Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - High-End Smartphone Reeks of Poor Implementation

Smartphone Monster. Samsung's Galaxy S20 Ultra is kinda like the Plus model, but on steroids. Not only does it offer an even larger display, it also comes with a massively upgraded camera setup as well as a larger battery. Find out in our review whether or not the Exynos SoC is really that much slower, and if the price premium is really worth it.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (translated by Finn D. Boerne),

The Galaxy S20 Ultra is the largest and most expensive member of Samsung’s current Galaxy S20 series. The most glaring difference to its other siblings is its sheer size: a 6.7-inch display turns the S20 Ultra into a real giant. Its large 5,000 mAh battery and its massive camera hump add even more bulk, and its gigantism is further emphasized by its hefty weight. Depending on country, it is available as either a 4G SKU, a 5G SKU, or both.

Of all SKUs available world-wide, only the one sold in Europe remains equipped with Samsung’s own in-house Exynos SoC. Even in Korea, on Samsung’s home turf, the S20 Ultra features Qualcomm’s flagship SoC, which performed much better than the Exynos SoC in regard to efficiency, performance, and 5G features in various tests. We will attempt to find out how much of that is actually true in the course of this review.

The Galaxy S20 Ultra is available in two different storage tiers. The smaller, entry-level tier features 12 GB RAM and 128 GB of internal storage space. This is the SKU that we have in review today. The high-end tier comes with 16 GB of RAM and 512 GB of storage space. A 1 TB model is not available this year. US prices start at $1,399 for the low-end and $1,599 for the high-end SKU.

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
German-English-Translator - Details here

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Galaxy S20 Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 990 8 x 2 - 2.7 GHz, Exynos M5 / Cortex A-76 / Cortex-A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
12288 MB 
, LPDDR5
Display
6.9 inch 20:9, 3200 x 1440 pixel 509 PPI, capacitive, 10-point multitouch, Infinity-O Display, Dynamic AMOLED 2X, Corning Gorilla Glass 6, HDR10+, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 104.3 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, Card Reader: microSD (up to 1 TB, FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, orientation sensor, proximity sensor, hall sensor, gyroscope, ultrasonic fingerprint reader, geomagnetic sensor, barometer, MST, Ant+
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+ (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8); LTE Cat. 20 (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 66), 5G (Band NR1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 28, 40, 77, and 78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.8 x 166.9 x 76 ( = 0.35 x 6.57 x 2.99 in)
Battery
19.3 Wh, 5000 mAh Lithium-Ion, 3.86 V
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 108 MPix (f/1.8, 26 mm, 1/1.33", 0.8 µm) + 48MP (for 4x optical zoom, OIS, f/3.5, 103 mm, 1/2.0", 0.8 µm) + 12MP (f/2.2, 13 mm, 1.4 µm, Super Steady Video) + 0.3 MP (3D, f/1.0); 8k-Video; Camera2 API Level: Full
Secondary Camera: 40 MPix (f/2.2, 26 mm, 0.7 µm)
Additional features
Speakers: two speakers, Keyboard: on-screen, Charger, USB cable, AKG headset, OTG adapter, documentation, One UI 2.1, Facebook apps, Microsoft apps, Galaxy Store, 24 Months Warranty, Body SAR: 1.557 W/kg, head SAR: 0.660 W/kg, IP68, fanless, waterproof
Weight
219 g ( = 7.73 oz / 0.48 pounds), Power Supply: 72 g ( = 2.54 oz / 0.16 pounds)
Price
1349 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vergleichsgeräte

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
89 %
05/2020
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
219 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.9"3200x1440
87 %
09/2019
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
226 g64 GB SSD6.5"2688x1242
86 %
03/2020
Oppo Find X2 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
202 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"3168x1440
89 %
12/2019
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16
198 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.53"2400x1176
87 %
06/2020
OnePlus 7T Pro
SD 855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
84 %
11/2019
LG G8X ThinQ
SD 855, Adreno 640
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
87 %
07/2019
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12
198 g256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.7"3040x1440

Case – S20 Ultra with massive Camera Hump

The Samsung Galaxy S20 is available in Cosmic Black and Cosmic Gray, with no other color options available for this generation. Subjectively, the phablet looks giant and bulky, which is not just courtesy of its large display but also the massive camera hump at the back protruding a whopping 2.35 mm (0.09 in) from the case.

Build quality left nothing to be desired, and it was at a level expected of a high-end device such as this. The massive aluminum frame suggests premium quality and a high rigidity. We were unable to twist and warp the S20 Ultra no matter how hard we tried, and it refused to creak even under enormous pressure. Gaps are very consistent and tight, and only get slightly wider along the corners where the glass meets the frame.

Both front and back are covered in and protected by Gorilla Glass 6. The SIM tray’s color was ever so slightly different from the rest of the case. It can take either two Nano SIM cards or a single SIM and a single microSD card. The S20 Ultra is IP68-certified against ingress of water and dust, and it comes with a protective display cover ex-factory.

Size Comparison

166.9 mm / 6.57 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 219 g0.4828 lbs165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 74.4 mm / 2.93 inch 9.5 mm / 0.374 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs159.3 mm / 6.27 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 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 – No Upgrades, but very Exhaustive

The Samsung Galaxy S20 supports microSD cards of up to 1 TB. It does not support formatting SD cards as internal storage, and thus no app offloading onto SD. That said at least parts of an application’s data can be stored on SD storage.

The USB 3.1 port allows for fast data transfers and supports USB OTG, meaning that you can connect external peripherals and storage devices. It also supports wired HDMI and DisplayPort output, and thus either Samsung DeX or internal display mirroring.

It lacks an IR blaster, FM radio, and a headphone jack. There is also no notification LED as it has been superseded by the always-on display and the sidelight options.

