Notebookcheck

The CAT S62 Pro Rugged Smartphone Review: Robustness burdened by big compromises

Perdurable. The S62 Pro from CAT is intended for professional use. The flagship smartphone from the S6x series offers the highest IP rating and an integrated thermal camera, which features the most advanced sensor yet. As of writing this review, no other smartphone offers such a sensor. Read our extensive review before you decide whether or not you should buy the CAT S62 Pro.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Stanislav Kokhanyuk),
CAT S62 Pro

The CAT smartphones from the S6x series are ideal companions for construction/industrial workers. The top-tier model S62 Pro features a thermal camera and carries high IP ratings. It is also made of very durable materials. The smartphone manufactured by Bullitt Group has an MSRP of 649 Euros (~$763).

The 248-gram (~8.75 oz) CAT S62 Pro is powered by the octa-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 660. The FHD+ 5.7-inch LCD touchscreen can be used with gloves on and is protected with the Gorilla Glass 6. The display has an 18:9 aspect ratio.

CAT S62 Pro (S Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
5.7 inch 18:9, 2160 x 1080 pixel 424 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, LCD, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB eMMC Flash, 128 GB 
, 101 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB Type-C port, Card Reader: microSDXC, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: FLIR Thermal Lepton 3.5, proximity sensor, E-compass, accelerometer, OTG, Miracast, LED indicator, MIL SPEC 810H, IP69/IP68 Water and Dust Proof,
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 4G bands: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/20/28/38/40, 3G: 850/900/1700/1900/2100 MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 11.9 x 158.5 x 76.7 ( = 0.47 x 6.24 x 3.02 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix (Dual-Pixel, f/1.8 aperture, 1.4µm), Camera2-API: Full
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: mono, Keyboard: virtual, modular charger, USB cable, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: head (0.98 W/kg), body (1,597 W/kg); Navigation systems: GPS, Galileo, BeiDou and GLONASS, fanless, ruggedized, waterproof
Weight
248 g ( = 8.75 oz / 0.55 pounds), Power Supply: 57 g ( = 2.01 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
649 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
78 %
10/2020
CAT S62 Pro
SD 660, Adreno 512
248 g128 GB eMMC Flash5.7"2160x1080
78 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
218 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.3"2340x1080
73 %
08/2020
CAT S42
Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300
220 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.5"1440x720
77 %
01/2020
CAT S52
Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320
210 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.65"1440x720
77 %
09/2018
CAT S61
SD 630, Adreno 508
250 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.2"1920x1080
77 %
01/2020
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3
322 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080

Case - CAT S62 Pro with an IP69 certification

The housing of the S62 Pro is made of a mix of plastic and aluminium. The smartphone is not compact and has a screen-to-body ratio of only 69%. The rugged smartphone is IP68- and IP69-certified and is compliant with the MIL-SPEC-810H standards. The S62 Pro is vibration-, dust- and water-resistant. The compliance with the US military standards means that the smartphone is able to withstand a wide range of temperatures, some solar radiation and submersion in acidic liquids. 

The S62 Pro can also survive 1.8-m (~5.9 feet) drops. The housing of the rugged smartphone is incredibly rigid, thanks to a thick metal frame, which contributes a lot to the beefy weight of 248 grams (~8.75 oz). Both the choice of materials and the build quality are on a good level. The back, which is made of thermoplastic polyurethane, feels quite premium. The buttons on the right side sit very firmly in their cutouts. However, the power button is not very well positioned.

Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro

Size Comparison

163 mm / 6.42 inch 78 mm / 3.07 inch 13 mm / 0.512 inch 250 g0.551 lbs161.3 mm / 6.35 inch 77.2 mm / 3.04 inch 12.7 mm / 0.5 inch 220 g0.485 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 76.7 mm / 3.02 inch 11.9 mm / 0.4685 inch 248 g0.547 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 76.7 mm / 3.02 inch 9.94 mm / 0.3913 inch 218 g0.4806 lbs158.1 mm / 6.22 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 210 g0.463 lbs

Hardware Configuration - CAT smartphone with a thermal camera

Thermal sensor in the CAT S62 Pro
Thermal sensor in the CAT S62 Pro

The S62 Pro features 128 GB of internal memory. However, only 100 GB is available to the user. The rest is occupied by the operating system. Those who need more storage space can insert a microSD card. The CAT smartphone supports exFAT.

