Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy Note20 Review - Not always better than the Note10

Dimmed. The Samsung Galaxy Note20 is more than $300 less than the Ultra model. Looking at the specs sheet we can spot a few cut corners, but it is not immediately clear whether or not the more expensive Note20 is really worth its premium or, more importantly, whether the Note20 worth switching to from the Note10.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (translated by Finn D. Boerne),

The Galaxy Note20, successor to the Galaxy Note10, is the smaller sibling to Samsung’s Note20 Ultra. Starting at $999 for the 4G model it is around $300 cheaper than the Ultra, which obviously required some compromises.

Take for example its triple camera, which instead of a 108 MP sensor features a 12 MP sensor for its main lens and lacks the optical periscope zoom. Its Super AMOLED Plus display lacks support for Dynamic OLED, which is not just a step down from the Note20 Ultra but also its own predecessor, the Note10.

Memory and storage-wise it comes equipped with a decent 8 and 256 GB. Unfortunately, higher storage tiers are not available, and the Note20 also lacks microSD support. And last but not least opting for a 5G model will incur a price premium of around $100.

Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Galaxy Note Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 990 8 x 2 - 2.7 GHz, Exynos M5 / Cortex A-76 / Cortex-A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR5
Display
6.70 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 393 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, native pen support, Super AMOLED Plus, Corning Gorilla Glas 5, glossy: yes, HDR, 60 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 221.6 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: gyroscope, accelerometer, proximity sensor, hall sensor, geomagnetic sensor, barometer
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1,800, and 1,900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1,900, and 2,100 MHz), LTE (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 66, 38, 39, 40, and 41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.3 x 161.6 x 75.2 ( = 0.33 x 6.36 x 2.96 in)
Battery
4300 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix (1/1.76", f/1.8, OIS) + 12 MPix (ultra-wide angle, 1/2.55", f/2.2) + 64 MPix (hybrid tele, 1/1.72", f/2.0, OIS), Camera2-API-Level: Full
Secondary Camera: 10 MPix (f/2.2)
Additional features
Speakers: stereo speakers, Keyboard: on-screen, 24 Months Warranty, DRM Widevine L1, IP68-certified, head SAR: W/kg, body SAR: W/kg, fanless, waterproof
Weight
192 g ( = 6.77 oz / 0.42 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
925 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
88 %
10/2020
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
192 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"2400x1080
86 %
03/2020
Oppo Find X2 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
202 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.70"3168x1440
88 %
04/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
208 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2340x1080
88 %
04/2020
OnePlus 8 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
199 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.78"3168x1440
89 %
12/2019
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16
198 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.53"2400x1176
87 %
09/2019
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
226 g64 GB SSD6.50"2688x1242
89 %
09/2020
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
208 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.90"3088x1440

Case – Plastic and Gorilla Glass 5 for the Note20

The Samsung Galaxy Note20 is available in three colors: Mystic Bronze, Mystic Green, and Mystic Gray. Compared to the Note20 Ultra its rear is not made of glass but plastic with a camera bump protruding by around 0.95 mm. Accordingly, the Note20 wobbles noticeably when placed face-up on a table albeit less so than its sibling.

Build quality is superb. All gaps are narrow and consistent, and our attempts at twisting and warping the case resulted in minimal creaking at best. The rear cover can be depressed slightly. The display is flat, does not curve around the edges, and it is protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 5. Overall, the design is definitely boxier than before.

According to its spec sheet the Note20 is IP68-certified against ingress of dust and water. The SIM tray differed visually from the metal frame on our gray model, and it can take two Nano SIM cards. Like before the S-Pen is stored inside the phone albeit the slot has been relocated from the right to the left-hand side.

Size Comparison

165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 74.4 mm / 2.93 inch 9.5 mm / 0.374 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs165.3 mm / 6.51 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 199 g0.4387 lbs164.8 mm / 6.49 inch 77.2 mm / 3.04 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.96 mm / 0.3528 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs161.6 mm / 6.36 inch 75.2 mm / 2.96 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs158.1 mm / 6.22 inch 73.1 mm / 2.88 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 198 g0.4365 lbs158 mm / 6.22 inch 77.8 mm / 3.06 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 226 g0.4982 lbs

Connectivity – Galaxy Smartphone without microSD and Audio Jack

Connectivity is at a level expected of the device and basically unchanged when compared to the Note10.

Nominally, the device features a USB 3.2 Gen 1 port, which is nothing but a rebranding of last year’s USB 3.1 port. In addition to data and power it also carries HDMI and DisplayPort signals and can be used accordingly with the proper dongle.