Top: card slot, microphone
Top: card slot, microphone
Left: no connectivity
Left: no connectivity
Right: volume rocker, power button
Right: volume rocker, power button
Bottom: speaker, USB, microphone
Bottom: speaker, USB, microphone

Software – Galaxy Smartphone with Android 10

The device ships with Samsung’s current One UI 2.1 running atop Google’s Android 10. In addition to Samsung’s own app store and other Samsung apps it comes with a few preloaded third-party applications from companies such as Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, and Spotify. Unfortunately, not all of them can be uninstalled completely.

User account control is not enabled on the S20 Ultra, which is a shame as it would have been particularly useful for DeX users. Backups can be saved on either Samsung’s own cloud servers, on a personal computer, or on a microSD card.

Communication and GNSS – Galaxy S20 Ultra with 5G and Wi-Fi 6

The Galaxy S20 Ultra supports the latest wireless communication standard Wi-Fi 6 in both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. Since it supports both MIMO and VHT80 it can in theory achieve transfer rates of up to 1.2 Gbps. Unfortunately, real world Wi-Fi performance is significantly slower, as can be seen in our benchmark results performed against our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router. Transfer rates were mostly consistent and fairly high. However, you need to make sure to enable VHT160 on your router (if supported). Otherwise, they will drop quite dramatically.

Cellular communication support is very extensive, and the S20 Ultra supports all modern protocols and standards. LTE transfer speeds are capped at 2 Gbps downstream and 200 Mbps upstream (in theory), and 5G data rates at 2.33 Gbps downstream and 436 Mbps upstream, again in theory. These numbers reveal the first drawback when compared with Snapdragon-equipped S20 Ultra devices: the Exynos SoC does not support mmWave, and thus no fast 5G data rates. In theory, the Exynos modem supports 5123 and therefore up to 7.35 Gbps. Once again, in theory only. 

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 (min: 912, max: 1092) MBit/s ∼100% +22%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
533 (min: 468, max: 602) MBit/s ∼53% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
825 (min: 763, max: 855) MBit/s ∼82%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
754 (min: 346, max: 881) MBit/s ∼75% -9%
LG G8X ThinQ
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 (min: 539, max: 678) MBit/s ∼64% -21%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
580 (min: 550, max: 597) MBit/s ∼57% -30%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (min: 347, max: 505) MBit/s ∼47% -43%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=553)
264 MBit/s ∼26% -68%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
966 (min: 923, max: 995) MBit/s ∼100% +18%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
637 (min: 584, max: 715) MBit/s ∼66% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
818 (min: 425, max: 890) MBit/s ∼85%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
589 (min: 461, max: 625) MBit/s ∼61% -28%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
509 (min: 264, max: 571) MBit/s ∼53% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (min: 311, max: 375) MBit/s ∼36% -57%
LG G8X ThinQ
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
343 (min: 290, max: 411) MBit/s ∼36% -58%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=553)
250 MBit/s ∼26% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø824 (763-855)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø804 (425-890)
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors
GNSS overview
GNSS overview

Supported location services include GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo, with GPS and Galileo in a dual-band setup. Location lock is obtained very quickly outdoors but can take quite a while indoors.

On our usual 6-mile long bicycle tour around the neighborhood we compared the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra to a professional Garmin Edge 500 bicycle satnav. Over the course of the entire tour the S20’s recorded track was off by just 590 feet, but its inaccurate GPS modem became obvious when looking at the track details. Nevertheless, it was accurate enough for everyday needs.

Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - lake
Garmin Edge 500 - lake
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - overview
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - overview
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - lake
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - lake
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - turning point
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - turning point

Telephony and Call Quality

The telephony app remained unchanged and offers the exact same feature set as all other One UI 2.1 smartphones. SIP is not supported by default, VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling on the other hand are.

Call quality was excellent overall. On earphone both conversation partners were very clear and concise despite the S20 Ultra’s tendency to render our own voice slightly tinny. On speakerphone, we noticed a minor echo, and the smartphone should not be placed too far away from its user. At arm’s length we already noticed a very disruptive dampening.

Ambient noise is filtered out aggressively, which remains unnoticeable to your conversational partners in general. Only very loud sound sources can sometimes overpower the ambient noise filter and cause short transmission dropouts.

Cameras – 8K video and a flawed Autofocus

S20 Ultra selfie
Single take gallery

At the front, we find a single 40 MP camera with pixel binning. As a result, photos are only 10 MP in size. Feature-wise, not much has changed except for the new single-take feature. It combines multiple photos into a gallery optimized by an algorithm out of which you get to pick your favorite. While we would not consider the selection to be ideal it is a nice feature that requires a surprising amount of computation time for post-production.

Overall photo quality of the S20 Ultra’s front-facing camera is comparatively good, and it certainly benefits from the integrated autofocus. Despite the lack of a portrait mode the photos were somewhat soft in focus. This effect can be further increased if so desired, and AR stickers can be applied as well. Videos are recorded in UHD at 60 FPS.

The main rear-facing camera offers an ISOCELL Bright HM1 108 MP sensor with 9x pixel binning, resulting in an effective photo resolution of 12 MP. It requires much more computation, which turned out to be the camera’s biggest shortcoming. So far, the technology does not seem to be entirely mature, and the results were far from impressive.

In a direct comparison between the S20 Ultra and the iPhone the latter offered a much higher dynamic range and a much higher level of details. Close-up photos, such as the bunny shot below, result in a somewhat artificial fur and an incredibly soft focus, courtesy of a flawed autofocus that failed to focus accurately. The same can be observed in low-light scenarios, where the S20 Ultra can once again be found at the very bottom of the list, courtesy of aforementioned flawed autofocus. We had to manually focus on the candle in order to produce a somewhat usable photograph as the device completely failed at this seemingly too challenging task.

Manual focus on the left, automatic focus on the right.

