance, emissions and battery life

Pink Noise Measurement

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 ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5305 Points ∼99% +11%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4195 Points ∼78% -12%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
4631 Points ∼86% -3%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (4195 - 5511, n=7)
4856 Points ∼90% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=399)
5379 Points ∼100% +13%
3DMark
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 ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1628 Points ∼81% +107%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
940 Points ∼47% +19%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1233 Points ∼62% +57%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (780 - 940, n=6)
843 Points ∼42% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=406)
2002 Points ∼100% +154%
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 ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
440 Points ∼24% +74%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
250 Points ∼14% -1%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
210 Points ∼12% -17%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (197 - 253, n=6)
243 Points ∼13% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=406)
1824 Points ∼100% +621%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
298 Points ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
525 Points ∼31% +76%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
299 Points ∼18% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
257 Points ∼15% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (238 - 300, n=6)
289 Points ∼17% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=407)
1693 Points ∼100% +468%
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 ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1624 Points ∼85% +104%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
924 Points ∼48% +16%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1195 Points ∼63% +50%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (775 - 954, n=7)
864 Points ∼45% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=435)
1910 Points ∼100% +139%
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 ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
659 Points ∼27% +44%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
451 Points ∼19% -2%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
393 Points ∼16% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (450 - 461, n=7)
456 Points ∼19% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=435)
2432 Points ∼100% +431%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
506 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
759 Points ∼37% +50%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
509 Points ∼25% +1%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
462 Points ∼23% -9%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (504 - 521, n=7)
509 Points ∼25% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=435)
2040 Points ∼100% +303%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
777 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1630 Points ∼85% +110%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
918 Points ∼48% +18%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1207 Points ∼63% +55%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (738 - 918, n=6)
835 Points ∼44% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4909, n=486)
1907 Points ∼100% +145%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
216 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
443 Points ∼29% +105%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
197 Points ∼13% -9%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
152 Points ∼10% -30%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (197 - 250, n=6)
223 Points ∼15% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=486)
1510 Points ∼100% +599%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
257 Points ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
526 Points ∼36% +105%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
239 Points ∼16% -7%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
189 Points ∼13% -26%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (239 - 298, n=6)
266 Points ∼18% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=487)
1453 Points ∼100% +465%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
769 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1646 Points ∼93% +114%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
911 Points ∼51% +18%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1235 Points ∼70% +61%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (755 - 923, n=7)
844 Points ∼48% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=527)
1770 Points ∼100% +130%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
414 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
637 Points ∼32% +54%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
362 Points ∼18% -13%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
399 Points ∼20% -4%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (357 - 434, n=7)
404 Points ∼20% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=526)
1982 Points ∼100% +379%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
461 Points ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
737 Points ∼43% +60%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
418 Points ∼24% -9%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
470 Points ∼28% +2%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (411 - 492, n=7)
456 Points ∼27% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=529)
1708 Points ∼100% +270%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
13609 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12075 Points ∼73% -11%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
15004 Points ∼91% +10%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
16518 Points ∼100% +21%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (12725 - 15348, n=7)
14431 Points ∼87% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=687)
14357 Points ∼87% +5%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7609 Points ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11427 Points ∼51% +50%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7514 Points ∼33% -1%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
6895 Points ∼31% -9%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (7514 - 7695, n=7)
7599 Points ∼34% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=685)
22559 Points ∼100% +196%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8435 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11565 Points ∼64% +37%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8452 Points ∼46% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
7920 Points ∼44% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (8316 - 8657, n=7)
8489 Points ∼47% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=685)
18200 Points ∼100% +116%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
20 fps ∼52% +43%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
14 fps ∼36% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
11 fps ∼29% -21%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (14 - 14, n=6)
14 fps ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=705)
38.5 fps ∼100% +175%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
20 fps ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
31 fps ∼100% +55%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
21 fps ∼68% +5%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
17 fps ∼55% -15%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (20 - 23, n=6)
21 fps ∼68% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=714)
28.3 fps ∼91% +42%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
6.6 fps ∼30%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11 fps ∼49% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
6.5 fps ∼29% -2%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
4.7 fps ∼21% -29%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (6.5 - 6.7, n=6)
6.57 fps ∼29% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=610)
22.3 fps ∼100% +238%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
12 fps ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
20 fps ∼100% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
12 fps ∼60% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
8.9 fps ∼45% -26%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (11 - 15, n=6)
12.8 fps ∼64% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=619)
19.6 fps ∼98% +63%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.3 fps ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.5 fps ∼36% +51%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.3 fps ∼24% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
3.1 fps ∼17% -28%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.5 - 4.3, n=6)
3.98 fps ∼22% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=475)
18.2 fps ∼100% +323%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
8.1 fps ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
14 fps ∼82% +73%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
7.8 fps ∼46% -4%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
6.7 fps ∼39% -17%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (7.6 - 11, n=6)
8.78 fps ∼52% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=477)
17 fps ∼100% +110%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.8 fps ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.8 fps ∼47% +71%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.8 fps ∼27% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.7 - 3.7, n=7)
3.03 fps ∼30% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=198)
10.2 fps ∼100% +264%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
0.84 fps ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.4 fps ∼20% +67%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
0.8 fps ∼11% -5%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (0.8 - 0.85, n=7)
0.827 fps ∼12% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=197)
7.08 fps ∼100% +743%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.4 fps ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
7.8 fps ∼52% +77%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
4.3 fps ∼29% -2%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
2 fps ∼13% -55%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.3 - 5.8, n=7)
4.47 fps ∼30% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=202)
15 fps ∼100% +241%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.3 fps ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4 fps ∼24% +74%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2.3 fps ∼14% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1.8 fps ∼11% -22%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (2.3 - 4.2, n=7)
2.73 fps ∼16% +19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=202)
16.8 fps ∼100% +630%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.2 fps ∼34% +110%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
2 fps ∼16% 0%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
1.8 fps ∼15% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (1.9 - 2, n=6)
1.983 fps ∼16% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=400)
12.4 fps ∼100% +520%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
TP-Link Neffos X20
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
1.5 fps ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8.6 fps ∼77% +473%
Huawei Y5 2019
Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300, 2048
3.2 fps ∼29% +113%
Nokia 3.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, Adreno 504, 2048
3.6 fps ∼32% +140%
Average Mediatek Helio A22 MT6761
  (1.5 - 4.1, n=6)
3.23 fps ∼29% +115%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=404)
11.1 fps ∼100% +640%
TP-Link Neffos X20Samsung Galaxy A20eHuawei Y5 2019Nokia 3.2Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
29%
9%
20%
11%
27%
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%
50.8 (3.4 - 87.1, n=148)
-19%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=438)
-21%
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%
69.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=148)
-16%
67.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=438)
-18%
Random Write 4KB
8.65
13.18
52%
13.1
51%
17.5
102%
18.2 (0.75 - 77.3, n=188)
110%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
167%
Random Read 4KB
39.39
79.76
102%
62.1
58%
35
-11%
39.3 (3.59 - 117, n=188)
0%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
23%
Sequential Write 256KB
90.58
103.57
14%
45.2
-50%
106.3
17%
94.5 (14.8 - 189, n=188)
4%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
10%
Sequential Read 256KB
279.01
300.36
8%
272.1
-2%
282.4
1%
236 (25.8 - 452, n=188)
-15%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
0%

