Notebookcheck

Vivo IQOO Smartphone Review

Mike Wobker (translated by Alex Alderson), 06/18/2019

A cheap gaming smartphone with a few tricks up its sleeve. Vivo is back, and this time it has brought an affordable gaming smartphone to market. The IQOO has vapour chamber cooling, touch-sensitive shoulder buttons and an engrossing 6.41-inch AMOLED display. Vivo has included a Snapdragon 855 SoC too, which should help it keep pace with modern flagships. Read on to find out if the Vivo IQOO can live up to expectations.

Vivo IQOO

The IQOO is only the third Vivo device to enter our offices after the NEX Ultimate and the NEX Dual. While Vivo strove for as high of a screen-to-body ratio as possible with those two devices, it has focussed its efforts on creating a gaming smartphone with the IQOO.

The company has previously equipped its devices with large batteries along with powerful hardware, and it appears to have done the same with the IQOO. The company has included a 4,000 mAh battery and the latest flagship Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset, which it has complemented with 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage. Moreover, it has incorporated an in-screen fingerprint sensor, touch-sensitive shoulder buttons and three rear-facing cameras.

Most gaming smartphones like the ASUS ROG Phone and Razer Phone 2 are almost twice the price of the IQOO and so would be unfair devices against which to compare our review unit. Instead, we shall compare the IQOO against comparably priced devices like the Google Pixel 3 XL, Nokia 8.1, Sony Xperia 10 Plus and the Xiaomi Mi 9. You can add smartphones that we have already tested to our comparison tables should you wish to do so too.

Vivo IQOO
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.41 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 402 PPI, capacitive, AMOLED, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 108 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm headphone jack, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, e-compass, gyroscope, proximity sensor.
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5, 2G GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. 3G/WCDMA: 850, 1,900, 2,100 MHz. 4G/LTE/FDD/TDD: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, B8, B12, B17, B34, B38, B39, B40, B41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.51 x 157.7 x 75.2 ( = 0.34 x 6.21 x 2.96 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix 12 MP, f/1.8. 13 MP, f/2.4 ultra-wide sensor. 2 MP depth sensor.
Secondary Camera: 12 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: 1, Keyboard: onscreen, Keyboard Light: yes, USB power adapter (US), USB Type-C cable, protective cover, SIM tool, FunTouch OS, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
196 g ( = 6.91 oz / 0.43 pounds), Power Supply: 120 g ( = 4.23 oz / 0.26 pounds)
Price
440 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case

The IQOO is a metal and glass sandwich like many modern smartphones. Vivo has adorned the long sides of the metal frame with company branding and accenting colours, along with a gradient finish on the back glass. The centre of the glass may look like the apex of the gradient, but it is a notification LED strip, which is a nice touch. Vivo currently sells the IQOO in three colours: Black, Optic Blue and Lava Orange.

The IQOO looks rather understated for a gaming smartphone. Vivo has opted for curved corners rather than the more aggressive gaming smartphone designs of the ASUS ROG Phone and the Xiaomi Black Shark. Our review unit is well-built and showed no structural weaknesses during our tests.

The IQOO is a hefty beast though, despite not looking like a typical gaming smartphone. Our review unit weighs a whopping 190 g and is rather thick too at 8.5 mm. Its 91% screen-to-body-ratio keeps the IQOO rather narrow though.

Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO
Vivo IQOO

Size Comparison

167 mm / 6.57 inch 73 mm / 2.87 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs160.1 mm / 6.3 inch 76.1 mm / 3 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 167 g0.3682 lbs157.7 mm / 6.21 inch 75.2 mm / 2.96 inch 8.51 mm / 0.335 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs157.5 mm / 6.2 inch 74.67 mm / 2.94 inch 7.61 mm / 0.2996 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs154.8 mm / 6.09 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs

Connectivity

Vivo includes 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage, of which around 108 GB is available upon first switching on the device. You must rely on cloud storage if you run out of space though as Vivo has not included a microSD card reader. The card slot on the left-hand side of its frame only includes two nano-SIM card trays. While the IQOO supports LTE on both SIMs, it does not support voice over LTE (VoLTE) or Wi-Fi calls (VoWiFi).

The IQOO has a USB 2.0 Type-C port for charging and wired data transfer. There is a 3.5 mm jack too, which sets the device apart from most modern flagships. Disappointingly, Vivo has only certified the IQOO up to DRM Widevine L3, which restricts it to streaming DRM-protected content like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix in standard definition.

Software

The IQOO currently ships with FunTouch OS, an in-house customised version of Android 9.0 Pie. Our review unit had April 1, 2019 security patches installed at the time of writing, which were just over a month old.

FunTouch OS looks and operates slightly differently to stock Android and may take some acclimatisation. Swiping down from the top of the display will bring down the notification shade, but Vivo has moved the Quick Settings that typically sit above them to a separate area that you access by swiping up from the bottom left. The OS includes numerous language options, but the translations for these are often sketchy or non-existent.

Moreover, Vivo preinstalls numerous third-party apps, all of which are intended for the Chinese market. Keep in mind that Google Play Services and all associated Google apps do not come preinstalled by default and can sometimes be challenging to get working correctly. Some third-party suppliers like TradingShenzhen will add these for you though.