The remaining cameras include an ultra-wide angle lens, a telephoto lens, and a 3D sensor for depth of field information. According to iFixit, the periscope telephoto lens supports a 4x optical zoom. Samsung does not provide any specifications in this regard. At 48 MP its resolution is fairly high, which is necessary in order to support the 10x hybrid zoom and the up to 100x digital zoom advertised by Samsung. The latter will require manual stabilization by either putting the phone down or using a tripod, and it worked pretty well overall once the device was properly stabilized. We particularly liked how well Samsung integrated the zoom into the camera application. A separate picture-in-picture display pops up in higher zoom levels showing an overview and what part exactly is currently being enlarged.

Videos are recorded in 8K (7680 x 4320, 30 FPS). For most users, this will be nothing more than a nice-to-have gimmick, as the camera supports neither image stabilization nor any of the other video features at this resolution. Each minute of 8K video requires 590 MB of storage space. Overall video quality was excellent even though we did notice a regular pumping of the autofocus in close-up recordings. Audio is recorded very loud and clear, and the low-noise microphones worked great in quiet environments as well.

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

When taken into the lab and inspected under normalized and controlled conditions we were able to replicate our real-world findings by and large. In particular, the poor autofocus performance in low-light situations, and the blurry results thereof. In decent light, the cameras worked great and the S20 Ultra produced crisp photos with high details and great focus up to its very edges.

Color accuracy was comparatively high and neutral albeit Samsung does brighten up all colors a little bit too much.

ColorChecker
28.1 ∆E
48.4 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
41.6 ∆E
58.6 ∆E
47.8 ∆E
32.9 ∆E
36.6 ∆E
27.6 ∆E
58.4 ∆E
58.9 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
45 ∆E
33 ∆E
67.1 ∆E
39.4 ∆E
42 ∆E
68.9 ∆E
65.3 ∆E
48.5 ∆E
35.9 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra: 42.54 ∆E min: 13.46 - max: 68.86 ∆E
ColorChecker
15.6 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
16.9 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
10.7 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
14.5 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
7 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
1 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra: 8.14 ∆E min: 0.98 - max: 16.9 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty

Included in the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra’s box are a modular 25 W USB-C power supply, a matching USB-C to USB-C cable, an AKG headset, a SIM tool, a quick-start guide, and some safety information. In addition to universal accessories Samsung does also offer protective cases made specifically for the S20 Ultra.

Default warranty depends on country of purchase. As is almost universally the case, US customers are limited to just 12 months whereas European customers get a full 24 months of warranty. For $12 per month US customers can choose to add Samsung Premium Care, which extends the manufacturer warranty and includes up to three repairs or replacements for accidental damage.

Input Devices & Handling –Power Button as Function Key

The 10-point capacitive multitouch touchscreen comes with a screen protector installed by default. Given that the device itself is protected by Gorilla Glass 6 this can safely be removed if so desired, which will further improve the touchscreen’s smoothness and slippage. The touchscreen itself turned out to be very fast and accurate up to its very edges and into the corners.

As on previous models, the keyboard defaults to an in-house application with its own layout. It can be placed freely on the display, supports a one-handed mode, and offers all features and amenities you would expect from a keyboard. As always you can install your preferred keyboard from either of the two available app stores.

Compared to the previous generation Galaxy S10 the dedicated Bixby button has been removed and is now integrated into the power button, which Samsung now refers to as function button. In addition to powering the device on or off, it supports secondary functions and is preconfigured to launch Bixby. Alternatively, you can configure this in the settings and launch, say, the camera app or any other application by double-pressing the button.

A fingerprint reader is integrated into the display, and it worked very reliably and fast. In addition, the S20 Ultra also supports 2D face recognition, which worked well but is not necessarily particularly secure.

Display – Samsung OLED with limited 120 Hz Mode

Subpixel array

The Galaxy S20 Ultra’s 6.9-inch dynamic OLED display is even slightly larger than the Note10’s. It runs at a native resolution of 3200 x 1400, resulting in a pixel density of 506 DPI, and supports a refresh rate of up to 120 Hz. Unfortunately, the latter requires a reduced resolution of 2400 x 1080 (381 DPI), which is coincidentally preconfigured by default. Due to its sheer size this FHD+ resolution is not very well suited for the display. While it remained crisp the reduced pixel density became noticeable when reading text. It is a real bummer that 120 Hz are not supported when running at the display panel’s full resolution.

Overall brightness is very high and can reach up to 734 nits dead center when displaying an all-white image with enabled ambient light sensor. In the APL50 test with equally distributed black and white areas it went even higher and topped out at 1,091 nits (and up to 1,200 nits in APL10). This means that HDR+ content should be displayed very accurately and well. Disabling the ambient light sensor reduced the maximum available brightness to just 335 nits. However, the sensor is never entirely off and still increased display brightness when exposed to direct sunlight. Due to the underlying OLED display technology, blacks are absolute, resulting in a very high and mathematically infinite contrast ratio.

Another consequence of the OLED display technology used for this panel is the requirement of PWM (pulse width modulation) in order to dim the display. To our surprise, both the 60 and 120 Hz mode produced very similar results in our tests. While the PWM frequency applied at 60 Hz was determined to be at a very constant 240 Hz it fluctuated slightly between 238.1 and 240.4 Hz when running in 120 Hz mode. We would have expected the PWM frequency to double as well. Either Samsung failed to implement a system-wide 120 Hz mode, or the phone occasionally reduces its refresh rate to 60 Hz in order to conserve energy depending on situation.

