Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy S20+ Smartphone Review: A handset with 8K video capabilities

A universal genius? The Plus model of the Samsung Galaxy S20 series offers a bit more of everything than the Galaxy S20 does. There is a bit more screen here, more battery there, and an additional rear-facing camera too. With a launch price from 1,000 Euros (~$1,094) upwards, you should expect a lot from the Galaxy S20+ too. Accordingly, we shall examine the Galaxy S20+ in detail to see what it has to offer.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Alex Alderson),
Samsung Galaxy S20+

For over 10 years now, the Galaxy S models have spearheaded Samsung's smartphone line-up, alongside the Galaxy Note series of course. If you think that the S series should have run out of steam by now, then you are wrong. Samsung has done a lot this year to improve the Galaxy S series in almost every aspect. The question is, of course, whether the company has done enough to warrant you investing at least 999 Euros (~$1,093) in the Galaxy S20+. Samsung currently sells the device in the following SKUs:

  • Samsung Galaxy S20+ 4G (128 GB storage & 8 GB RAM): 999 Euros (~$1,093)
  • Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G (128 GB storage & 12 GB RAM): 1,099 Euros (~$1,203)

So, Samsung is offering 4G and 5G versions of the device, a change from the Galaxy S10 series. However, the two models are identical but for their larger working memory and a 5G modem. Visually, the 4G and 5G versions of the Galaxy S20+ are indistinguishable. The difference in weight is also negligible.

As you may have already seen, we have covered the Galaxy S20 extensively. While we praised the device for its bright and colour-accurate screen, we admonished it for throttling its SoC. Let us dive in and see how the Galaxy S20+ performs.

Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Galaxy S20 Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 990 8 x 2 - 2.7 GHz, Exynos M5 / Cortex A-76 / Cortex-A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.7 inch 20:9, 3200 x 1440 pixel 524 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 6, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 108 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: Audio output via USB Type-C, Card Reader: microSD cards up to 1 TB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, 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: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS: Bands 1, 2, 4, 5, 8. LTE: Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.8 x 161.9 x 73.7 ( = 0.31 x 6.37 x 2.9 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix , f/1.8, phase comparison AF (dual pixel), OIS, LED flash (camera 1); 64.0 MP, f/2.0, phase comparison AF, OIS, videos at 4320p/24 FPS (camera 2); 12.0 MP, f/2.2, ultra-wide-angle lens (camera 3); Depth of field (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 10 MPix , f/2.2, phase comparison AF (dual pixel), videos at 2160p/30 FPS
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo speakers (hybrid), Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Quick charger, USB Type-C cable, headset, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, IP68 certified; LTE Cat. 20/18 (2000 Mbps/210 Mbps); SAR: 0.376 W/kg (head), 1.57 W/kg (body), fanless, waterproof
Weight
188 g ( = 6.63 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 59 g ( = 2.08 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
1000 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Device comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
88 %
04/2020
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
188 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"3200x1440
87 %
09/2019
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
226 g64 GB SSD6.5"2688x1242
89 %
12/2019
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16
198 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.53"2400x1176
87 %
11/2019
OnePlus 7T Pro
SD 855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
85 %
07/2019
Sony Xperia 1
SD 855, Adreno 640
178 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"3840x1644

Case - A high-end smartphone with IP certification

While the Galaxy S20 will likely appeal to people with smaller hands because of its slim waist and smaller overall footprint, the Galaxy S20+ is a bit wider and more of a large, high-end smartphone. At 188 g, however, it is still significantly lighter than, for example, an Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max. The smartphone sits comfortably in our hands and is also relatively thin at 7.8 mm. Its rear-facing camera module stands out clearly from its glass back, though.

Samsung covers the device with Gorilla Glass 6, which is much more scratch-resistant than previous versions. However, the glass still picks up fingerprints easily, even with our colourful review unit. The device also has a metal frame, while the transitions between materials are clean. Overall, the craftsmanship of our review unit is up to scratch.

The smartphone is IP68-certified too, so you need not worry about your device falling into water or coming into contact with dust. Samsung sells the Galaxy S20+ in black, dark grey or light blue. The company reserves pink for the smaller Galaxy S20, for reference.

Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Galaxy S20+

Size Comparison

167 mm / 6.57 inch 72 mm / 2.83 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 178 g0.3924 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs161.9 mm / 6.37 inch 73.7 mm / 2.9 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 188 g0.4145 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 - More storage would be nice

Samsung offers only 128 GB of storage for the Galaxy S20+. The manufacturer could have been more generous here, with the likes of Huawei and OnePlus offering twice as much storage on their comparably priced or cheaper smartphones. Samsung does include the very fast UFS 3.0 flash storage, though. The Galaxy S20+ has a microSD card reader too that accepts up to 1-TB cards. Please keep in mind that you must use the second SIM card slot if you want to include a microSD card.

There is no 3.5 mm headphone jack in the Galaxy S20+, with the device transmitting audio over a wired connection via USB Type-C instead. Samsung does not include a 3.5 mm to Type-C adapter in the box either. Additionally, you must make sure to get a compatible unit if you need one as not all adapters will work with the device.

NFC, which can be used for Google Pay among other NFC-based services, is of course onboard. The same applies to ANT+, with which external sensors can be monitored wirelessly.

Top: microphone, card slot
Top: microphone, card slot
Underside: microphone, USB Type-C port, speaker
Underside: microphone, USB Type-C port, speaker
Right-hand side: power button, volume rocker
Right-hand side: power button, volume rocker
Left-hand side: No connections
Left-hand side: No connections

Software - One UI 2.1 comes preinstalled

Samsung preinstalls One UI 2.1 on the Galaxy S20+, the latest version of its in-house OS. Samsung bases One UI 2.1 on Android 10, while our review unit had the latest set of security patches installed at the time of our tests. Notably, Samsung makes no general statements about how long it supports a device with software updates. The Galaxy S20+ is no different in that regard. Usually, Samsung supplies its high-end devices like the Galaxy S series with monthly security updates for at least three years before moving to quarterly updates for at least another year. In our experience, the Galaxy S20+ should receive two OS updates, too.