The USB Type-C port on the bottom is used for charging and operates at USB 2.0 speeds. Thanks to USB OTG functionality, users can connect peripheral devices to the CAT smartphone. The main selling point of the smartphone is the FLIR Lepton 3.5 thermal sensor, which can measure a wide range of temperatures (from -20 °C to 400 °C/-0.4 °F to 752 °F). Thermal images can be blended with the images from the 12-megapixel sensor or used with Flir’s MSX technology (Multi-Spectral Dynamic Imaging).

Software - S62 Pro with Android 10

The S62 Pro ships with Android 10. According to the manufacturers, Android 11 is coming to the CAT smartphone. The security patches on our review device were last updated in August 2020, meaning that they are three months old. The manufacturer promises 3 years of software support. Moreover, the S62 Pro supports Android’s enterprise features.

Users will not be able to stream content in HD quality, because the S62 Pro only supports Widevine DRM L3.

Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro

Communication and Geolocation - CAT smartphone with NFC

The integrated Wi-Fi module supports the following IEEE 802.11 standards: a, b, g, n and ac. The CAT smartphone offers decent data transfer rates with our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12 when compared to other rugged smartphones. 

The S62 Pro supports Bluetooth 5.0 and features an NFS chip, which can be used for making contactless payments.

The rugged smartphone can use two SIM cards at the same time. All the necessary LTE bands, which are relevant in Germany, are supported. 

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
903 (881min - 916max) MBit/s ∼100% +166%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
349 (244min - 361max) MBit/s ∼39% +3%
CAT S62 Pro
Adreno 512, SD 660, 128 GB eMMC Flash
340 (313min - 349max) MBit/s ∼38%
CAT S61
Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
339 MBit/s ∼38% 0%
CAT S42
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D, 32 GB eMMC Flash
324 (318min - 336max) MBit/s ∼36% -5%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P70, 128 GB eMMC Flash
315 (204min - 334max) MBit/s ∼35% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼31% -17%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
259 (188min - 274max) MBit/s ∼29% -24%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
867 (440min - 907max) MBit/s ∼100% +172%
CAT S61
Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
341 MBit/s ∼39% +7%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
337 (198min - 368max) MBit/s ∼39% +6%
CAT S42
PowerVR GE8300, Helio A20 MT6761D, 32 GB eMMC Flash
329 (326min - 335max) MBit/s ∼38% +3%
CAT S62 Pro
Adreno 512, SD 660, 128 GB eMMC Flash
319 (159min - 324max) MBit/s ∼37%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P70, 128 GB eMMC Flash
302 (173min - 415max) MBit/s ∼35% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼31% -16%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
256 (138min - 284max) MBit/s ∼30% -20%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø340 (313-349)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø313 (159-324)
GPS Test: indoors
GPS Test: indoors
GPS Test: outdoors
GPS Test: outdoors

In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to geolocation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 500. Here we use both the smartphone and the navigator to map the same route in parallel. There is a 120-metre (~131 yards) difference between the S62 Pro and the Garmin Edge 500 at the end of our 12-km (~7.5 miles) ride. The ruggedised smartphone did not deviate too much from the professional navigator and had no trouble accurately mapping the route we took.

GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS CAT S62 Pro
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500

Telephony & Call Quality - S62 Pro supports VoLTE and WiFi Calling

Review of the CAT S62 Pro

The call quality of the S62 Pro is on a good level. The microphone has no trouble picking up voices. Video calling over Skype with the front-facing camera works very well. The rugged smartphone features support for both VoLTE and WiFi Calling.

Cameras - CAT smartphone with a single camera

Image taken with the front-facing camera of the CAT S62 Pro
Image taken with the front-facing camera of the CAT S62 Pro

The single camera on the back has an f/1.6 aperture and features an image sensor from Sony. The 12-megapixel shooter offers a solid image quality, at least under good lighting conditions. However, the dynamic range, exposure and the sharpness are not impressive for a device with such a price tag.

Under poor lighting conditions, the camera does not produce good photographs, despite a wide aperture. Low-light photographs are noisy, poorly exposed and blurry. The pictures taken with the 8-megapixel front-facing camera are on a decent level. However, they are a bit washed-out and not very well exposed. The front-facing camera can record video at 1080p30. The rear camera can shoot UHD video at 60 FPS.

Main camera
Main camera
8X zoom (max)
8X zoom (max)
Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro
Review of the CAT S62 Pro

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.