737
cd/m²
733
cd/m²
762
cd/m²
738
cd/m²
734
cd/m²
769
cd/m²
749
cd/m²
740
cd/m²
768
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
Infinity-O Display
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 769 cd/m² Average: 747.8 cd/m² Minimum: 1.71 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 734 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.2 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.9
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.1
99.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.11
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3200x1440, 6.9
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5
Oppo Find X2 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.7
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
LG G8X ThinQ
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Screen
25%
-27%
1%
0%
-50%
Brightness middle
734
790
8%
778
6%
592
-19%
606
-17%
570
-22%
Brightness
748
790
6%
775
4%
605
-19%
611
-18%
581
-22%
Brightness Distribution
95
97
2%
99
4%
96
1%
95
0%
90
-5%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.2
1.4
56%
4.4
-38%
2.5
22%
3.46
-8%
6.27
-96%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.8
3.4
50%
8.7
-28%
5.5
19%
5.64
17%
9.75
-43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.7
1.9
30%
5.6
-107%
2.6
4%
2
26%
5.7
-111%
Gamma
2.11 104%
2.23 99%
2.26 97%
2.16 102%
2.258 97%
2.37 93%
CCT
6299 103%
6466 101%
7250 90%
6173 105%
6779 96%
7309 89%

* ... 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 240.4 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 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 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 50 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18068 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Perfect white balance

When analyzing the OLED display with a spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software we found the Lively mode that the phone ships with by default to support the larger DCI P3 color space, albeit with a slightly cooler color temperature than specified. Unlike Natural mode, Lively mode supports white balance adjustments, which increased grayscale accuracy but failed to raise color accuracy to the same level as we saw in Natural mode. Alas, there is no perfect solution to this dilemma. That said, both presets are very good as-is. 

Grayscale (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Grayscale (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Colors (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Colors (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Color space (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Color space (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Saturation (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Saturation (preset: Lively, target color space: P3)
Grayscale (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (preset: Natural, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Grayscale (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Colors (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Colors (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Color space (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Color space (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Saturation (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)
Saturation (preset: Lively (modified), target color space: P3)

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
2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.2 ms rise
↘ 1.6 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. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.7 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.2 ms).

Outdoor usability was superb overall. Thanks to its high maximum brightness and the reliable ambient light sensor, the smartphone adjusted to changing lighting conditions very quickly. In addition, reflections were reduced to a minimum, which further increased readability.

Viewing angles were as wide as expected of an OLED panel. Even when looked at from extreme angles we only noticed a very minor drop in brightness and color temperature. 

Performance – Exynos 990 better than expected

Like all other Galaxy S20 series devices sold in Europe the S20 Ultra is equipped with Samsung’s in-house Exynos SoC. This particular tri-cluster CPU is manufactured in a 7 nm EUV process and comprised of two Samsung M5 cores running at up to 2.73 GHz, two ARM Cortex A76 cores running at up to 2.5 GHz, and four high-efficiency Cortex A55 cores running at up to 2.0 GHz. Graphics are handled by an ARM Mali-G77 MP11, and the device was equipped with 12 GB of LPDDR5 RAM.

Devices sold in other parts of the world are equipped with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 865, which not only runs slightly faster on its primary cores (2.84 GHz) but features three A77 performance cores running at up to 2.42 GHz promising a much higher efficiency to boot. And finally, the Snapdragon 865’s A55 high-efficiency cores run at a lower frequency of just 1.8 GHz promising a lower power consumption.

Contrary to many reports our benchmarks revealed that the Snapdragon did not tower over the Exynos 990 under all circumstances. For example, Samsung’s in-house SoC managed to outperform the Snapdragon in Geekbench’s single-core benchmark but was in turn overtaken in the multi-core test. In 3DMark’s Physics test the Exynos performed between 14 and 20% slower than the Snapdragon 865 and Kirin 990, and scored dead last as a consequence.

GPU performance was not as poor as one might think. The S20 Ultra’s Mali-G77 GPU performed significantly faster than its own predecessor, which can be found in Huawei’s Mate 30, and ran about as fast as an Adreno 650.