The device has the L1 Google Widevine certification, meaning that it can stream DRM-protected content in HD from the likes of Amazon Prime Video and Netflix. Samsung also installs its Knox security platform, which it claims adds an additional hardware and software security layer.

Moreover, Samsung preinstalls some third-party apps, along with its suite of apps. Many of these cannot be uninstalled, as is the case with the Google apps that the company preinstalls. Many can be deactivated though, but this means that they still take up some space.

Default home screen
Default home screen
Galaxy S20+ display options
Galaxy S20+ display options
Game launcher
Game launcher

Communication & GPS - Fast Wi-Fi on the Galaxy S20+

Samsung sells the Galaxy S20+ in 4G and 5G versions, as we mentioned earlier. However, Samsung does not offer mmWave support for the Exynos version, which it sells in Europe. In short, this means that the Exynos Galaxy S20+ cannot operate on as fast of a 5G connection as its Qualcomm twin can.

In terms of 4G, the Galaxy S20+ supports the fast LTE Cat. 20 and masters many LTE frequencies. Hence, you should have no issues when using the device abroad. Our review maintained decent reception quality during our tests, with the device able to maintain at least half signal strength when moving between indoors and outdoors in a built-up area.

Wi-Fi 6 connectivity is a matter of honour for flagship smartphones these days, and the Galaxy S20+ is no different. In our standardised tests with our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router, the Galaxy S20+ showed that it could handle itself relatively well. In short, it offers one of the highest data throughputs of any flagship, and when benchmarked against our comparison devices.

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% +21%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
533 (468min - 602max) MBit/s ∼53% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
835 (808min - 847max) MBit/s ∼83%
Sony Xperia 1
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
617 (356min - 662max) MBit/s ∼61% -26%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
580 (550min - 597max) MBit/s ∼57% -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (347min - 505max) MBit/s ∼47% -44%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼28% -66%
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% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
637 (584min - 715max) MBit/s ∼66% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
863 (759min - 898max) MBit/s ∼89%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
589 (461min - 625max) MBit/s ∼61% -32%
Sony Xperia 1
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
531 (414min - 620max) MBit/s ∼55% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (311min - 375max) MBit/s ∼36% -59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼28% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø835 (808-847)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø863 (759-898)
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors

In addition to classic GPS, the Galaxy S20+ supports other satellite networks like BeiDou, Galileo and GLONASS. Our review unit quickly locates us with an accuracy of up to six metres outdoors. It could not find us indoors, though.

The Galaxy S20+ did not do so badly in our practical location accuracy test, where we took it on a bike ride with the Garmin Edge 520, a professional navigation system. We cannot attest to absolute accuracy as the Garmin device almost makes small deviations every now and again, but the Galaxy S20+ is fairly accurate overall. If you are looking for a smartphone that you can use for general navigation tasks like walking, running or driving, then the Galaxy S20+ should present no issues for you.

GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Overview
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Overview
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Loop
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Loop
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Bridge
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy S20+ - Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge

Telephone Functions & Call Quality - clear speech

Samsung integrates its in-house phone app within One UI 2.1. The app is intuitive and should require little acclimatisation if you are used to using the stock Google equivalent. Modern technologies like VoLTE and VoWiFi are on board, but your network operator must support the Galaxy S20+ for either of these to work.

We also checked the call quality of our review unit with several test calls over a mobile network and also over Skype. In all cases, calls remain clear and intelligible, while the earpiece gets loud enough for us to call from reasonably noisy environments. Neither side encountered any issues, with our voice always coming across cleanly and without any distortion or background noise. The same applies when making calls over speakerphone, with the more sensitive hands-free microphone capturing our voice well.

Cameras - Samsung performs a little bit of trickery on the Galaxy S20+

Front-facing camera photo with the Galaxy S20+
Front-facing camera photo with the Galaxy S20+
Front-facing camera photo using the "Wide Angle" mode
Front-facing camera photo using the "Wide Angle" mode

The Galaxy S20+ has a somewhat strange camera setup, just like the Galaxy S20 does. On the one hand, the Galaxy S20+ has a 64 MP sensor that it uses, among other things, for recording 8K videos. On the other hand, it uses a 12 MP sensor for its main rear-facing camera, although one that has a larger aperture and pixel width than the 64 MP sensor does. There is a second 12 MP sensor too, which is an ultra-wide-angle lens.

Somewhat disappointingly, the difference between the camera hardware of the Galaxy S20 and Galaxy S20+ is merely a 0.3 MP ToF camera. Used to calculate depth of field camera information, the camera cannot be used to take dedicated pictures, making its value difficult to assess.

If you buy the Galaxy S20+, then we recommend that you should immediately check whether a software update is available. Samsung has since patched the cumbersome and inaccurate autofocus that plagued the initial version of One UI 2.1 that comes preinstalled, meaning that such issues should be less common once you have updated the device.

But what about the image quality of the main rear-facing camera we hear you ask? Well, the 12 MP camera takes colourful, fairly sharp and accurate pictures. Even in low light, many details are visible and the camera can handle high contrasts well.

The front-facing camera also offers a "zoom", but this is not a digital zoom either. Instead, it crops the image to create a zoomed effect. Likewise, its ultra-wide-angle view simply shows the full field of view of the lens. With that said, the camera still offers pleasing image quality. Our test shots look sharp and are fairly well exposed.