Wide-angleWide-angleLow-light photography5X zoom
ColorChecker
24.7 ∆E
47.6 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
36.8 ∆E
37.7 ∆E
57.2 ∆E
48.1 ∆E
28.6 ∆E
34 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
58.8 ∆E
59.2 ∆E
24.2 ∆E
44.5 ∆E
29.3 ∆E
69.3 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
41.5 ∆E
68.8 ∆E
64.8 ∆E
47 ∆E
33.8 ∆E
21 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
ColorChecker CAT S62 Pro: 40.8 ∆E min: 11.65 - max: 69.34 ∆E
ColorChecker
12.2 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
9 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
ColorChecker CAT S62 Pro: 8.12 ∆E min: 2.93 - max: 12.24 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - S62 Pro with free pick-up service

The box contains the S62 Pro, a modular 18-watt charger and a USB cable. The screen protector is pre-applied.

The manufacturer offers 24 months of warranty. In places where CAT services are available, users can contact Customer Service and request free pick-up and repair in the case of a defect.

Input Devices & Handling - CAT smartphones can be used with gloves on

The 5.7-inch touchscreen, which has been optimised for rough conditions, functions without any issues. Moreover, it can also be used with gloves on or with wet fingers.

There is a fingerprint sensor on the back, which works very reliably. However, the fingerprint sensor does not work very fast when the screen is off. The S62 Pro does not support facial recognition.

On the left side, there is a remappable orange button that can be used as a push-to-talk/SOS button or to launch applications.

Display - S62 Pro comes with an LCD panel

Pixel arrangement
Pixel arrangement

The 5.7-inch TFT screen has an 18:9 aspect ratio. The pixel density of over 400 DPI is more than sufficient for day-to-day use. The screen flickers at 35% brightness and below.

With the ambient light sensor enabled, the brightness peaks at 517 cd/m², which is not a great result for a smartphone primarily intended for outdoor use. However, when compared to the rest of the competition, the CAT S62 Pro does not look particularly bad. That being said, the brightness is not very evenly distributed. In the APL50 test, in which the screen displays a pattern of alternating black and white squares of equal size, we measured a brightness of 511 cd/m².

517
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
459
cd/m²
511
cd/m²
506
cd/m²
458
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
501
cd/m²
443
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 517 cd/m² Average: 488.8 cd/m² Minimum: 9.67 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 506 cd/m²
Contrast: 1234:1 (Black: 0.41 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.9 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 8.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.4
CAT S62 Pro
LCD, 2160x1080, 5.7
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
CAT S42
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
CAT S52
IPS, 1440x720, 5.65
CAT S61
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Blackview BV9800 Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Xiaomi Mi 10
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67
Screen
9%
5%
55%
3%
2%
63%
Brightness middle
506
569
12%
541
7%
521
3%
693
37%
511
1%
786
55%
Brightness
489
562
15%
532
9%
530
8%
672
37%
508
4%
791
62%
Brightness Distribution
86
91
6%
95
10%
91
6%
90
5%
89
3%
96
12%
Black Level *
0.41
0.42
-2%
0.52
-27%
0.16
61%
0.77
-88%
0.29
29%
Contrast
1234
1355
10%
1040
-16%
3256
164%
900
-27%
1762
43%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.9
6.14
11%
5.89
15%
2.69
61%
5.23
24%
8.1
-17%
1.1
84%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
12.6
10.92
13%
11.35
10%
5.07
60%
10.18
19%
15.2
-21%
2.2
83%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
8.5
7.9
7%
5.6
34%
1.8
79%
6.9
19%
10.9
-28%
1.8
79%
Gamma
2.4 92%
2.256 98%
2.272 97%
2.243 98%
2.834 78%
2.08 106%
2.26 97%
CCT
8818 74%
8696 75%
7884 82%
6622 98%
7137 91%
9859 66%
6315 103%

* ... 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 2358 Hz ≤ 35 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 35 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17507 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

The screen of the S62 Pro has a good contrast ratio of about 1200:1. In the APL50 test, the contrast ratio stays the same. However, the black value increases very slightly. 

Our CalMAN test reveals acceptable colour (Delta E: 6.9) and grayscale (Delta E: 8.5) performance, especially for a product of this type (the ideal value for Delta E deviations is less than 3).

Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB)
Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB)
Colour space coverage (colour space: sRGB)
Colour space coverage (colour space: sRGB)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
22.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6.4 ms rise
↘ 16.4 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 32 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
45.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22.8 ms rise
↘ 22.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 71 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms).

Outdoors, the CAT smartphone leaves a mixed impression. While the screen content is barely readable in direct sunlight due to a low brightness, the display is legible in the shade.