Overall system performance was at a decent level. Only after extensive gaming sessions did we ever notice minor lags and stuttering.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3804 Points ∼94%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
2641 Points ∼65% -31%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4043 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3670 - 3804, n=2)
3737 Points ∼92% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=64)
1663 Points ∼41% -56%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
Points ∼0%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
2960 Points ∼66%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4491 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (272 - 4739, n=59)
1794 Points ∼40%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
2815 Points ∼84%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3360 Points ∼100% +19%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3062 Points ∼91% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (2731 - 2899, n=3)
2815 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (445 - 3531, n=80)
1987 Points ∼59% -29%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
940 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
911 Points ∼97% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
781 Points ∼83% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (903 - 944, n=3)
929 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=80)
567 Points ∼60% -40%
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8648 Points ∼71%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9491 Points ∼78% +10%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12228 Points ∼100% +41%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
8648 Points ∼71% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=349)
4826 Points ∼39% -44%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
12557 Points ∼95%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13279 Points ∼100% +6%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12280 Points ∼92% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
12557 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 13589, n=411)
4928 Points ∼37% -61%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4791 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4278 Points ∼89% -11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3898 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
4791 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=411)
1500 Points ∼31% -69%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
10255 Points ∼90%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11387 Points ∼100% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10322 Points ∼91% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼92% +2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9259 Points ∼81% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10255 - 10583, n=3)
10423 Points ∼92% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=481)
5778 Points ∼51% -44%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
14307 Points ∼98%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13360 Points ∼92% -7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
13947 Points ∼96% -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12645 Points ∼87% -12%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
11795 Points ∼81% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (14307 - 14760, n=3)
14592 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=639)
6320 Points ∼43% -56%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3201 Points ∼83%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3843 Points ∼99% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3870 Points ∼100% +21%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3564 Points ∼92% +11%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3128 Points ∼81% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3112 - 3230, n=3)
3181 Points ∼82% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4057, n=141)
2641 Points ∼68% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8659 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8076 Points ∼93% -7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6369 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6527 Points ∼75% -25%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5733 Points ∼66% -34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6315 - 8783, n=3)
7919 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=141)
2919 Points ∼34% -66%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
6280 Points ∼97%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6444 Points ∼100% +3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5570 Points ∼86% -11%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5509 Points ∼85% -12%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4838 Points ∼75% -23%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5139 - 6355, n=3)
5925 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6644, n=141)
2627 Points ∼41% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4447 Points ∼80%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5187 Points ∼93% +17%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5576 Points ∼100% +25%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4683 Points ∼84% +5%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3866 Points ∼69% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4063 - 4495, n=3)
4335 Points ∼78% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5766, n=487)
2155 Points ∼39% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9157 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9345 Points ∼100% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6657 Points ∼71% -27%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8006 Points ∼86% -13%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6857 Points ∼73% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8106 - 9190, n=3)
8818 Points ∼94% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=487)
2041 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
7412 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7982 Points ∼100% +8%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6382 Points ∼80% -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼87% -7%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5851 Points ∼73% -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6638 - 7459, n=3)
7170 Points ∼90% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=488)
1895 Points ∼24% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4436 Points ∼85%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5209 Points ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5133 Points ∼99% +16%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4604 Points ∼88% +4%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3308 Points ∼64% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3935 - 4455, n=3)
4275 Points ∼82% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5721, n=517)
2065 Points ∼40% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9470 Points ∼75%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12573 Points ∼100% +33%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7970 Points ∼63% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11448 Points ∼91% +21%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9724 Points ∼77% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (9470 - 11301, n=3)
10081 Points ∼80% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=517)
2713 Points ∼22% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
7563 Points ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9616 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7098 Points ∼74% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8605 Points ∼89% +14%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6795 Points ∼71% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (7563 - 7981, n=3)
7707 Points ∼80% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=517)
2282 Points ∼24% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4267 Points ∼87%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
4038 Points ∼82% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4582 Points ∼93% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4909 Points ∼100% +15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4519 Points ∼92% +6%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4429 Points ∼90% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3963 - 4267, n=3)
4137 Points ∼84% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=567)
2040 Points ∼42% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8257 Points ∼99%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
6088 Points ∼73% -26%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8045 Points ∼96% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6478 Points ∼77% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7044 Points ∼84% -15%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6275 Points ∼75% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8257 - 8469, n=3)
8379 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=567)
1706 Points ∼20% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
6836 Points ∼97%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5471 Points ∼78% -20%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7012 Points ∼100% +3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6048 Points ∼86% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼89% -8%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5743 Points ∼82% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6732 - 6896, n=3)
6821 Points ∼97% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7305, n=568)
1630 Points ∼23% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3889 Points ∼77%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3839 Points ∼76% -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5054 Points ∼100% +30%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4900 Points ∼97% +26%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4503 Points ∼89% +16%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3260 Points ∼65% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3889 - 4124, n=3)
4009 Points ∼79% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5054, n=609)
1906 Points ∼38% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
11488 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
11302 Points ∼98% -2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11458 Points ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7671 Points ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10637 Points ∼93% -7%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9806 Points ∼85% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6388 - 11488, n=3)
8089 Points ∼70% -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=608)
2232 Points ∼19% -81%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8010 Points ∼90%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
7893 Points ∼89% -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8866 Points ∼100% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6815 Points ∼77% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8165 Points ∼92% +2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6780 Points ∼76% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5646 - 8010, n=3)
6451 Points ∼73% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=611)
1926 Points ∼22% -76%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
42135 Points ∼97%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33898 Points ∼78% -20%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28147 Points ∼65% -33%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
43459 Points ∼100% +3%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
30561 Points ∼70% -27%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
31384 Points ∼72% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (27431 - 42135, n=2)
34783 Points ∼80% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 57583, n=757)
15142 Points ∼35% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
79572 Points ∼39%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
206190 Points ∼100% +159%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
145567 Points ∼71% +83%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75073 Points ∼36% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
118129 Points ∼57% +48%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
103509 Points ∼50% +30%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (48476 - 79572, n=2)
64024 Points ∼31% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=755)
25366 Points ∼12% -68%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
66452 Points ∼69%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
96826 Points ∼100% +46%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
75632 Points ∼78% +14%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
64626 Points ∼67% -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
72173 Points ∼75% +9%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
68517 Points ∼71% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (41415 - 66452, n=2)
53934 Points ∼56% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 110468, n=755)
20037 Points ∼21% -70%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
200 fps ∼70%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
287 fps ∼100% +44%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
202 fps ∼70% +1%
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%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
151 fps ∼53% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (199 - 200, n=3)
199 fps ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=763)
43.2 fps ∼15% -78%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
119 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
59 fps ∼50% -50%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼50% -50%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼50% -50%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼50% -50%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼50% -50%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (60 - 119, n=3)
79.7 fps ∼67% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=772)
30.2 fps ∼25% -75%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
100 fps ∼64%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
157 fps ∼100% +57%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
123 fps ∼78% +23%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
106 fps ∼68% +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
111 fps ∼71% +11%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
85 fps ∼54% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (100 - 126, n=3)
111 fps ∼71% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=668)
25.4 fps ∼16% -75%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
59 fps ∼98%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
58 fps ∼97% -2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼95% -3%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (59 - 60, n=3)
59.7 fps ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=676)
21.5 fps ∼36% -64%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
72 fps ∼72%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
100 fps ∼100% +39%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼86% +19%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
56 fps ∼56% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
79 fps ∼79% +10%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51 fps ∼51% -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (72 - 85, n=3)
80.7 fps ∼81% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=531)
20.5 fps ∼21% -72%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
58 fps ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼82% +3%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼62% -22%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
73 fps ∼100% +26%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
40 fps ∼55% -31%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼49% -38%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (58 - 59, n=3)
58.7 fps ∼80% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=533)
18.7 fps ∼26% -68%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
33 fps ∼72%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
46 fps ∼100% +39%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
18 fps ∼39% -45%
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%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25 fps ∼54% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (22 - 33, n=3)
29.3 fps ∼64% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=279)
11.1 fps ∼24% -66%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
22 fps ∼76%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
29 fps ∼100% +32%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼69% -9%
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%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼55% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (20 - 22, n=3)
21.3 fps ∼73% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=277)
8.02 fps ∼28% -64%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
51 fps ∼88%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
58 fps ∼100% +14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28 fps ∼48% -45%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
40 fps ∼69% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼45% -49%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼66% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (50 - 52, n=3)
51 fps ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=283)
16.5 fps ∼28% -68%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
56 fps ∼75%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
75 fps ∼100% +34%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼71% -5%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
49 fps ∼65% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼63% -16%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼56% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (54 - 58, n=3)
56 fps ∼75% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=282)
19.1 fps ∼25% -66%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
50 fps ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
63 fps ∼100% +26%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼81% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
41 fps ∼65% -18%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
48 fps ∼76% -4%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼57% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (50 - 51, n=3)
50.3 fps ∼80% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=456)
13.9 fps ∼22% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
44 fps ∼92%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
48 fps ∼100% +9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
26 fps ∼54% -41%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
34 fps ∼71% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼50% -45%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33 fps ∼69% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (43 - 45, n=3)
44 fps ∼92% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=460)
12.3 fps ∼26% -72%
Basemark GPU 1.2
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
42.64 (min: 18.1, max: 74.99) fps ∼93%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
41.67 (min: 24.54, max: 66.22) fps ∼91% -2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
45.92 (min: 7.8, max: 77.95) fps ∼100% +8%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
42.6 fps ∼93% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.5 - 61.5, n=13)
31.7 fps ∼69% -26%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
71.55 (min: 21.96, max: 153.62) fps ∼99%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
72.56 (min: 32.87, max: 131.8) fps ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
52.62 (min: 9.22, max: 88.62) fps ∼73% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
71.6 fps ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.71 - 75.8, n=15)
36 fps ∼50% -50%
OpenGL Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
49.21 (min: 16.35, max: 130.08) fps ∼91%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
43.11 (min: 22.09, max: 84.76) fps ∼80% -12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
53.86 (min: 18.27, max: 79.77) fps ∼100% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
49.2 fps ∼91% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.6 - 67.2, n=13)
34.1 fps ∼63% -31%
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
85.44 (min: 20.45, max: 139.09) fps ∼100%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
75.88 (min: 34.23, max: 132.54) fps ∼89% -11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
63.13 (min: 18.68, max: 143.33) fps ∼74% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
85.4 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.8 - 85.4, n=16)
37.2 fps ∼44% -56%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
498708 Points ∼83%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
599843 Points ∼100% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
483224 Points ∼81% -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
486654 Points ∼81% -2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
418779 Points ∼70% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (296746 - 504192, n=3)
433215 Points ∼72% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=85)
314485 Points ∼52% -37%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4957 Score ∼99%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4988 Score ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4997 Score ∼100% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4986 Score ∼100% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4607 - 4957, n=3)
4783 Score ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 7649, n=82)
2609 Score ∼52% -47%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
1270 Points ∼73%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1745 Points ∼100% +37%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1351 Points ∼77% +6%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1462 Points ∼84% +15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1236 Points ∼71% -3%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1256 Points ∼72% -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (1270 - 1378, n=3)
1307 Points ∼75% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=700)
801 Points ∼46% -37%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
10781 Points ∼63%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
16996 Points ∼100% +58%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11496 Points ∼68% +7%
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%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9339 Points ∼55% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10703 - 10803, n=3)
10762 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=700)
2390 Points ∼14% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4497 Points ∼71%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
2350 Points ∼37% -48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6350 Points ∼100% +41%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6130 Points ∼97% +36%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5091 Points ∼80% +13%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5140 Points ∼81% +14%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3775 - 4497, n=3)
4181 Points ∼66% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8398, n=700)
1769 Points ∼28% -61%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9478 Points ∼67%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
14189 Points ∼100% +50%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9555 Points ∼67% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9309 Points ∼66% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9294 Points ∼66% -2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9113 Points ∼64% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8843 - 9478, n=3)
9201 Points ∼65% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=700)
3334 Points ∼23% -65%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4915 Points ∼88%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5607 Points ∼100% +14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5540 Points ∼99% +13%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5389 Points ∼96% +10%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4992 Points ∼89% +2%
LG G8X ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4841 Points ∼86% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4764 - 4915, n=3)
4819 Points ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6205, n=700)
1690 Points ∼30% -66%