Samsung DeX remains supported as well and can be used to wirelessly connect to external displays via Miracast. That said this feature has been made available via software update to the Note10 as well.

The lack of microSD port was a disappointment. Samsung also opted to not include an audio jack, an IR blaster, and FM radio.

Top: SIM slot, microphone
Top: SIM slot, microphone
Left side: no connectivity
Left side: no connectivity
Right side: volume rocker, power/Bixby button
Right side: volume rocker, power/Bixby button
Bottom: microphone, USB, speaker, S-Pen
Bottom: microphone, USB, speaker, S-Pen

Software – Note20 with long-time update supply

The Samsung Galaxy Note20 comes with Android 10 and Samsung’s in-house One UI 2.5 preinstalled. In addition to Samsung’s Galaxy Store we also found several third-party applications by Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix, and Spotify preloaded, some of which cannot be uninstalled but only deactivated.

The well-known S-Pen tools are preinstalled as well. Pulling out the pen from its storage compartment can start a customizable app list or notes app. Alternatively, you can still use the pen to scribble your thoughts directly onto the lock screen.

Like for its bigger sibling Samsung assures three years of updates for the Note20. It should therefore be updated all the way to Android 13, at least in theory.

Communication and GNSS – 5G optional

Our review unit may not have supported modern 5G standards, which is available as an optional extra, but it did support a very wide variety of 4G/LTE bands in return. It should thus be capable of connecting to networks when abroad. We did not encounter any connectivity issues with our review unit during the entire review period.

The Galaxy Note20’s Wi-Fi module supports Wi-Fi 6 with MIMO antennas and VHT80. When connected to our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router it managed good transfer rates both ways as well as a decent signal strength and range. At -51 dBm when standing right next to the router we found its attenuation to be slightly too high, though.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
1010 (912min - 1092max) MBit/s ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
533 (468min - 602max) MBit/s ∼53% -38%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
883 (834min - 919max) MBit/s ∼87% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (802min - 879max) MBit/s ∼86%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
754 (346min - 881max) MBit/s ∼75% -13%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
580 (550min - 597max) MBit/s ∼57% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=620)
286 MBit/s ∼28% -67%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
966 (923min - 995max) MBit/s ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
637 (584min - 715max) MBit/s ∼66% -24%
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
833 (418min - 883max) MBit/s ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
816 (403min - 832max) MBit/s ∼84% -2%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
589 (461min - 625max) MBit/s ∼61% -29%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
509 (264min - 571max) MBit/s ∼53% -39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=620)
273 MBit/s ∼28% -67%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø863 (802-879)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø819 (418-883)
GPSTest: supported GNSS
GNSS
GPS Test: outdoors
outdoors
GPS Test: indoors
indoors

Supported location services include GPS, Glonass, BeiDou, QZSS, and Galileo, all of which support dual-band mode except for the Russian and Chinese GNSS. Outdoors, location lock is obtained very quickly, and indoor accuracy was fairly high.

When taken on our usual bicycle tour around the block we pitched the Samsung Galaxy Note20 against a professional Garmin Edge 500 GPS. The total distance covered was around 7.5 miles, and the total deviation in recorded track length was 150 m. The Note20 placed us besides our actual track occasionally, which was only noticeable when inspected up close, and did a pretty good job overall.

Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - around the lake
Garmin Edge 500 - around the lake
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - overview
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - overview
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - around the lake
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - around the lake
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - turning point
Samsung Galaxy Note20 - turning point

Telephony and Call Quality

On earphone, the Galaxy Note20’s call quality was excellent. Unfortunately, voices were noticeably quieter and more muffled on speakerphone, which we would thus suggest to only use in very quiet environments.

Ambient noise was filtered out very well, and our conversational partner did not hear any interfering distractions from our side. The only effect was that our own voice was slightly more muffled.

The Note20 supports dual SIM with either two physical SIM cards or one physical SIM and one eSIM. It also supports modern communications standards such as Wi-Fi calling and VoLTE.

Cameras – Galaxy Note20 with Hybrid Tele-Zoom

Note20 selfie

The 10 MP front-facing camera produced decent photos. However, it applied too much Gaussian blur and faded the colors slightly in automatic mode.

The rear-facing triple camera consists of a 12 MP wide-angle, a 12 MP ultra-wide angle, and a 64 MP lens. The latter is used for the 3x optical / 30x digital zoom. A setup we are already familiar with from the Galaxy S20.