The viewing angles of the IPS panel are very wide. The screen content appears somewhat dimmer at acute angles, though. However, there are no issues with colour distortion.

Performance - CAT smartphone with Snapdragon 660

The rugged CAT smartphone comes with the Snapdragon 660, which was released years ago. It is made using the 14-nm manufacturing process and offers eight Kryo 260 cores. It is significantly less efficient than the modern Snapdragon 765. The Adreno 512 serves as the GPU.

The Snapdragon 660 in combination with 6 GB of RAM provides a decent level of performance. However, the system does not feel particularly responsive, because of the slow internal memory. Users are also likely to encounter some slowdown when multi-tasking.  

In our benchmarks, the CAT smartphone takes a slight lead over the Samsung Exynos 9611 in the Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1424 Points ∼43%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
421 Points ∼13% -70%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3309 Points ∼100% +132%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1304 - 1457, n=3)
1395 Points ∼42% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=124)
1945 Points ∼59% +37%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
294 Points ∼32%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
134 Points ∼15% -54%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
910 Points ∼100% +210%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (294 - 336, n=3)
320 Points ∼35% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=124)
553 Points ∼61% +88%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
6093 Points ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5351 Points ∼50% -12%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4889 Points ∼46% -20%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
5794 Points ∼55% -5%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
4748 Points ∼45% -22%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8074 Points ∼76% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10613 Points ∼100% +74%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (5789 - 6426, n=13)
6050 Points ∼57% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=526)
5979 Points ∼56% -2%
Work performance score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
6902 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5886 Points ∼50% -15%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
6771 Points ∼57% -2%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7739 Points ∼65% +12%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5548 Points ∼47% -20%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
11419 Points ∼96% +65%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11850 Points ∼100% +72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (6274 - 7026, n=11)
6676 Points ∼56% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=684)
6564 Points ∼55% -5%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2382 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2061 Points ∼62% -13%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2585 Points ∼77% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3336 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2207 - 2382, n=3)
2319 Points ∼70% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=178)
2668 Points ∼80% +12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
998 Points ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1436 Points ∼18% +44%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1095 Points ∼13% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8175 Points ∼100% +719%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (998 - 1147, n=3)
1095 Points ∼13% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=178)
3070 Points ∼38% +208%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1182 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1540 Points ∼25% +30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1256 Points ∼20% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6182 Points ∼100% +423%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1182 - 1296, n=3)
1252 Points ∼20% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=178)
2732 Points ∼44% +131%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2683 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2058 Points ∼40% -23%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
874 Points ∼17% -67%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1210 Points ∼23% -55%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1720 Points ∼33% -36%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2883 Points ∼56% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5187 Points ∼100% +93%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2121 - 2797, n=13)
2654 Points ∼51% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=530)
2235 Points ∼43% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1192 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1527 Points ∼16% +28%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
219 Points ∼2% -82%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
488 Points ∼5% -59%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
787 Points ∼8% -34%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1093 Points ∼12% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9389 Points ∼100% +688%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1134 - 1268, n=13)
1235 Points ∼13% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=530)
2171 Points ∼23% +82%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1287 Points ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1620 Points ∼20% +26%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
263 Points ∼3% -80%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
563 Points ∼7% -56%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
895 Points ∼11% -30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1268 Points ∼16% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7957 Points ∼100% +518%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1270 - 1442, n=13)
1397 Points ∼18% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=531)
2024 Points ∼25% +57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2593 Points ∼65%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
865 Points ∼22% -67%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1212 Points ∼31% -53%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1766 Points ∼44% -32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3029 Points ∼76% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3973 Points ∼100% +53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2238 - 2815, n=12)
2686 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=562)
2151 Points ∼54% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1873 Points ∼15%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
408 Points ∼3% -78%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
816 Points ∼6% -56%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1297 Points ∼10% -31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1606 Points ∼13% -14%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12601 Points ∼100% +573%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1734 - 2033, n=12)
1935 Points ∼15% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=562)
2924 Points ∼23% +56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1972 Points ∼23%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
462 Points ∼5% -77%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
880 Points ∼10% -55%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1378 Points ∼16% -30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1793 Points ∼21% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8499 Points ∼100% +331%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1887 - 2151, n=12)
2054 Points ∼24% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=562)
2453 Points ∼29% +24%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2502 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2080 Points ∼43% -17%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
850 Points ∼18% -66%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1173 Points ∼24% -53%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1711 Points ∼36% -32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2869 Points ∼60% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4813 Points ∼100% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1883 - 2759, n=13)
2581 Points ∼54% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=611)
2113 Points ∼44% -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1097 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1450 Points ∼17% +32%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
201 Points ∼2% -82%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
439 Points ∼5% -60%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
708 Points ∼8% -35%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1104 Points ∼13% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8371 Points ∼100% +663%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1061 - 1201, n=13)