Browsing the web with the Galaxy S20 Ultra is very fast. However, most benchmarks show a significantly lower performance than its competitors. 

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
129.096 Points ∼100% +149%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
65.88 Points ∼51% +27%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
64.567 Points ∼50% +25%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
63.096 Points ∼49% +22%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
62.417 Points ∼48% +20%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 53.9, n=3)
52.1 Points ∼40% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
51.826 Points ∼40%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=163)
39.7 Points ∼31% -23%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
301.91 Points ∼100% +237%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
115.49 Points ∼38% +29%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
115.44 Points ∼38% +29%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.65 Points ∼38% +28%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
106.73 Points ∼35% +19%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 93.5, n=3)
90.8 Points ∼30% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
89.62 Points ∼30%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=593)
45.9 Points ∼15% -49%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
153 runs/min ∼100% +140%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
74.1 runs/min ∼48% +16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
71 runs/min ∼46% +11%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chome 78)
66.8 runs/min ∼44% +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)
66.4 runs/min ∼43% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
63.7 runs/min ∼42%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 63.7, n=3)
59.1 runs/min ∼39% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=147)
42.7 runs/min ∼28% -33%
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%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼55% +16%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼51% +8%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
90 Points ∼50% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 97, n=3)
89.7 Points ∼50% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
86 Points ∼48%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=227)
69.6 Points ∼38% -19%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
49388 Points ∼100% +158%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
23999 Points ∼49% +26%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
23568 Points ∼48% +23%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
23506 Points ∼48% +23%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
22976 Points ∼47% +20%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
19122 Points ∼39%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 19122, n=3)
18459 Points ∼37% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=758)
7596 Points ∼15% -60%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=784)
9968 ms * ∼100% -325%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2345 - 2511, n=3)
2448 ms * ∼25% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
2344.7 ms * ∼24%
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78)
2201.2 ms * ∼22% +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼21% +9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
2043.6 ms * ∼21% +13%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
1962.5 ms * ∼20% +16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
570.9 ms * ∼6% +76%

* ... smaller is better

The 128 GB of UFS 3.0 storage performed very well in our tests but were in turn outperformed by the Mate 30 Pro. The latter managed to achieve higher sequential write rates than the S20 Ultra.