When used in everyday situations the Note20 produced decent photos with a high dynamic range and laser sharp focus. Truth be told we preferred its daylight photos to those taken with the Note20U. Differences started to become obvious with fading light or when zooming in, and the ultra-wide angle lens was visibly worse and suffered from blurriness around the edges.

Videos are recorded in up to [email protected] FPS. If you prefer higher frame rates you will have to settle for [email protected] FPS. The camera also supports a super slow-motion (960 FPS) as well as many of the other well-known features.

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.

WeitwinkelWeitwinkelZoom (5-fach)UltraweitwinkelLow-Light

Under normalized conditions, the Galaxy Note20 produced photos that were sharp and crisp up to their very edges. Colors are more natural than on the Note20 Ultra, but the differences in low-light performance were once again glaringly obvious. 

ColorChecker
28.4 ∆E
44.8 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
32.7 ∆E
38.9 ∆E
54.1 ∆E
44.3 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
33.4 ∆E
26.2 ∆E
55.4 ∆E
55.7 ∆E
28.5 ∆E
41 ∆E
29.5 ∆E
58.1 ∆E
35.5 ∆E
38.5 ∆E
54.5 ∆E
54.6 ∆E
43.5 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
22.8 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note20: 38.83 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 58.06 ∆E
ColorChecker
10.7 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
8 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
3 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
1.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note20: 6.19 ∆E min: 1.45 - max: 14.34 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty – S-Pen without spare tips

Depending on country of purchase the Note20 comes with either 12 or 24 months of warranty, which can be further expanded through Care+. It includes two years of accidental damage protection with varying costs depending on country of purchase.

Included in the box we find a modular 25 W USB-C charger, a USB cable, a headset, a SIM tool, and the usual paperwork. As with the Ultra neither the tools required for changing nor any actual spare S-Pen tips are included.

Input Devices and Handling – Flat display and less wobble

The capacitive touchscreen is very smooth and responsive. System performance was great, but we would have wished for a higher frequency panel for an improved S-Pen responsiveness. That said we did not notice any issues or shortcomings in everyday use.

The stylus pen is identical to the Note10’s and of expected build and quality. The Note20 turned out to be better suited for taking notes due to the fact that you can use the entire width of the display due to the fact that it does not curve around the edges. The slightly lower camera bump also resulted in less wobble when the phone was placed face-up on the table.

The keyboard layout remained unchanged. It still splits in two in landscape mode for improved and easier two-handed use. Alternative layouts are available in the app stores.

Supported biometric identification includes the in-display fingerprint reader and a 2D face detection feature. Both worked great in our tests and unlocked the device very quickly.

Display – Downgrade with Benefits

Subpixel array

The 6.7-inch large display no longer supports the current Dynamic AMOLED technology but the slightly older Super ALMOED Plus technology instead. The result is a lower maximum brightness. Nevertheless, the Note20 remains HDR10/HDR10+-certified, which when looking at its APL50 results of 833 nits should work perfectly fine. Disabling the ambient light sensor lowers maximum brightness to just 339 nits. This may sound very low at first but keep in mind that the system will continue to increase brightness in bright environments even with manual brightness control enabled and is thus capable of increasing maximum brightness to more than 339 nits.

Thanks to OLED blacks are as deep as can be. In return, users have to deal with PWM flicker typical for these panels. The Note20’s PWM frequency is between 121,4 and 250 Hz, which is fairly low and could turn out to be problematic for sensitive users.

614
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
634
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
610
cd/m²
637
cd/m²
615
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
634
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 637 cd/m² Average: 620.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.52 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 610 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.4 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.09
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Super AMOLED Plus, 2400x1080, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.30
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.90
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.50
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53
OnePlus 8 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67
Oppo Find X2 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70
Screen
-2%
-22%
26%
-5%
42%
36%
-38%
Brightness middle
610
764
25%
860
41%
790
30%
592
-3%
796
30%
753
23%
778
28%
Brightness
621
757
22%
878
41%
790
27%
605
-3%
779
25%
762
23%
775
25%
Brightness Distribution
95
91
-4%
96
1%
97
2%
96
1%
94
-1%
96
1%
99
4%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.4
2.66
-11%
4.5
-88%
1.4
42%
2.5
-4%
0.68
72%
0.9
62%
4.4
-83%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4.3
5.65
-31%
10.4
-142%
3.4
21%
5.5
-28%
1.55
64%
1.6
63%
8.7
-102%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.8
3.2
-14%
2.4
14%
1.9
32%
2.6
7%
1.1
61%
1.5
46%
5.6
-100%
Gamma
2.09 105%
2.073 106%
2 110%
2.23 99%
2.16 102%
2.237 98%
2.24 98%
2.26 97%
CCT
6368 102%
6326 103%
6466 101%
6466 101%
6173 105%
6310 103%
6415 101%
7250 90%