1169 Points ∼14% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=611)
1831 Points ∼22% +67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1124 Points ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1555 Points ∼22% +38%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
242 Points ∼3% -78%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
510 Points ∼7% -55%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
814 Points ∼11% -28%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1279 Points ∼18% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7190 Points ∼100% +540%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1124 - 1372, n=14)
1325 Points ∼18% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=612)
1741 Points ∼24% +55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2451 Points ∼58%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
838 Points ∼20% -66%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1172 Points ∼28% -52%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1729 Points ∼41% -29%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2856 Points ∼68% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4196 Points ∼100% +71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2383 - 2834, n=12)
2673 Points ∼64% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=654)
1983 Points ∼47% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1802 Points ∼15%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
384 Points ∼3% -79%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
736 Points ∼6% -59%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1234 Points ∼10% -32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1278 Points ∼10% -29%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12234 Points ∼100% +579%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1711 - 1938, n=12)
1886 Points ∼15% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=653)
2426 Points ∼20% +35%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1872 Points ∼22%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
437 Points ∼5% -77%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
802 Points ∼9% -57%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1318 Points ∼15% -30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1457 Points ∼17% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8581 Points ∼100% +358%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1825 - 2073, n=12)
2014 Points ∼23% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=656)
2079 Points ∼24% +11%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
17452 Points ∼91%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
14322 Points ∼75% -18%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17243 Points ∼90% -1%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
12945 Points ∼68% -26%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
17113 Points ∼90% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (15088 - 21016, n=12)
19093 Points ∼100% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=798)
15611 Points ∼82% -11%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
26893 Points ∼95%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
7435 Points ∼26% -72%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12064 Points ∼42% -55%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
18375 Points ∼65% -32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
20321 Points ∼71% -24%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (25561 - 29496, n=12)
28454 Points ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=796)
27366 Points ∼96% +2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
23993 Points ∼94%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
8325 Points ∼32% -65%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12927 Points ∼50% -46%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
16808 Points ∼66% -30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19508 Points ∼76% -19%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (22145 - 26731, n=12)
25633 Points ∼100% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=796)
21256 Points ∼83% -11%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
45 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
40 fps ∼20% -11%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
13 fps ∼6% -71%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
21 fps ∼10% -53%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
29 fps ∼14% -36%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
42 fps ∼21% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
202 fps ∼100% +349%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (43 - 51, n=13)
48.2 fps ∼24% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=799)
46 fps ∼23% +2%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
42 fps ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
37 fps ∼41% -12%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
18 fps ∼20% -57%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
29 fps ∼32% -31%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
29 fps ∼32% -31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
38 fps ∼42% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
90 fps ∼100% +114%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (42 - 52, n=13)
47.2 fps ∼52% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=808)
31.5 fps ∼35% -25%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
20 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
20 fps ∼16% 0%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
5.9 fps ∼5% -70%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
11 fps ∼9% -45%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
14 fps ∼11% -30%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
23 fps ∼19% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
123 fps ∼100% +515%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (20 - 23, n=13)
22.2 fps ∼18% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=704)
27.3 fps ∼22% +37%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
19 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
22 fps ∼25% +16%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
11 fps ∼13% -42%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
19 fps ∼22% 0%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
13 fps ∼15% -32%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
21 fps ∼24% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
88 fps ∼100% +363%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (19 - 23, n=13)
21.2 fps ∼24% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=712)
22.8 fps ∼26% +20%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
14 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16 fps ∼19% +14%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4 fps ∼5% -71%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
6.6 fps ∼8% -53%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
9.7 fps ∼11% -31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
14 fps ∼16% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼100% +514%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (8.2 - 15, n=13)
14 fps ∼16% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=567)
21.9 fps ∼25% +56%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
13 fps ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼19% +8%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
8.1 fps ∼11% -38%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12 fps ∼16% -8%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.3 fps ∼7% -59%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
12 fps ∼16% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
75 fps ∼100% +477%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (12 - 15, n=14)
13.6 fps ∼18% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=569)
19.8 fps ∼26% +52%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
4.7 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5.6 fps ∼19% +19%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2.5 fps ∼9% -47%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.7 fps ∼16% 0%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
3.1 fps ∼11% -34%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4.6 fps ∼16% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
29 fps ∼100% +517%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (4.7 - 6.3, n=8)
5.14 fps ∼18% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=323)
11.5 fps ∼40% +145%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
3 fps ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.5 fps ∼18% +17%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
0.73 fps ∼4% -76%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼8% -50%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1.8 fps ∼9% -40%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2.9 fps ∼15% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +567%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (3 - 3.2, n=8)
3.15 fps ∼16% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=321)