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

The Galaxy S20 series has already made a name for itself in advance, because neither the Galaxy S20 nor the Galaxy S20+ offers quite the optical zoom that they claim. Instead, both devices crop 64 MP shots to create a digital zoom. We have included comparison pictures below for you to make up your mind on the image quality, but the Galaxy S20+ certainly does not offer a real telephoto lens.

The 3x zoom is not awful, in our opinion. However, it is misleading to claim that the Galaxy S20+ uses hybrid optical zoom if it hardly has an optical element to it.

Photographed using the 64 MP camera
Photographed using the 64 MP camera
Photographed with the 12 MP ultra-wide-angle camera
Photographed with the 12 MP ultra-wide-angle camera
Photographed with 12 MP main rear-facing camera
Photographed with 12 MP main rear-facing camera
An example of the 3x zoom that the Galaxy S20+ offers
An example of the 3x zoom that the Galaxy S20+ offers

The Galaxy S20+ can still pick out details in weak lighting conditions, the accuracy of which we checked in our controlled laboratory environment. Expectedly, the device can capture plenty of details in very bright lighting, although some text looks a bit pale. This is particularly acute with text against a red background, for example.

As we have mentioned previously, the Galaxy S20+ can also record videos in up to 8K. However, there are some restrictions to shooting in this resolution. Only one of the sensors can record in 8K, for example, and you cannot zoom mid-recording. Additionally, Samsung limits the effects and autofocus options when shooting in 60 FPS at 1080p and upwards. The same applies to shooting in 8K, which seems a little strange on such an expensive smartphone.

Samsung also includes various slow-motion modes. You can subsequently select parts of a video to be played in slow motion too. Overall, the Galaxy S20+ offers decent video quality, with images looking sharp and well exposed.

ColorChecker
20.8 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
23.7 ∆E
23.5 ∆E
24.8 ∆E
29.1 ∆E
29.2 ∆E
21.2 ∆E
20.4 ∆E
18 ∆E
27 ∆E
28.4 ∆E
19.5 ∆E
29.2 ∆E
18.1 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
21.4 ∆E
27.2 ∆E
30.9 ∆E
31.8 ∆E
31.4 ∆E
24.8 ∆E
19.6 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy S20+: 24.59 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 31.82 ∆E
ColorChecker
9.4 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
9 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
11 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
10 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy S20+: 8.46 ∆E min: 3.48 - max: 13.24 ∆E

Accessories & Warranty - Many covers from which to choose

Samsung offers a 24-month guarantee on its smartphones. If you want to protect yourself against accidental damage, then you can purchase Samsung Care+, which costs 149 Euros (~$163). Samsung Care+ provides two years' coverage, although you must pay a 59-Euro (~$64) deductible for each claim.

The company also offers customers the chance to pay for their smartphones in instalments. Samsung offers the option of switching to a new Galaxy S after 12 months, too. Please note that paying for the Galaxy S20+ or any other Samsung smartphone in this way will require a credit check. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Samsung includes a 25 W charger in the box that supports Super Fast Charging. There is also a corresponding USB Type-C cable, a card slot tool and a pair of AKG-branded headphones. If you need an additional 25 W charger, then Samsung sells them for 35 Euros (~$38). Additionally, the company offers various protective covers and cases starting with a 20-Euro (~$22) clear silicone cover. There is a case with a built-in LED panel that sells for 65 Euros (~$71). too. The latter acts as a substitute for dedicated notification LEDs.

Samsung Clear View Cover
Samsung Clear View Cover
Samsung LED Cover
Samsung LED Cover
Samsung Leather Cover
Samsung Leather Cover
Samsung LED View Cover
Samsung LED View Cover

Input Devices & Operation - A precise and fast touchscreen

Fingers glide well over the large touchscreen, which is also very accurate. While the benefits of a 120 Hz TV are a matter of taste, some film lovers consider the additional smoothness strange, for example the advantages of such a display on a smartphone are noticeable. When paired with a precise touchscreen, the 120 Hz panel makes navigating the Galaxy S20+ feel incredibly smooth. In short, it feels like the screen and device react without any hesitation when running in 120 Hz mode.

The Galaxy S20+ also has a fingerprint scanner that sits underneath the display. The one in our review unit does its job reliably and is easy to find when the display is switched off. Nevertheless, the technology is not yet as quick or precise as conventional capacitive fingerprint sensors are.

You can also unlock your Galaxy S20+ with your face, albeit only using the front-facing camera. While the device maximises screen brightness if you attempt to unlock it in a dark environment, it is not as secure as something like Face ID.

There are two hardware buttons on the Galaxy S20+. Samsung has placed both on the right-hand side of the device. We had no issues with locating the volume rocker or power button during our tests, with both also offering clear pressure points.

Using the default keyboard app in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard app in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard app in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard app in portrait mode

Display - Bright as the brightest day

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The AMOLED screen of the Galaxy S20+ operates natively at 3200x1440 pixels. As we mentioned earlier, the panel has a 120 Hz refresh rate, which ensures that moving images look incredibly smooth. However, you should note that Samsung prevents the Galaxy S20+ from running at 1440p and 120 Hz simultaneously. Instead, you must make do with 1080p if you want to use 120 Hz. While Samsung claims that it will enable 120 Hz at 1440p via a software update, it had not done so by the time we tested the Galaxy S20+.

Peak screen brightness can only be achieved with the brightness sensor activated too. Our review unit gets brighter than its predecessor though, with our tests determining a maximum brightness of 740 cd/m². This value is also significantly brighter than all comparison models. At 97%, the display is almost uniformly lit too.