* ... 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 250 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 250 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9668 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Our CalMAN color analysis revealed that the older display technology actually outperformed the newer Dynamic AMOLED technology. When set to “Natural” colors were more accurate than on the Note10 and Note20 Ultra. Generally speaking, colors were very accurate with just minor deviations that only occurred in the smaller sRGB color space. 

Grayscale (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colors (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colors (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Color space (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Color space (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Lively, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Colors (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Colors (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Color space (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Color space (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Lively (adjusted), target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Natural, target 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
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
9.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4.8 ms rise
↘ 4.8 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.6 ms).

Daylight was not a big problem for the Galaxy Note20 to deal with, and the smartphone turned out to be very well suited for outdoor use. Only on particularly sunny and bright days would we have wished for a brighter display. 

Viewing angles are very good, and we only noticed a very minor green tint at extremely acute angles. 

Blickwinkelstabilität des Samsung Galaxy Note20

Performance – European Note20 with Exynos 990

The Galaxy Note20 features an Exynos 990 with 8 GB of LPDDR5 RAM and an ARM Mali-G77 MP11 GPU.

Thus, Samsung is once again using its own in-house SoC rather than Qualcomm’s top-of-the-line high-end SoC for devices sold in Europe. This is a particularly bitter pill to swallow considering the performance differences between the two.

The SoC itself is a well-known high-performance chip that we have already encountered in other 2020 flagship smartphones.