8.13 fps ∼41% +171%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
7.5 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.4 fps ∼20% +25%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
4 fps ∼9% -47%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7.4 fps ∼16% -1%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5 fps ∼11% -33%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.7 fps ∼17% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
46 fps ∼100% +513%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (7.5 - 9.7, n=8)
8.09 fps ∼18% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=327)
17.1 fps ∼37% +128%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
7.9 fps ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼19% +27%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
2 fps ∼4% -75%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.9 fps ∼7% -51%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5 fps ∼9% -37%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8.5 fps ∼16% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
53 fps ∼100% +571%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (7.9 - 8.7, n=8)
8.54 fps ∼16% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=326)
19.6 fps ∼37% +148%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
8 fps ∼16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼20% +25%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1.8 fps ∼4% -77%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2.8 fps ∼6% -65%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.5 fps ∼11% -31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
8.1 fps ∼16% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
50 fps ∼100% +525%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (8 - 9.1, n=13)
8.83 fps ∼18% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=492)
14.7 fps ∼29% +84%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
7.6 fps ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.2 fps ∼22% +21%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
3.3 fps ∼8% -57%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.9 fps ∼12% -36%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.4 fps ∼13% -29%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.4 fps ∼18% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
42 fps ∼100% +453%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (7.5 - 9.8, n=14)
8.49 fps ∼20% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=496)
13 fps ∼31% +71%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
161462 Points ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
175661 Points ∼31% +9%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
77514 Points ∼14% -52%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
102966 Points ∼18% -36%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
183710 Points ∼32% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
566256 Points ∼100% +251%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (157877 - 184230, n=3)
167856 Points ∼30% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=121)
322987 Points ∼57% +100%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1334 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1202 Points ∼90% -10%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
854 Points ∼64% -36%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
887 Points ∼66% -34%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
896 Points ∼67% -33%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1045 Points ∼78% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1276 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1027 - 1334, n=11)
1114 Points ∼84% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=737)
827 Points ∼62% -38%
Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2083 Points ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2150 Points ∼18% +3%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
478 Points ∼4% -77%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
866 Points ∼7% -58%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1499 Points ∼13% -28%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1712 Points ∼15% -18%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11730 Points ∼100% +463%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1970 - 2332, n=11)
2241 Points ∼19% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=737)
2554 Points ∼22% +23%
Memory (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2236 Points ∼30%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1717 Points ∼23% -23%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1018 Points ∼14% -54%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1141 Points ∼15% -49%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1228 Points ∼16% -45%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2559 Points ∼34% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7450 Points ∼100% +233%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1737 - 2799, n=11)
2349 Points ∼32% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=737)
1901 Points ∼26% -15%
System (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
4627 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4029 Points ∼41% -13%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
1542 Points ∼16% -67%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2390 Points ∼24% -48%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
3283 Points ∼33% -29%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3915 Points ∼40% -15%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9810 Points ∼100% +112%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (3745 - 5282, n=11)
4927 Points ∼50% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=737)
3503 Points ∼36% -24%
Overall (sort by value)
CAT S62 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2225 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2057 Points ∼36% -8%
CAT S42
Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300, 3072
895 Points ∼16% -60%
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1203 Points ∼21% -46%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1526 Points ∼27% -31%
Blackview BV9800 Pro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2057 Points ∼36% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5752 Points ∼100% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1905 - 2428, n=12)
2307 Points ∼40% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=737)
1792 Points ∼31% -19%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
50.878 Points ∼100% +65%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=196)
40.9 Points ∼80% +33%
CAT S62 Pro (Chrome 85)
30.821 Points ∼61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (29.8 - 30.8, n=2)
30.3 Points ∼60% -2%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
27.671 Points ∼54% -10%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
14.282 Points ∼28% -54%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
109.2 Points ∼100% +128%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (45.3 - 55.5, n=12)
52 Points ∼48% +8%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
50.992 Points ∼47% +6%
CAT S62 Pro (Chrome 85)
47.986 Points ∼44%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=626)
47.7 Points ∼44% -1%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
28.136 Points ∼26% -41%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
26.218 Points ∼24% -45%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
22.543 Points ∼21% -53%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
118 Points ∼100% +151%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=264)
70 Points ∼59% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (47 - 63, n=8)
57.9 Points ∼49% +23%
CAT S62 Pro (Chrome 85)
47 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
46 Points ∼39% -2%
CAT S61
38 Points ∼32% -19%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
26 Points ∼22% -45%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
22016 Points ∼100% +133%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8463 - 10945, n=13)
10004 Points ∼45% +6%
CAT S62 Pro (Chrome 85)
9431 Points ∼43%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=795)
7967 Points ∼36% -16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
7442 Points ∼34% -21%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
5146 Points ∼23% -45%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
4494 Points ∼20% -52%
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
3971 Points ∼18% -58%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
CAT S42 (Chrome 80)
11842.1 ms * ∼100% -154%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
10848.6 ms * ∼92% -133%
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=821)
9705 ms * ∼82% -108%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
9692 ms * ∼82% -108%
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80)
6212.4 ms * ∼52% -33%
CAT S62 Pro (Chrome 85)
4662.3 ms * ∼39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3796 - 4769, n=12)
4103 ms * ∼35% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
2103.5 ms * ∼18% +55%