PWM is used as standard to reduce brightness on AMOLED panels, and the Galaxy S20+ is no exception. There is no option of dimming by using a lower voltage, for example, as OnePlus and Xiaomi have started offering with some of their smartphones.

728
cd/m²
736
cd/m²
770
cd/m²
738
cd/m²
740
cd/m²
771
cd/m²
732
cd/m²
742
cd/m²
767
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 771 cd/m² Average: 747.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 740 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.6 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
99.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.269
Samsung Galaxy S20+
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.7
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Sony Xperia 1
OLED, 3840x1644, 6.5
Screen
10%
-21%
-21%
17%
Brightness middle
740
790
7%
592
-20%
606
-18%
541
-27%
Brightness
747
790
6%
605
-19%
611
-18%
543
-27%
Brightness Distribution
94
97
3%
96
2%
95
1%
99
5%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.6
1.4
46%
2.5
4%
3.46
-33%
0.8
69%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4.57
3.4
26%
5.5
-20%
5.64
-23%
1.7
63%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.5
1.9
-27%
2.6
-73%
2
-33%
1.2
20%
Gamma
2.269 97%
2.23 99%
2.16 102%
2.258 97%
2.2 100%
CCT
6284 103%
6466 101%
6173 105%
6779 96%
6601 98%

* ... 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 214 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 214 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 214 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 17507 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Samsung also offers the choice between two display modes, which it calls "Natural" and "Vivid". While the greyscale in both modes is accurate according to CalMAN and there are no blue tints, "Natural" mode reproduces colours more accurately than Vivid mode does. As its name suggests, Vivid mode reproduces colours more strongly than natural mode does, so Samsung has chosen their names well.

When it comes to colour-space coverage, Vivid mode is again at the front. However, while Vivid mode looks better to our eyes, we would recommend choosing Natural mode if you require colour accuracy.

CalMAN: Grayscale - Vivid
CalMAN: Grayscale - Vivid
CalMAN: Colour accuracy - Vivid
CalMAN: Colour accuracy - Vivid
CalMAN: sRGB colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: sRGB colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: AdobeRGB colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: AdobeRGB colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: DCI P3 colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: DCI P3 colour space - Vivid
CalMAN: Colour saturation - Vivid
CalMAN: Colour saturation - Vivid
CalMAN: Grayscale - Natural
CalMAN: Grayscale - Natural
CalMAN: Colour accuracy - Natural
CalMAN: Colour accuracy - Natural
CalMAN: sRGB colour space - Natural
CalMAN: sRGB colour space - Natural
CalMAN: DCI P3 colour space - Natural
CalMAN: DCI P3 colour space - Natural
CalMAN: AdobeRGB colour space - Natural
CalMAN: AdobeRGB colour space - Natural
CalMAN: Colour saturation - Natural
CalMAN: Colour saturation - Natural

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
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 3 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 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 5 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 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 (38.7 ms).

Outdoors, the smartphone cuts a fine figure even in direct sunlight. In short, you can still see the content of the screen on a sunny day. The viewing angles are not objectionable, either.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Using the Galaxy S20+ outdoors
Using the Galaxy S20+ outdoors

Performance - Exynos 990, mostly good on graphics

One of our criticisms of the Galaxy S20 was that Samsung equips the European version with its Exynos 990, an SoC that is not on par with the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865. Instead, the Exynos 990 is more at the level of the Snapdragon 855+. Our Galaxy S20+ review unit is also an Exynos 990 version, meaning that it offers comparable processor performance to flagships released in the latter half of 2019. This is enough for running almost every app, though. With that said, we found the propensity of the Galaxy S20+ to throttle under load frustrating, as we shall discuss in the Temperature section of this review.

The Exynos 990 is not all bad news, though. On the contrary, the SoC has good graphics performance, allowing the Galaxy S20+ to perform well in games, albeit for a short period.