Geekbench 5.1 - 5.3
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5364 Points ∼98%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5364 - 5532, n=2)
5448 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (259 - 5532, n=50)
1969 Points ∼36% -63%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4667 Points ∼99%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4667 - 4789, n=2)
4728 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 4789, n=55)
1689 Points ∼36% -64%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
2766 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3360 Points ∼97% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3338 Points ∼96% +21%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3318 Points ∼95% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3062 Points ∼88% +11%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3476 Points ∼100% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (2731 - 2899, n=5)
2800 Points ∼81% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 4160, n=148)
1968 Points ∼57% -29%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
917 Points ∼69%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
911 Points ∼69% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
906 Points ∼68% -1%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
909 Points ∼69% -1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
781 Points ∼59% -15%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1326 Points ∼100% +45%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (903 - 944, n=5)
929 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1604, n=148)
570 Points ∼43% -38%
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9491 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9443 Points ∼77%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12228 Points ∼100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
8648 Points ∼71%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=362)
4914 Points ∼40%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13279 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13186 Points ∼99%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12280 Points ∼92%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (12557 - 12561, n=2)
12559 Points ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 13589, n=426)
5024 Points ∼38%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4278 Points ∼88%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4261 Points ∼87%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3898 Points ∼80%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4791 - 4965, n=2)
4878 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4965, n=426)
1536 Points ∼31%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10008 Points ∼88%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11387 Points ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10952 Points ∼96% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11153 Points ∼98% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10322 Points ∼91% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10008 - 11784, n=5)
10612 Points ∼93% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=547)
6048 Points ∼53% -40%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
13627 Points ∼95%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13360 Points ∼93% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13142 Points ∼91% -4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13471 Points ∼94% -1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
13947 Points ∼97% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (13627 - 14760, n=5)
14391 Points ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=703)
6654 Points ∼46% -51%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3104 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3843 Points ∼99% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3830 Points ∼99% +23%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3888 Points ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3870 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3104 - 3230, n=5)
3154 Points ∼81% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=199)
2664 Points ∼69% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6136 Points ∼74%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8076 Points ∼98% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8173 Points ∼99% +33%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8279 Points ∼100% +35%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6369 Points ∼77% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6136 - 8783, n=5)
7254 Points ∼88% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 11259, n=199)
3059 Points ∼37% -50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5042 Points ∼76%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6444 Points ∼97% +28%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6578 Points ∼99% +30%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6618 Points ∼100% +31%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5570 Points ∼84% +10%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5042 - 6355, n=5)
5599 Points ∼85% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=199)
2715 Points ∼41% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4143 Points ∼74%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5187 Points ∼93% +25%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5277 Points ∼95% +27%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5506 Points ∼99% +33%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5576 Points ∼100% +35%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4063 - 4495, n=5)
4284 Points ∼77% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=554)
2268 Points ∼41% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
870 Points ∼9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9345 Points ∼100% +974%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9356 Points ∼100% +975%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9379 Points ∼100% +978%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6657 Points ∼71% +665%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (870 - 9190, n=5)
7112 Points ∼76% +717%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=554)
2259 Points ∼24% +160%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7076 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7982 Points ∼98% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7986 Points ∼98% +13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8111 Points ∼100% +15%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6382 Points ∼79% -10%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6638 - 7459, n=5)
7083 Points ∼87% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=555)
2088 Points ∼26% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4247 Points ∼78%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5209 Points ∼95% +23%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4283 Points ∼78% +1%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5480 Points ∼100% +29%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5133 Points ∼94% +21%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3935 - 4455, n=5)
4240 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=586)
2184 Points ∼40% -49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
11868 Points ∼93%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12573 Points ∼99% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12694 Points ∼100% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12665 Points ∼100% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7970 Points ∼63% -33%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (9470 - 11868, n=5)
10329 Points ∼81% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 22052, n=586)
3080 Points ∼24% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8485 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9616 Points ∼98% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8823 Points ∼90% +4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9807 Points ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7098 Points ∼72% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (7385 - 8485, n=5)
7798 Points ∼80% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=586)
2536 Points ∼26% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3993 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4582 Points ∼92% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4895 Points ∼98% +23%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4987 Points ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4909 Points ∼98% +23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
4038 Points ∼81% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3963 - 4267, n=5)
4091 Points ∼82% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5262, n=634)
2142 Points ∼43% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8005 Points ∼96%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8045 Points ∼97% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8299 Points ∼100% +4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8106 Points ∼98% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6478 Points ∼78% -19%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
6088 Points ∼73% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8005 - 8469, n=5)
8260 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=634)
1883 Points ∼23% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6544 Points ∼91%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7012 Points ∼98% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7157 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7117 Points ∼99% +9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6048 Points ∼85% -8%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5471 Points ∼76% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6544 - 6896, n=5)
6733 Points ∼94% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=635)
1786 Points ∼25% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4077 Points ∼81%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5054 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4729 Points ∼94% +16%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4928 Points ∼98% +21%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4900 Points ∼97% +20%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3839 Points ∼76% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3846 - 4124, n=5)
3990 Points ∼79% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=676)
2013 Points ∼40% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
11272 Points ∼91%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11458 Points ∼92% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12394 Points ∼100% +10%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11371 Points ∼92% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7671 Points ∼62% -32%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
11302 Points ∼91% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6388 - 11488, n=5)
9004 Points ∼73% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=675)
2497 Points ∼20% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8097 Points ∼89%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8866 Points ∼97% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9123 Points ∼100% +13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8811 Points ∼97% +9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6815 Points ∼75% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
7893 Points ∼87% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5646 - 8097, n=5)
6920 Points ∼76% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=678)
2134 Points ∼23% -74%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
39771 Points ∼92%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28147 Points ∼65% -29%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
32384 Points ∼75% -19%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
32240 Points ∼74% -19%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
43459 Points ∼100% +9%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33898 Points ∼78% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (27431 - 42135, n=4)
37265 Points ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=820)
15818 Points ∼36% -60%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
87223 Points ∼42%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
145567 Points ∼71% +67%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
150281 Points ∼73% +72%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
149017 Points ∼72% +71%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75073 Points ∼36% -14%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
206190 Points ∼100% +136%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (48476 - 87223, n=4)
74951 Points ∼36% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 224130, n=818)
28467 Points ∼14% -67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
68943 Points ∼71%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
75632 Points ∼78% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
82937 Points ∼86% +20%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
82562 Points ∼85% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
64626 Points ∼67% -6%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
96826 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (41415 - 68943, n=4)
61100 Points ∼63% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=818)
21881 Points ∼23% -68%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
191 fps ∼67%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
202 fps ∼70% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
203 fps ∼71% +6%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
206 fps ∼72% +8%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
152 fps ∼53% -20%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
287 fps ∼100% +50%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (145 - 200, n=5)
187 fps ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=818)
47.7 fps ∼17% -75%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼67%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
90 fps ∼100% +50%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
59 fps ∼66% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (60 - 119, n=5)
81.8 fps ∼91% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=827)
32 fps ∼36% -47%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
114 fps ∼73%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
123 fps ∼78% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
122 fps ∼78% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
126 fps ∼80% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
106 fps ∼68% -7%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
157 fps ∼100% +38%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (96 - 126, n=5)
109 fps ∼69% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 180, n=723)
28.3 fps ∼18% -75%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼68%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
58 fps ∼66% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
88 fps ∼100% +47%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (59 - 90, n=5)
65.8 fps ∼75% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=731)
23.3 fps ∼26% -61%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
80 fps ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼86% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼86% +8%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼88% +10%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
56 fps ∼56% -30%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
100 fps ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (65 - 85, n=5)
77.4 fps ∼77% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=586)
22.7 fps ∼23% -72%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
58 fps ∼75%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼58% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
77 fps ∼100% +33%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼78% +3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
73 fps ∼95% +26%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼78% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (58 - 61, n=5)
59 fps ∼77% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=588)
20.2 fps ∼26% -65%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
27 fps ∼59%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
18 fps ∼39% -33%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
30 fps ∼65% +11%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
31 fps ∼67% +15%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
26 fps ∼57% -4%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
46 fps ∼100% +70%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (22 - 34, n=5)
29.8 fps ∼65% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=346)
11.7 fps ∼25% -57%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
23 fps ∼79%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼69% -13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼69% -13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼69% -13%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
19 fps ∼66% -17%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
29 fps ∼100% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (20 - 23, n=5)
21.8 fps ∼75% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=344)
8.24 fps ∼28% -64%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
52 fps ∼90%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28 fps ∼48% -46%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
47 fps ∼81% -10%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
48 fps ∼83% -8%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
40 fps ∼69% -23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
58 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (49 - 52, n=5)
50.8 fps ∼88% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=350)
17.4 fps ∼30% -67%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
56 fps ∼75%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼71% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
54 (20min) fps ∼72% -4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼72% -4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
49 fps ∼65% -12%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
75 fps ∼100% +34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (43 - 58, n=5)
53.4 fps ∼71% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=349)
20.1 fps ∼27% -64%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
49 fps ∼78%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼81% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
50 fps ∼79% +2%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼81% +4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
41 fps ∼65% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
63 fps ∼100% +29%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (38 - 51, n=5)
47.6 fps ∼76% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 75, n=511)
15.1 fps ∼24% -69%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
44 fps ∼92%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
26 fps ∼54% -41%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
45 fps ∼94% +2%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼94% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
34 fps ∼71% -23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
48 fps ∼100% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (34 - 45, n=5)
42 fps ∼88% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=515)
13.4 fps ∼28% -70%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
522516 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
599843 Points ∼100% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
595466 Points ∼99% +14%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
585231 Points ∼98% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
483224 Points ∼81% -8%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
510245 Points ∼85% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (296746 - 527820, n=5)
469996 Points ∼78% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=139)
326530 Points ∼54% -38%
Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
29.22 (4.07min - 95.16max) fps ∼34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (84.1 - 85.6, n=2)
84.8 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.73 - 85.6, n=74)
19.1 fps ∼23%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
31.12 (11.09min - 63.1max) fps ∼59%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (42.3 - 63, n=2)
52.7 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.57 - 63, n=64)
16 fps ∼30%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
33.9 (9.36min - 74.72max) fps ∼47%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (71.5 - 71.6, n=2)
71.5 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.88 - 71.6, n=62)
19.9 fps ∼28%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4988 Score ∼70%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7156 Score ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4997 Score ∼70%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4607 - 4957, n=3)
4783 Score ∼67%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 7649, n=93)
2603 Score ∼36%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
1394 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1351 Points ∼77% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1514 Points ∼87% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1496 Points ∼86% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1462 Points ∼84% +5%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1745 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (1270 - 1439, n=5)
1351 Points ∼77% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=753)
835 Points ∼48% -40%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10789 Points ∼63%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11496 Points ∼68% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11567 Points ∼68% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11842 Points ∼70% +10%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10112 Points ∼59% -6%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
16996 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10646 - 10803, n=5)
10744 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=753)
2592 Points ∼15% -76%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3829 Points ∼48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6350 Points ∼80% +66%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7945 Points ∼100% +107%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7240 Points ∼91% +89%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6130 Points ∼77% +60%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
2350 Points ∼30% -39%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3775 - 4497, n=5)
4037 Points ∼51% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=753)
1947 Points ∼25% -49%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9421 Points ∼66%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9555 Points ∼67% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10002 Points ∼70% +6%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10058 Points ∼71% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9309 Points ∼66% -1%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
14189 Points ∼100% +51%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8843 - 9478, n=5)
9209 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=753)
3552 Points ∼25% -62%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4826 Points ∼79%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5540 Points ∼91% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6072 Points ∼100% +26%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5993 Points ∼99% +24%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5389 Points ∼89% +12%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5607 Points ∼92% +16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4764 - 4915, n=5)
4815 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=753)
1823 Points ∼30% -62%