* ... smaller is better

CAT S62 ProSamsung Galaxy XCover ProCAT S42CAT S52CAT S61Xiaomi Mi 10Average 128 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
136%
-5%
15%
2%
614%
43%
24%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
55.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
62.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
61.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
12%
63.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
15%
62.2 (26.1 - 73.5, n=23)
13%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=536)
-7%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
74.43 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
72.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
83.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
12%
82.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
11%
83.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
12%
75.2 (29.2 - 85.9, n=23)
1%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=536)
-7%
Random Write 4KB
12.43
100.5
709%
14.8
19%
21.3
71%
15.1
21%
215.95
1637%
45.2 (8.48 - 151, n=25)
264%
36.9 (0.14 - 319, n=893)
197%
Random Read 4KB
79.4
108.6
37%
51.6
-35%
76.6
-4%
44.7
-44%
207.04
161%
68.8 (20.7 - 108, n=25)
-13%
60.1 (1.59 - 324, n=893)
-24%
Sequential Write 256KB
185.32
181.1
-2%
121.1
-35%
195.4
5%
212.2
15%
679.51
267%
186 (90 - 258, n=25)
0%
131 (2.99 - 911, n=893)
-29%
Sequential Read 256KB
304.2
507.6
67%
287.9
-5%
286.2
-6%
284.7
-6%
1498.15
392%
289 (144 - 499, n=25)
-5%
347 (12.1 - 1802, n=893)
14%

Gaming - S62 Pro for gamers with moderate ambitions

The S62 Pro comes with the Adreno 512, which can run even demanding 3D games from the Google Play Store. Current titles such as Asphalt 9 or PUBG Mobile are playable even on high settings. However, we saw occasional drops in performance, particularly in the racing game Asphalt 9.

Both the touchscreen and the motion sensor work very well while gaming.

PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends

Emissions - S62 Pro does not get hot

Temperature

Both the back and the front of the S62 Pro stay relatively cool under load.

Max. Load
 36.9 °C
98 F
37.2 °C
99 F
38.6 °C
101 F
 
 37.7 °C
100 F
37.6 °C
100 F
38.9 °C
102 F
 
 37.7 °C
100 F
37.6 °C
100 F
38.3 °C
101 F
 
Maximum: 38.9 °C = 102 F
Average: 37.8 °C = 100 F
32.4 °C
90 F
36.2 °C
97 F
37.4 °C
99 F
32.4 °C
90 F
33.5 °C
92 F
38.9 °C
102 F
29.7 °C
85 F
32.9 °C
91 F
39.2 °C
103 F
Maximum: 39.2 °C = 103 F
Average: 34.7 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  26.5 °C = 80 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.8 °C / 100 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 38.9 °C / 102 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 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.5 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

Frequency response
Frequency response

The mono speaker on the bottom is quite loud (92 dB(A)). However, the lows are almost completely missing. The mids and the highs are rather well reproduced.