In everyday life, you should encounter few restrictions when using the Galaxy S20+. The device's 120 Hz display should help with its perceived speed, too.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
2899 Points ∼95%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3062 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (2731 - 2899, n=5)
2800 Points ∼91% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=122)
1956 Points ∼64% -33%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
944 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
781 Points ∼83% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (903 - 944, n=5)
929 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=122)
556 Points ∼59% -41%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10583 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10322 Points ∼97% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼98% -1%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8760 Points ∼83% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10008 - 11784, n=5)
10612 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=525)
5982 Points ∼56% -43%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
14760 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
13947 Points ∼94% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12645 Points ∼86% -14%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10747 Points ∼73% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (13627 - 14760, n=5)
14391 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=683)
6565 Points ∼44% -56%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3230 Points ∼83%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3870 Points ∼100% +20%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3564 Points ∼92% +10%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2104 Points ∼54% -35%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3104 - 3230, n=5)
3154 Points ∼81% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=176)
2670 Points ∼69% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8783 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6369 Points ∼73% -27%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6527 Points ∼74% -26%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5007 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6136 - 8783, n=5)
7254 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=176)
3088 Points ∼35% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6355 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5570 Points ∼88% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5509 Points ∼87% -13%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3832 Points ∼60% -40%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5042 - 6355, n=5)
5599 Points ∼88% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=176)
2746 Points ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4495 Points ∼81%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5576 Points ∼100% +24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4683 Points ∼84% +4%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1934 Points ∼35% -57%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4063 - 4495, n=5)
4284 Points ∼77% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=528)
2235 Points ∼40% -50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9190 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6657 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8006 Points ∼87% -13%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5674 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (870 - 9190, n=5)
7112 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=528)
2173 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7459 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6382 Points ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼93% -7%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3969 Points ∼53% -47%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6638 - 7459, n=5)
7083 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=529)
2026 Points ∼27% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4455 Points ∼87%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5133 Points ∼100% +15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4604 Points ∼90% +3%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2345 Points ∼46% -47%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3935 - 4455, n=5)
4240 Points ∼83% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=560)
2150 Points ∼42% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9471 Points ∼83%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7970 Points ∼70% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11448 Points ∼100% +21%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9158 Points ∼80% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (9470 - 11868, n=5)
10329 Points ∼90% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=560)
2926 Points ∼26% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7576 Points ∼88%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7098 Points ∼82% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8605 Points ∼100% +14%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5552 Points ∼65% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (7385 - 8485, n=5)
7798 Points ∼91% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=560)
2454 Points ∼29% -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4180 Points ∼85%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
4038 Points ∼82% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4909 Points ∼100% +17%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4519 Points ∼92% +8%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2705 Points ∼55% -35%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3963 - 4267, n=5)
4091 Points ∼83% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=609)
2112 Points ∼43% -49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8469 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
6088 Points ∼72% -28%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6478 Points ∼76% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7044 Points ∼83% -17%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5663 Points ∼67% -33%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8005 - 8469, n=5)
8260 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=609)
1833 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6896 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5471 Points ∼79% -21%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6048 Points ∼88% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼91% -9%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4556 Points ∼66% -34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6544 - 6896, n=5)
6733 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=610)
1742 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4124 Points ∼84%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3839 Points ∼78% -7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4900 Points ∼100% +19%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4503 Points ∼92% +9%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3656 Points ∼75% -11%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3846 - 4124, n=5)
3990 Points ∼81% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=652)
1982 Points ∼40% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6392 Points ∼57%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
11302 Points ∼100% +77%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7671 Points ∼68% +20%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10637 Points ∼94% +66%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9447 Points ∼84% +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6388 - 11488, n=5)
9004 Points ∼80% +41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=651)
2428 Points ∼21% -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5696 Points ∼70%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
7893 Points ∼97% +39%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6815 Points ∼83% +20%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8165 Points ∼100% +43%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7197 Points ∼88% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5646 - 8097, n=5)
6920 Points ∼85% +21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=654)
2080 Points ∼25% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
27431 Points ∼63%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33898 Points ∼78% +24%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
43459 Points ∼100% +58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
30561 Points ∼70% +11%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
28223 Points ∼65% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (27431 - 42135, n=4)
37265 Points ∼86% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=796)
15601 Points ∼36% -43%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
48476 Points ∼24%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
206190 Points ∼100% +325%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75073 Points ∼36% +55%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
118129 Points ∼57% +144%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
105718 Points ∼51% +118%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (48476 - 87223, n=4)
74951 Points ∼36% +55%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=794)
27343 Points ∼13% -44%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
41415 Points ∼43%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
96826 Points ∼100% +134%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
64626 Points ∼67% +56%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
72173 Points ∼75% +74%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
65656 Points ∼68% +59%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (41415 - 68943, n=4)
61100 Points ∼63% +48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=794)
21234 Points ∼22% -49%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
199 fps ∼69%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
287 fps ∼100% +44%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
152 fps ∼53% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
185 fps ∼64% -7%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼58% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (145 - 200, n=5)
187 fps ∼65% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=797)
46 fps ∼16% -77%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼73%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
59 fps ∼72% -2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼73% 0%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼73% 0%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼73% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (60 - 119, n=5)
81.8 fps ∼100% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=806)
31.5 fps ∼39% -47%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
126 fps ∼80%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
157 fps ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
106 fps ∼68% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
111 fps ∼71% -12%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
100 fps ∼64% -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (96 - 126, n=5)
109 fps ∼69% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=702)
27.3 fps ∼17% -78%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼91%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼91% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼91% 0%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼87% -5%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼91% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (59 - 90, n=5)
65.8 fps ∼100% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=710)
22.8 fps ∼35% -62%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
85 fps ∼85%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
100 fps ∼100% +18%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
56 fps ∼56% -34%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
79 fps ∼79% -7%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
55 fps ∼55% -35%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (65 - 85, n=5)
77.4 fps ∼77% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=565)
21.9 fps ∼22% -74%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
59 fps ∼81%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼82% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
73 fps ∼100% +24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
40 fps ∼55% -32%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼56% -31%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (58 - 61, n=5)
59 fps ∼81% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=567)
19.8 fps ∼27% -66%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
33 fps ∼72%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
46 fps ∼100% +39%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
26 fps ∼57% -21%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼37% -48%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
17 fps ∼37% -48%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (22 - 34, n=5)
29.8 fps ∼65% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=321)
11.5 fps ∼25% -65%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
22 fps ∼76%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
29 fps ∼100% +32%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
19 fps ∼66% -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
19 fps ∼66% -14%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼76% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (20 - 23, n=5)
21.8 fps ∼75% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=319)
8.16 fps ∼28% -63%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
52 fps ∼90%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
58 fps ∼100% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
40 fps ∼69% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼45% -50%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
34 fps ∼59% -35%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (49 - 52, n=5)
50.8 fps ∼88% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=325)
17.2 fps ∼30% -67%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
58 fps ∼77%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
75 fps ∼100% +29%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
49 fps ∼65% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼63% -19%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼56% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (43 - 58, n=5)
53.4 fps ∼71% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=324)
19.7 fps ∼26% -66%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
51 fps ∼81%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
63 fps ∼100% +24%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
41 fps ∼65% -20%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
48 fps ∼76% -6%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼67% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (38 - 51, n=5)
47.6 fps ∼76% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=490)
14.7 fps ∼23% -71%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
45 fps ∼94%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
48 fps ∼100% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
34 fps ∼71% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼50% -47%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33 fps ∼69% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (34 - 45, n=5)
42 fps ∼88% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=494)
13 fps ∼27% -71%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
296746 Points ∼61%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
483224 Points ∼99% +63%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
486654 Points ∼100% +64%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (296746 - 527820, n=5)
469996 Points ∼97% +58%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=119)
325169 Points ∼67% +10%
Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
85.55 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
29.22 (4.07min - 95.16max) fps ∼34% -66%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
45.28 fps ∼53% -47%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (84.1 - 85.6, n=2)
84.8 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.73 - 85.6, n=74)
19.1 fps ∼22% -78%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
63.02 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
31.12 (11.09min - 63.1max) fps ∼49% -51%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
28.5 fps ∼45% -55%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (42.3 - 63, n=2)
52.7 fps ∼84% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.57 - 63, n=64)
16 fps ∼25% -75%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
71.45 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
33.9 (9.36min - 74.72max) fps ∼47% -53%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
44.62 fps ∼62% -38%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (71.5 - 71.6, n=2)
71.5 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.88 - 71.6, n=62)
19.9 fps ∼28% -72%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4607 Score ∼92%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4997 Score ∼100% +8%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4986 Score ∼100% +8%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4607 - 4957, n=3)
4783 Score ∼96% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 7649, n=89)
2609 Score ∼52% -43%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
1378 Points ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1745 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1462 Points ∼84% +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1236 Points ∼71% -10%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1300 Points ∼74% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (1270 - 1439, n=5)
1351 Points ∼77% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=736)
827 Points ∼47% -40%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10803 Points ∼64%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
16996 Points ∼100% +57%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10112 Points ∼59% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10618 Points ∼62% -2%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9318 Points ∼55% -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10646 - 10803, n=5)
10744 Points ∼63% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=736)
2556 Points ∼15% -76%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3775 Points ∼62%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
2350 Points ∼38% -38%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6130 Points ∼100% +62%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5091 Points ∼83% +35%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2661 Points ∼43% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3775 - 4497, n=5)
4037 Points ∼66% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=736)
1903 Points ∼31% -50%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9281 Points ∼65%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
14189 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9309 Points ∼66% 0%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9294 Points ∼66% 0%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8870 Points ∼63% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8843 - 9478, n=5)
9209 Points ∼65% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=736)
3504 Points ∼25% -62%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4779 Points ∼85%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5607 Points ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5389 Points ∼96% +13%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4992 Points ∼89% +4%
Sony Xperia 1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4112 Points ∼73% -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4764 - 4915, n=5)
4815 Points ∼86% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=736)
1793 Points ∼32% -62%