When browsing the web, the Note20 performed very well. Nevertheless, it landed in last place in almost all tests.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
129.096 Points ∼100% +130%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
65.88 Points ∼51% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
64.958 Points ∼50% +16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
64.567 Points ∼50% +15%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
63.374 Points ∼49% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
56.102 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5)
53.8 Points ∼42% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=213)
42.5 Points ∼33% -24%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
301.91 Points ∼100% +217%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
115.49 Points ∼38% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
115.43 Points ∼38% +21%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.78 Points ∼38% +21%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.65 Points ∼38% +20%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
95.185 Points ∼32%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5)
92.8 Points ∼31% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 375, n=647)
49.6 Points ∼16% -48%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
153 runs/min ∼100% +138%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
74.1 runs/min ∼48% +15%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
71 runs/min ∼46% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
68.6 runs/min ∼45% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chome 80)
67.7 runs/min ∼44% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
64.4 runs/min ∼42%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4)
60.4 runs/min ∼39% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 196, n=194)
44.9 runs/min ∼29% -30%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
181 Points ∼100% +79%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
119 Points ∼66% +18%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
104 Points ∼57% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
101 Points ∼56% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
101 Points ∼56%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼55% -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5)
94.4 Points ∼52% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=284)
71 Points ∼39% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
49388 Points ∼100% +147%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
23678 Points ∼48% +18%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
23568 Points ∼48% +18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
22976 Points ∼47% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
22834 Points ∼46% +14%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
20022 Points ∼41%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5)
19019 Points ∼39% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=816)
8273 Points ∼17% -59%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=842)
9571 ms * ∼100% -317%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5)
2387 ms * ∼25% -4%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
2293.6 ms * ∼24%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
2043.6 ms * ∼21% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
2021.2 ms * ∼21% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
1962.5 ms * ∼21% +14%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
1944.7 ms * ∼20% +15%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
570.9 ms * ∼6% +75%