Temperature

Max. Load
 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 33.1 °C / 92 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 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 34 °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 33.1 °C / 92 F.


Loudspeakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.726.22527.626.43130.625.54024.822.35032.736.96324.626.18023.222.310019.226.412517.928.616016.538.120015.244.325017.349.531517.250.540016.857.150014.664.36301468.180014.766.2100014.770.1125014.873.216001576.4200014.975.325001574.8315014.675.240001478.4500015.178.4630014.673800014.872.31000015.170.21250015.170.51600015.554.4SPL2786.6N0.964.6median 15median 70.1Delta0.411.536.742.733.637.834.335.133.830.63933.534.831.43130.530.232.123.228.122.835.322.636.919.844.220.150.316.951.916.856.915.259.415.864.915.869.314.569.31570.914.17015.369.814.971.614.969.614.770.114.769.614.970.814.873.215.361.615.45227.881.6149.8median 15.3median 64.92.110.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseTP-Link Neffos X20Samsung Galaxy A20e
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
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery life

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
Nokia 3.2
429, Adreno 504,  Wh
958 min ∼36% +42%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
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%
Average of class Smartphone
  (223 - 2636, n=630)
664 min ∼25% -1%
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.
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 - 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

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Review TP-Link Neffos X20: Cheap smartphone with long battery life
Daniel Schmidt, 2019-10-25 (Update: 2019-10-25)