Web browsing is another weakness of the Exynos 990, though. Our review unit takes significantly longer to render websites than our comparison devices do, despite the latter featuring last-generation processors. We can notice the difference in everyday life too, because we found ourselves waiting a little longer for pictures to appear. Likewise, the Galaxy S20+ sometimes struggles to load the formatting of a website if we scroll quickly. These are, of course, details that are most noticeable when directly comparing the Galaxy S20+ against other flagships. Nonetheless, the difference is tangible.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
129.096 Points ∼100% +155%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
65.88 Points ∼51% +30%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
62.417 Points ∼48% +23%
Sony Xperia 1 (Chrome 75)
59.453 Points ∼46% +18%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5)
53.8 Points ∼42% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
50.566 Points ∼39%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=195)
41.1 Points ∼32% -19%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
301.91 Points ∼100% +238%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
115.49 Points ∼38% +29%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
115.44 Points ∼38% +29%
Sony Xperia 1
110.81 Points ∼37% +24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5)
92.8 Points ∼31% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
89.329 Points ∼30%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=626)
47.7 Points ∼16% -47%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
153 runs/min ∼100% +144%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
74.1 runs/min ∼48% +18%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)
66.4 runs/min ∼43% +6%
Sony Xperia 1 (Chrome 75)
64.2 runs/min ∼42% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chome 80)
62.8 runs/min ∼41%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4)
60.4 runs/min ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=177)
43 runs/min ∼28% -32%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
181 Points ∼100% +110%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
119 Points ∼66% +38%
Sony Xperia 1 (Chrome 75)
106 Points ∼59% +23%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5)
94.4 Points ∼52% +10%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼51% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
86 Points ∼48%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=263)
70.1 Points ∼39% -18%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
49388 Points ∼100% +173%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
23999 Points ∼49% +33%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
23568 Points ∼48% +30%
Sony Xperia 1 (Chrome 75)
23318 Points ∼47% +29%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5)
19019 Points ∼39% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
18094 Points ∼37%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=794)
7973 Points ∼16% -56%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=820)
9698 ms * ∼100% -290%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
2488.3 ms * ∼26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5)
2387 ms * ∼25% +4%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼22% +14%
Sony Xperia 1 (Chrome 75)
2039.9 ms * ∼21% +18%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
1962.5 ms * ∼20% +21%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
570.9 ms * ∼6% +77%

* ... smaller is better

The very fast UFS 3.0 storage that Samsung has included in the Galaxy S20+ not only helps the device to achieve good scores in system benchmarks but also makes everyday file transfers or loading complex apps a pleasure. Simply, everything works very quickly. Our review also achieved very high values in our comparison tables.

However, transfer speeds with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSD are a little slower than the Huawei Mate 30 Pro, for example. The same applies when comparing the Galaxy S20+ to other high-end smartphones.