* ... smaller is better

Out of the nominally 256 GB of storage 222 GB are accessible to the user.

In terms of performance, the UFS 3.1 storage did exceptionally well even though it was outperformed by some of its competitors since it was unable to fully utilize its high write speed potential.

Samsung Galaxy Note20Samsung Galaxy Note10Oppo Find X2 ProXiaomi Mi 10 ProOnePlus 8 ProHuawei Mate 30 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-15%
-7%
10%
-6%
-6%
9%
-79%
Random Write 4KB
233.79
191.9
-18%
204.98
-12%
258.54
11%
197.7
-15%
259.21
11%
244 (205 - 285, n=7)
4%
38.6 (0.14 - 319, n=914)
-83%
Random Read 4KB
207.64
194.2
-6%
202.63
-2%
264.9
28%
208.3
0%
226.38
9%
246 (187 - 325, n=7)
18%
61.8 (1.59 - 325, n=914)
-70%
Sequential Write 256KB
780.17
590.3
-24%
728.72
-7%
750.44
-4%
730.4
-6%
401.79
-48%
847 (732 - 1321, n=7)
9%
135 (2.99 - 1321, n=914)
-83%
Sequential Read 256KB
1682.85
1478.3
-12%
1605.6
-5%
1738.65
3%
1627.3
-3%
1780.5
6%
1753 (1675 - 2037, n=7)
4%
356 (12.1 - 2037, n=914)
-79%

Gaming – Dragged Down by the 60 Hz Display

We evaluated the Note20’s gaming performance together with our partner GameBench. High resolutions did not cause any issues at all, and the SoC was more than powerful enough to run all current games smoothly.

In PUBG Mobile we were (still) unable to select the new Ultra HD setting and encountered a noticeable frame drop in HD. In return, Armajet ran perfectly smooth at all times despite the fact that it failed to achieve a constant 60 FPS.

The Note20’s large display and good speakers make for a great gaming experience. Too bad the display is limited to just 60 Hz.

PUBG Mobile
Armajet
010203040506070Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; 1.0.0: Ø39.8 (27-41)
; Armajet; 1.15.1: Ø58.9 (44-61)

Emissions – Galaxy Smartphone with Dual Speakers

Temperature

T-Rex
Manhattan

When idle, the Galaxy Note20 remained cool to the touch. Even under sustained load it only warmed up slightly at the front.