When benchmarked with our Toshiba Exceria Pro reference microSD card the card reader turned out to be comparatively slow.

Samsung Galaxy S20 UltraOppo Find X2 ProHuawei Mate 30 ProOnePlus 7T ProLG G8X ThinQAverage 128 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-1%
6%
-39%
-35%
-7%
-55%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
58.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
69.22 (Nano Memory Card)
19%
47.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-18%
59.3 (54.5 - 66.4, n=7)
2%
50.6 (1.7 - 87.1, n=504)
-13%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
67.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
82.49 (Nano Memory Card)
22%
68.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
72 (66.3 - 81.6, n=7)
7%
68.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=504)
2%
Random Write 4KB
221.37
204.98
-7%
259.21
17%
26
-88%
30.2
-86%
182 (29.9 - 230, n=9)
-18%
32 (0.14 - 319, n=846)
-86%
Random Read 4KB
202.43
202.63
0%
226.38
12%
169
-17%
160.5
-21%
194 (170 - 207, n=9)
-4%
56.1 (1.59 - 324, n=846)
-72%
Sequential Write 256KB
697.08
728.72
5%
401.79
-42%
405
-42%
497.1
-29%
527 (213 - 697, n=9)
-24%
119 (2.99 - 911, n=846)
-83%
Sequential Read 256KB
1632.02
1605.6
-2%
1780.5
9%
1489
-9%
704.8
-57%
1511 (1406 - 1632, n=9)
-7%
323 (12.1 - 1802, n=846)
-80%

Gaming – No 120 Hz Gaming for the Galaxy S20 Ultra

Thanks to its ARM Mali-G77 MP11 GPU, the Galaxy S20 Ultra performed very well and managed to run all current games smoothly on maximum details. The large display turned it into a superb gaming device, and the speakers did their part to further improve the gaming experience.

We use GameBench to benchmark a selection of games. While the S20 Ultra did not suffer from sudden and unexpected frame drops, we were unable to find a single game supporting its 120 Hz display. Even simple games such as Dead Trigger 2 reduced their frame rate to just 60 FPS, and the 120 FPS mode was disabled in World of Tanks and therefore not selectable. We also attempted to run various games that officially support 120 FPS, including Armajet, Rayman Adventures, and Assassin’s Creed Rebellion, but failed to succeed with any of them. To make matters worse, the latter ran at just 30 FPS. Thus, if you expect to game in 120 Hz the Asus ROG Phone II is probably a better choice.

In addition to a possible attempt to reduce power consumption, it is also feasible that the S20 Ultra’s cooling solution is simply not powerful enough to support 120 Hz gaming. See below for more details.

Real Racing 3
World of Tanks - Blitz
PUBG Mobile
010203040506070Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; 0.17.0: Ø39.8 (34-42)
; Real Racing 3; 8.2.1: Ø59.6 (49-61)
; World of Tanks Blitz; 6.9.0.501: Ø59.9 (56-61)

Emissions – Cooler fails under Load.

Temperature

T-Rex
Manhattan

When idle, the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra’s surface temperatures already crossed the 30 °C (86 °F) threshold in some spots. In return, they peaked at just 35 °C (95 °F) under sustained load.

We run GFXBench’s battery test in order to detect potential throttling issues under sustained load. This particular test runs a specific benchmark 30x in a loop while recording battery charge level and frame rates. As expected, we did not encounter any issues in the older T-Rex test (OpenGL ES 2.0). Based on previous experience we know that the more demanding Manhattan test (OpenGL ES 3.1) is much more taxing on a smartphone’s cooler. However, we have never experienced such a dramatic decrease in performance. The Galaxy S20 Ultra lost roughly 75% of its initial performance.

Max. Load
 33.8 °C
93 F
33.5 °C
92 F
32.5 °C
91 F
 
 34.8 °C
95 F
34.3 °C
94 F
32.3 °C
90 F
 
 35 °C
95 F
35 °C
95 F
32.3 °C
90 F
 
Maximum: 35 °C = 95 F
Average: 33.7 °C = 93 F
30.7 °C
87 F
31.8 °C
89 F
31.9 °C
89 F
29.7 °C
85 F
31.7 °C
89 F
32 °C
90 F
29.9 °C
86 F
32.2 °C
90 F
34.1 °C
93 F
Maximum: 34.1 °C = 93 F
Average: 31.6 °C = 89 F
Power Supply (max.)  27.7 °C = 82 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.7 °C / 93 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 35 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

Pink noise diagram

The two speakers make for a decent audio experience at medium volume. If you really push it you will be greeted by a slightly tinny sound, particularly noticeable in higher frequencies. In return, low frequencies remained comparatively strong and powerful.