There is no audio jack, which means that buyers will have to use the USB-C port to connect headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.936.7252941.23121.935.7402240.35029.937.66322438019.344.510016.345.21251447.216016.950.420014.952.225014.156.23151060.14001163.550011.769.263010.971.880011.976.310001178.2125010.277160011.475.5200012.879.1250012.980315012.583.440001385.9500013.180.9630013.477.6800015.776.31000013.575.7125001469.21600013.763.6SPL24.891.9N0.689median 13median 75.5Delta1.18.945.240.243.741.334.833.337.637.139.538.636.635.129.130.128.426.930.531.724.735.822.84121.947.521.554.619.962.820.765.719.268.518.773.12277.918.27717.87717.77917.87617.677.317.871.317.77118.171.518.371.418.768.8195919.460.170.966.13187.121.8191.667median 19median 68.8210.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseCAT S62 ProSamsung Galaxy XCover Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
CAT S62 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 17% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life – CAT S62 Pro could have lasted longer

Energy Consumption

Both the LCD screen and the SoC are not energy efficient. This is why the power draw is high even in idle operation.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.47 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.68 / 2.75 / 2.8 Watt
Load midlight 4.84 / 7.79 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
CAT S62 Pro
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
CAT S42
4200 mAh
CAT S52
3100 mAh
CAT S61
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10
4780 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
20%
19%
27%
22%
34%
6%
29%
Idle Minimum *
1.68
0.9
46%
1.5
11%
1
40%
1.4
17%
0.53
68%
0.979 (0.56 - 2.9, n=13)
42%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
47%
Idle Average *
2.75
1.8
35%
2
27%
1.9
31%
1.9
31%
1.46
47%
2.52 (1.4 - 8.6, n=13)
8%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
36%
Idle Maximum *
2.8
2.3
18%
3
-7%
2.7
4%
2.6
7%
1.52
46%
2.78 (1.54 - 8.9, n=13)
1%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
27%
Load Average *
4.84
5.4
-12%
3.6
26%
3.6
26%
3.5
28%
3.83
21%
4.98 (3.47 - 9.4, n=13)
-3%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
15%
Load Maximum *
7.79
6.9
11%
4.9
37%
5.2
33%
5.6
28%
8.89
-14%
9.02 (5.93 - 18.5, n=13)
-16%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
22%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In our Wi-Fi test, in which we limit the display brightness to 150 cd/m², the S62 Pro achieves a good battery runtime of about 11 hours. However, the CAT smartphone could have lasted longer, given its potential use cases.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 08min
CAT S62 Pro
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
4050 mAh
CAT S42
4200 mAh
CAT S52
3100 mAh
CAT S61
4500 mAh
Blackview BV9800 Pro
6580 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10
4780 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
668
731
9%
836
25%
637
-5%
923
38%
1492
123%
662
-1%

Pros

+ good build quality
+ highly durable
+ good warranty coverage
+ thermal camera
+ good mono speaker

Cons

- slow storage
- big bezels
- poor positioning of the buttons
- old SoC
- battery life could have been better
- display brightness (for a work phone)

Verdict of the CAT S62 Pro: Niche product with a reason to exist

Review of the CAT S62 Pro. Device provided courtesy of: Caterpillar Germany.
Review of the CAT S62 Pro. Device provided courtesy of: Caterpillar Germany.

The S62 Pro is a good rugged smartphone, which has a very robust housing that can withstand a lot of adverse conditions. Moreover, it also features a thermal camera. All in all, our review device has a reason to exist, even though it is a shaky one, because other 600-Euro (~$707) smartphones offer a much higher level of performance and better hardware.
The manufacturer made a few poor choices when it comes to the SoC, internal memory and display brightness. The display is not bright enough and the Qualcomm SoC from 2017 in combination with an energy-inefficient LCD panel prevents the S62 Pro from achieving excellent battery runtimes.

Those who can do without a thermal sensor and can live with a lower IP rating should think long and hard before buying the S62 Pro

CAT S62 Pro - 10/05/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
69 / 75 → 92%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
49 / 70 → 70%
Weight
87%
Battery
89%
Display
82%
Games Performance
14 / 64 → 22%
Application Performance
55 / 86 → 63%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
80 / 90 → 89%
Camera
59%
Average
73%
78%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > The CAT S62 Pro Rugged Smartphone Review: Robustness burdened by big compromises
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-10- 6 (Update: 2020-10-12)
Marcus Herbrich
Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Editor
My great passion has always been mobile technologies, especially smartphones. As a technology enthusiast, the half-life of my devices is not exactly high and the latest hardware is just good enough - manufacturer or operating system plays a minor role, the main thing is state-of-the-art