Samsung Galaxy S20+Huawei Mate 30 ProOnePlus 7T ProSony Xperia 1Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
6%
-38%
-57%
-6%
-54%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
57.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
69.22 (Nano Memory Card)
20%
27.84 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-52%
59.3 (54.5 - 66.4, n=7)
3%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=536)
-11%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
66.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
82.49 (Nano Memory Card)
23%
31.34 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-53%
72 (66.3 - 81.6, n=7)
8%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=536)
3%
Random Write 4KB
229.8
259.21
13%
26
-89%
24.16
-89%
186 (29.9 - 230, n=10)
-19%
36.9 (0.14 - 319, n=892)
-84%
Random Read 4KB
199.6
226.38
13%
169
-15%
147.32
-26%
199 (170 - 238, n=10)
0%
60.1 (1.59 - 324, n=892)
-70%
Sequential Write 256KB
694.3
401.79
-42%
405
-42%
206.87
-70%
542 (213 - 697, n=10)
-22%
130 (2.99 - 911, n=892)
-81%
Sequential Read 256KB
1603.1
1780.5
11%
1489
-7%
749.82
-53%
1529 (1406 - 1692, n=10)
-5%
347 (12.1 - 1802, n=892)
-78%

Games - No more than 60 Hz gaming

We did not get the Galaxy S20+ to run at more than 60 Hz in any of the games we tried, although this should be technically possible. Samsung has already admitted that the Galaxy S20 series throttles the device to 60 Hz in some battery-intensive apps. This could also apply to games although it is worth noting that OnePlus does the same with the 7T Pro.

We measured frame rates with GameBench, which determined that the Galaxy S20+ can only maintain 60 FPS in PUBG Mobile on smooth graphics. The device had no such problems in any other games that we tested, though.

Likewise, the touchscreen and all associated sensors worked perfectly throughout our gaming tests.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
010203040506070Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 0.17.0: Ø59.5 (54-61)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 0.17.0: Ø39.6 (23-42)
; Arena of Valor; min; 1.33.1.5: Ø60.1 (60-61)
; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.33.1.5: Ø60 (48-61)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 2.1.2a: Ø57.1 (12-61)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 2.1.2a: Ø58.6 (39-61)

Emissions - Throttling under load

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

The Galaxy S20+ warms up noticeably under load, slightly more so on the front than on the back. We measured surface temperatures peaking at 44.8 °C, not a critical value, but it will make the Galaxy S20+ feel warm to the touch and potentially uncomfortable in summer with high ambient temperatures.

By contrast, our review unit remains cool when idling. We measured a peak temperature of 32.4 °C, which is acceptable.

Unfortunately, the Plus model throttles as much as the Galaxy S20 under sustained load. The GFXBench battery test tells us that the drop in performance takes place in several stages. Overall, the Galaxy S20+ loses about two-thirds of its peak performance under sustained load, which is very severe throttling.

Max. Load
 44.6 °C
112 F
43.9 °C
111 F
40.4 °C
105 F
 
 44.7 °C
112 F
44.2 °C
112 F
40.4 °C
105 F
 
 44.8 °C
113 F
42.9 °C
109 F
39.8 °C
104 F
 
Maximum: 44.8 °C = 113 F
Average: 42.9 °C = 109 F
38.1 °C
101 F
42.2 °C
108 F
42.3 °C
108 F
37.9 °C
100 F
42.9 °C
109 F
43.6 °C
110 F
37.6 °C
100 F
42.3 °C
108 F
42.9 °C
109 F
Maximum: 43.6 °C = 110 F
Average: 41.1 °C = 106 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.5 °C = 109 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated); Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.8 °C / 113 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 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.2 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Heat map of the back of the device under load
Heat map of the back of the device under load
Heat map of the front of the device under load
Heat map of the front of the device under load

Speakers

Pink noise speaker test
Pink noise speaker test

The Galaxy S20+ offers hybrid stereo speakers, where the device uses its earpiece as a second speaker. The speakers can get quite loud at up to 85.6 dB(A) and should be loud enough to fill a medium-sized room. At maximum volume, however, audio sounds rather tinny and uncomfortable. Other high-end smartphones do better in this regard. The speakers can reproduce deep mids though, which are still present at high volumes. Overall, the Galaxy S20+ offers decent speakers for a flagship smartphone, but we have listened to better smartphone speakers before.

As we mentioned earlier, Samsung bundles an AKG-branded pair of USB Type-C headphones. In short, these sound quite good. Bluetooth audio also cuts a fine figure, even if Samsung persists with omitting support for the aptX HD codec. Only Qualcomm-powered smartphones offer this codec.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.348.92537.543.2312931.24031.631.25033.235.46328.329.98023.322.510023.323.312524.230.416020.541.52001948.225017.652.231516.954.440016.256.850016.463.363018.36680016.166100014.770.9125014.274.3160014.776.1200013.976.2250014.376.4315014.975.3400014.875.3500015.371.4630014.967.380001570.41000015.572.31250016.469.3160001672.4SPL75.372.427.585.6N3326.1160.9median 16median 69.3Delta29.332.239.436.225.529.126.83027.742.342.426.827.220.325.22536.717.244.817.954.317.153.817.95316.253.616.55615.35915.664.415.664.814.867.214.472.314.67314.776.914.176.414.476.914.475.914.973.514.773.814.57214.866.6156316.649.427.185.80.961median 15median 64.81.29.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy S20+Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy S20+ audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 83% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Power Management - A Galaxy smartphone with decent runtimes