You can enhance your audio experience dramatically by redirecting your sound output through either USB-C or Bluetooth. The latter offers a similar feature set as the Galaxy Z Flip. It supports dual audio and can play music on two connected devices simultaneously. It also supports Music Share turning the Galaxy S20 Ultra into a Bluetooth Hub capable of sharing its connected speakers with other devices without the requirement of pairing them individually. This feature requires a Samsung smartphone running One UI 2.1 or later. Unfortunately, it lacks support for aptX HD and does not display the currently activated audio coded in the audio settings.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.431.52529.629.33129.828.54025.526.15033.232.16326.824.98025.523.310023.724.312519.13316018.953.320017.250.925017.552.83151757.540015.159.7500156463014.764.380015.565.7100015.567.3125014.771.5160014.575.1200014.675.7250014.574.3315013.775.7400014.772.3500014.572.3630014.569.8800014.570.61000014.869.51250014.962.71600015.556SPL26.984.4N0.958.1median 14.9median 65.7Delta1.38.532.239.436.225.529.126.83027.742.342.426.827.220.325.22536.717.244.817.954.317.153.817.95316.253.616.55615.35915.664.415.664.814.867.214.472.314.67314.776.914.176.414.476.914.475.914.973.514.773.814.57214.866.6156316.649.427.185.80.961median 15median 64.81.29.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy S20 UltraApple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 62% 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
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 35% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life – It Could Have Been More

Power Consumption

Overall, the Galaxy S20 Ultra showed a relatively low power consumption. That said it was put in its place by the Mate 30 Pro. Charging the smartphone with the included power supply takes 1:18 hours, which is very fast considering the size of the battery. An even stronger 45 W power supply is available separately and should further decrease charging time significantly.

Wireless charging and Wireless PowerShare are both supported. The latter allows you to charge other devices inductively by using the S20 Ultra as a wireless charger.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.25 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.76 / 1.91 / 1.96 Watt
Load midlight 4.72 / 10.15 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
5000 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
LG G8X ThinQ
4000 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-12%
-58%
11%
-61%
1%
-6%
8%
Idle Minimum *
0.76
0.92
-21%
1.47
-93%
0.87
-14%
2.1
-176%
1.1
-45%
0.887 (0.76 - 1, n=3)
-17%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=859)
-16%
Idle Average *
1.91
2.9
-52%
3.43
-80%
1.75
8%
3
-57%
1.49
22%
1.703 (1.5 - 1.91, n=3)
11%
1.751 (0.6 - 6.2, n=858)
8%
Idle Maximum *
1.96
2.94
-50%
3.52
-80%
1.83
7%
3.5
-79%
1.76
10%
2.09 (1.96 - 2.3, n=3)
-7%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=859)
-4%
Load Average *
4.72
3.65
23%
6.2
-31%
3.85
18%
5.3
-12%
4.2
11%
5.11 (4.72 - 5.8, n=3)
-8%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=853)
13%
Load Maximum *
10.15
6.18
39%
10.63
-5%
6.64
35%
8.3
18%
9.2
9%
11.2 (10.2 - 11.8, n=3)
-10%
6.03 (1.2 - 14.2, n=853)
41%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Of all devices in our test group the Galaxy S20 Ultra had the largest battery. Unfortunately, this does not mean it also had the longest battery life. Its performance was particularly poor in our real-world Wi-Fi test, and the only device even worse was the Oppo Find X2. Even the smaller Galaxy S20 lasted longer. In return, it performed exceptionally well in our video playback test and was only outlasted by the iPhone.

Translated into the real world this means that its battery should easily last a whole day without requiring a top-up. However, a higher efficiency would have increased battery life even further.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
30h 58min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 80)
12h 00min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
18h 51min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 41min
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
5000 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
LG G8X ThinQ
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
43%
-9%
7%
12%
29%
Reader / Idle
1858
2618
41%
2174
17%
2015
8%
H.264
1131
1346
19%
1098
-3%
957
-15%
WiFi v1.3
720
909
26%
654
-9%
823
14%
912
27%
930
29%
Load
221
408
85%
219
-1%
283
28%

Pros

+ bright and color-accurate OLED display
+ fast storage
+ microSD support
+ Dual SIM (including eSIM)
+ wide range of LTE frequencies
+ 5G
+ good voice quality

Cons

- 5G without mmWave
- autofocus fails to operate properly in low-light conditions
- 120 Hz only in FHD+
- no 120 Hz gaming
- slow microSD slot
- no aptX HD

Verdict – Expensive and Unfinished

In review: Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra. Review unit provided by Samsung Germany.
In review: Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra. Review unit provided by Samsung Germany.

In theory and according to the specs on paper, the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra should offer almost everything you could possibly desire. Unfortunately, it failed to meet our high-end smartphone expectations in some respects.

First of all, let’s talk about the SoC. Europe remains the only region world-wide where Samsung continues to sell flagship Galaxy smartphones equipped with its own in-house Exynos SoC. While it did perform slower in some benchmarks this was not even our biggest disappointment. Instead, the collateral damage is much bigger, such as for example the lack of mmWave support in the 5G modem even though it should in theory support this technology. In addition, the Exynos 990 performed very poorly under sustained load. Whether this was due to a poorly designed cooler or a mediocre chip design remains to be seen. The only way to tell would be a direct comparison between the two SKUs, which we were yet unable to undertake.

The Galaxy S20 Ultra has the potential to become a high-end smartphone with its own set of frustrating experiences for users with plenty of patience.

Another potential issue is the display. While it offers brilliant colors and can get extremely bright, its 120 Hz mode is more than frustrating. Not only is this high refresh rate only supported at a reduced FHD+ resolution, which is simply too low for a display this size, but games are completely oblivious to its capabilities. In our tests, we failed to achieve frame rates higher than 60 FPS in a single game.

Without a doubt the S20 Ultra’s highlight is its camera; a large 108 MP sensor, 100x zoom, wide-angle lens, and more bling-bling than you can shake a stick at. And then, while taking photos, you suddenly realize that Samsung failed to implement a reliable autofocus. A 5,000 mAh battery should make for extremely long battery life. Or so you would think, because our tests revealed plenty of room for improvement.