We use the GFXBench app to determine an SoC’s thermal throttling behavior under consistent high load. Using the app’s built-in battery test, we run each benchmark scenario 30x in a row and record battery charge levels as well as frame rates. The Note20 performed very consistently in the older T-Rex test. A claim we cannot make for the newer and more demanding Manhattan test during which its performance dropped by around a third.

Max. Load
 35.5 °C
96 F
34.7 °C
94 F
31.2 °C
88 F
 
 34.7 °C
94 F
34.9 °C
95 F
31.2 °C
88 F
 
 34.2 °C
94 F
33 °C
91 F
29.4 °C
85 F
 
Maximum: 35.5 °C = 96 F
Average: 33.2 °C = 92 F
29 °C
84 F
32.2 °C
90 F
31.6 °C
89 F
28.1 °C
83 F
31.5 °C
89 F
32.6 °C
91 F
27.7 °C
82 F
31.5 °C
89 F
31.3 °C
88 F
Maximum: 32.6 °C = 91 F
Average: 30.6 °C = 87 F
Power Supply (max.)  24.5 °C = 76 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.2 °C / 92 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 35.5 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

Pink Noise

The Note20 uses two speakers, one of which is located in the earphone piece and the other at the bottom of the device. The overall soundscape and audio experience were pretty good despite the fact that lows were underrepresented.

A headphone jack is nowhere to be found, and Samsung does also not include a USB dongle. Wireless Bluetooth headphones are supported, and the Note20 can once again connect to two Bluetooth devices simultaneously. Supported audio codecs include SBC, AAC, aptX, and LDAC.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.537.92527.627.43120.725.3402326.65033.533.36326.823.68020.819.51002227.112518.238.516017.849.720014.750.925015.155.331513.46040012.262.650012.865.963011.568.680011.671.910001276.3125011.476.7160011.377.4200011.977.8250012.476.7315012.574.9400013.177.9500013.574.7630013.174.3800013.976.21000013.177.2125001478.51600013.767.7SPL24.887.9N0.673.4median 13.1median 74.3Delta1.59.736.923.32923.721.927.4222229.935.3222819.330.716.331.31440.316.956.114.954.614.158.61066.71165.711.766.710.969.411.972.31176.410.276.811.477.812.87912.97912.578.41378.513.175.813.475.315.776.113.573.51470.313.763.924.888.80.677.4median 13median 72.31.18.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy Note20Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy Note20 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% 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, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
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 65%

Battery Life – Note20 with 4,300 mAh

Power Consumption

Despite its smaller display the Galaxy Note20 consumed more power than its larger sibling, particularly at minimum display brightness.

Using the included 25 W charger the smartphone can be charged from near empty to 100 % in 96 minutes. Alternatively, it supports wireless charging and can charge other devices via Wireless PowerShare.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.36 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.92 / 1.5 / 1.54 Watt
Load midlight 5.49 / 9.99 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy Note20
4300 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 8 Pro
4510 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-67%
23%
-78%
7%
-22%
-3%
4%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
1.47
-60%
0.61
34%
2.2
-139%
0.87
5%
0.92
-0%
0.846 (0.65 - 1, n=5)
8%
0.892 (0.2 - 3.4, n=911)
3%
Idle Average *
1.5
3.43
-129%
1.19
21%
3.3
-120%
1.75
-17%
2.9
-93%
1.534 (1.06 - 1.91, n=5)
-2%
1.758 (0.6 - 6.2, n=910)
-17%
Idle Maximum *
1.54
3.52
-129%
1.23
20%
3.7
-140%
1.83
-19%
2.94
-91%
1.858 (1.49 - 2.3, n=5)
-21%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=911)
-32%
Load Average *
5.49
6.2
-13%
4.18
24%
5.9
-7%
3.85
30%
3.65
34%
5.14 (4.72 - 5.8, n=5)
6%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=905)
25%
Load Maximum *
9.99
10.63
-6%
8.53
15%
8.3
17%
6.64
34%
6.18
38%
10.7 (9.99 - 11.8, n=5)
-7%
6.12 (1.2 - 14.2, n=905)
39%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Thanks to its significantly larger battery the Galaxy Note20 will last longer than its predecessor, although that wasn’t true for all use cases. For example, it only outlasted the Note10 by a few minutes in our Wi-Fi test at normalized display brightness (150 nits).

All things considered the Note20 should easily last a full day for most users. As before, power users will have to look for top ups in-between.