Power Consumption

The Exynos 990 is not a master of energy efficiency, as you can see in the consumption values below. These are especially high under load, particularly when compared to Apple or Qualcomm SoCs. Our review unit consumes up to 11.8 W under full load, which is much higher than its competitors. Likewise, its average load value is also a lot higher than those of our comparison devices. On the other hand, the Galaxy S20+ is remarkably efficient when idling.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.3 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1 / 1.7 / 2.3 Watt
Load midlight 5.8 / 11.8 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy S20+
4500 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
Sony Xperia 1
3330 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-1%
22%
-40%
22%
13%
19%
Idle Minimum *
1
0.92
8%
0.87
13%
2.1
-110%
1
-0%
0.846 (0.65 - 1, n=5)
15%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
11%
Idle Average *
1.7
2.9
-71%
1.75
-3%
3
-76%
1.48
13%
1.534 (1.06 - 1.91, n=5)
10%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
-3%
Idle Maximum *
2.3
2.94
-28%
1.83
20%
3.5
-52%
1.56
32%
1.858 (1.49 - 2.3, n=5)
19%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
11%
Load Average *
5.8
3.65
37%
3.85
34%
5.3
9%
3.76
35%
5.14 (4.72 - 5.8, n=5)
11%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
29%
Load Maximum *
11.8
6.18
48%
6.64
44%
8.3
30%
8.48
28%
10.7 (9.99 - 11.8, n=5)
9%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
48%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Unfortunately, in the past it was often the case that Exynos-powered Samsung smartphones did not offer the best battery life. The Galaxy S20+ is a step forward in this regard, also because of its 4,500 mAh battery. Our review unit achieved a runtime of 13:14 hours in our Wi-Fi test, which is definitely enough for two days of moderate usage. Under high load, however, the Galaxy S20+ falls behind the Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max and the OnePlus 7T Pro.

The 120 Hz display puts additional strain on the battery, which is why Samsung does not enable it by default. The effect that setting the display to 120 Hz has is particularly noticeable under sustained load. In practical terms, the Galaxy S20+ would drain its battery particularly quickly when playing games that can take advantage of its 120 Hz refresh rate. According to our tests, 120 Hz can reduce the battery life by at least 10% when the technology is activated.

Overall, Samsung has managed to give its high-end smartphones decent runtimes this time around, but the company still lags behind the competition. The same applies to the charging technology that it includes. While the Galaxy S20+ can now charge wirelessly at up to 15 W, the 25 W wired charging is considerably lower than what many of its competitors offer. Only the Galaxy S20 Ultra supports 45 W wired charging out of the three Galaxy S20 series devices.

The Galaxy S20+ takes a little over 90 minutes to reach full charge which is quite remarkable. However, there are other devices that charge faster than the Galaxy S20+ does.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
34h 01min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
13h 14min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 18min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 38min
Samsung Galaxy S20+
4500 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
Sony Xperia 1
3330 mAh
Battery Runtime
42%
6%
11%
-27%
Reader / Idle
2041
2618
28%
2174
7%
2015
-1%
1067
-48%
H.264
978
1346
38%
1098
12%
957
-2%
712
-27%
WiFi v1.3
794
909
14%
823
4%
912
15%
441
-44%
Load
218
408
87%
219
0%
283
30%
246
13%

Pros

+ very bright screen
+ 120 Hz screen great to use
+ modern software
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ 8K video recording...

Cons

- ...but without autofocus
- limitations for 60 FPS videos from 1080p upwards
- poor web-browsing performance
- heavy throttling under load
- preinstalled bloatware

Verdict - Camera weaknesses

The Samsung Galaxy S20+ smartphone review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.
The Samsung Galaxy S20+ smartphone review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

The price of the Galaxy S20+ has already fallen significantly, shortly after Samsung launched it at 999 Euros (~$1,093). Undoubtedly, this is good news for consumers as they can get the same smartphone by spending less money. However, European customers will receive a Galaxy S20+ that does not live up to its potential. Principally, this is because Samsung equips the device with the Exynos 990, its in-house chipset that falls short of the Snapdragon 865 in many areas. In short, the European Galaxy S20+ has worse 5G connectivity, heavier throttling under load and worse CPU performance than its Snapdragon 865-sibling does. Overall, the Snapdragon 865-powered version of the Galaxy S20+ would be the better of the two devices to purchase.

At least the battery life of the Exynos SoC is now slowly approaching the level of the competition. The Exynos 990 is comparatively power-hungry under sustained load, though. You should not expect top charging technology from Samsung either with the Galaxy S20+, as the company reserves this for the Galaxy S20 Ultra. In general, both the Galaxy S20 and the Galaxy S20 Plus feel like significant downgrades compared to the S20 Ultra.

This is mainly due to the cameras that Samsung includes. Without a real optical zoom, it almost feels as if Samsung prioritised 8K video capabilities over a proper telephoto lens. However, the company applies many restrictions to 8K video recording, like the inability to zoom or use autofocus. Similarly, Samsung restricts what options can be used when shooting 60 FPS videos in 1080p and upwards.

The camera oversights are a shame, as the Galaxy S20+ takes decent photos. Likewise, One UI 2.1 feels modern and includes the latest security patches, while the device has a bright and responsive AMOLED screen.

The Samsung Galaxy S20+ uses tricks to hide its camera weaknesses. Its great screen still makes it worth a look, though.

In short, you should look elsewhere if you want the best camera smartphone. Staying loyal to Samsung will reward you with a high-quality flagship that can convince with its Wi-Fi, good call quality, decent GPS accuracy, impressive build quality and serviceable battery life.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Samsung Galaxy S20+ - 03/30/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
88%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
97%
Connectivity
52 / 70 → 74%
Weight
90%
Battery
90%
Display
91%
Games Performance
57 / 64 → 88%
Application Performance
75 / 86 → 87%
Temperature
85%
Noise
100%
Audio
80 / 90 → 89%
Camera
78%
Average
81%
88%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy S20+ Smartphone Review: A handset with 8K video capabilities
Florian Schmitt, 2020-04- 1 (Update: 2020-04- 7)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.
Alex Alderson
Translator: Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj
Prior to writing and translating for Notebookcheck, I worked for various companies including Apple and Neowin. I have a BA in International History and Politics from the University of Leeds, which I have since converted to a Law Degree. Happy to chat on Twitter or Notebookchat.