Default home screen
Default home screen
A look at some preinstalled apps
A look at some preinstalled apps
FunTouch OS quick-start menu
FunTouch OS quick-start menu
FunTouch OS games settings
FunTouch OS games settings
FunTouch OS – Jovi
FunTouch OS – Jovi
FunTouch OS – Shortcut-Center
FunTouch OS – Shortcut-Center
FunTouch OS – Shortcut-Center customisation
FunTouch OS – Shortcut-Center customisation
RAM and Storage information
RAM and Storage information
Device information
Device information
Device information
Device information

Communication & GPS

The IQOO supports GSM, 3G and LTE networks, as would be expected of a modern smartphone. The device utilises Cat. 12 for the latter, which theoretically gives it up to 600 Mb/s download and 100 Mb/s upload speeds. Unfortunately, its modem does not support LTE Band 20, which carriers are increasingly using in Europe. Hence, you may struggle to find an LTE network in some large European cities.

The device also supports Bluetooth 5.0, NFC and all modern Wi-Fi standards up to IEEE 802.11ac. Our review unit has abysmal Wi-Fi performance though, averaging only around 100 Mb/s in our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests with our Linksys EA8500 reference router. We would expect to see these speeds with a budget smartphone, not a midrange one with flagship aspirations.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
678 (min: 549, max: 725) MBit/s ∼100% +599%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
668 (min: 617, max: 692) MBit/s ∼99% +589%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
317 (min: 163, max: 343) MBit/s ∼47% +227%
Nokia 8.1
Adreno 616, 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash
312 (min: 273, max: 341) MBit/s ∼46% +222%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=434)
226 MBit/s ∼33% +133%
Vivo IQOO
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
97 (min: 92, max: 99) MBit/s ∼14%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
580 (min: 548, max: 602) MBit/s ∼100% +452%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
534 (min: 430, max: 578) MBit/s ∼92% +409%
Nokia 8.1
Adreno 616, 710, 64 GB eMMC Flash
300 (min: 169, max: 367) MBit/s ∼52% +186%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=434)
216 MBit/s ∼37% +106%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Adreno 509, 636, 64 GB eMMC Flash
153 (min: 133, max: 180) MBit/s ∼26% +46%
Vivo IQOO
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
105 (min: 101, max: 111) MBit/s ∼18%
0102030405060708090100110120Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø96.2 (92-99)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø105 (101-111)
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors

The IQOO uses BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and GPS for location services, which allows it to maintain a satellite fix with up to four metres accuracy outdoors. However, our review unit could find us indoors, no matter how many times we tested it.

We also took the IQOO on a bike ride to test its location accuracy against our reference Garmin Edge 520 bike computer. Our review unit performed surprisingly poorly, deviating by around 370 m from the route that the Garmin plotted. In short, the IQOO could not keep up with us and cut corners to do so, resulting in it recording a much shorter overall route. We would recommend using a more reliable or dedicated device if you need to know your precise location, as the IQOO is not accurate enough.

GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Overview
GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Overview
GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Bridge
GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Bridge
GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Loop
GPS Test: Vivo IQOO - Loop
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop

Telephone Features & Call Quality

Dialler
Dialler

Vivo preinstalls an in-house dialler as the default in FunTouch OS. This looks and operates much like other dialler apps that Android smartphones have. The app places a shortcut for your contact list next to the call button though, rather than in a dedicated tab like the stock Google app does.

Our review unit performed well in our call tests and consistently reproduced our voice well. The earpiece is rather quiet though, so you may struggle to hear the person to whom you are talking if you are in a busy or noisy environment.

Cameras

Taking a selfie with the Vivo IQOO
Taking a selfie with the Vivo IQOO

Vivo equips the IQOO with triple rear-facing cameras, the main of which is a 12 MP sensor with an f/1.8 aperture. There is also a 13 MP ultra-wide sensor along with a 2 MP depth-of-field sensor. Vivo has included a 12 MP sensor with an f/2.0 aperture too, which takes decent selfies in good lighting. However, the sensor struggles to pick out many details, which is characterised by blurry edges of objects and a lack of fine structures. The default camera app also only includes several colour filters, AI-controlled beautification effects, an HDR mode and various lighting effects. The app does not include a professional or manual mode.

The main rear-facing sensor generally takes sharp-looking photos with punchy colours, especially in good lighting. Details are clearly visible, and object edges are separated from each other, unlike the front-facing sensor, while poorly lit areas of shots are still exposed well. This applies to macro shots too, although objects outside of the focussed area look a bit blurry. Surfaces with similar colours also blend together if they are not in the foreground of the photo.

Low-light photos are passable, but the sensor cannot capture as much detail as the ones in the iPhone XS and OnePlus 6T can. Bright areas look overblown too.

You can use all the settings that the default camera app provides for the front-facing sensor with the rear-facing one too, plus a wide-angle mode along with bokeh and night modes. Vivo also includes a professional mode, which contains settings for manually adjusting the brightness, ISO value, shutter speed, white balance and focus.

Videos are of a similar quality to photos in that they are a mixed bag. An image stabiliser compensates well for minor camera shakes, while the main rear-facing sensor can record in up to 4K. However, you are restricted to 30 FPS in all but 720p and 1080p, which have the option of 60 FPS.

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
click to load images
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

We also subjected our review unit to further camera tests under controlled lighting conditions. In short, the main sensor reproduces colours too brightly compared to the ColorChecker Passport reference colours, with only dark blue looking almost accurate.

Colours look overly bright and a little washed-out in the photo of our test chart too. Fine lines and structures are reproduced throughout though, and contrast levels are good at the edges of the image. Surprisingly, contrast levels are at their lowest at the centre of the image, which is not often the case with smartphone cameras.

A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail

Accessories & Warranty

Vivo includes a USB charger in the box along with a matching USB Type-C cable, a silicone case and a SIM tool. Please keep in mind that our review unit came with a US plug, but TradingShenzhen kindly added an EU adapter too. Vivo does not currently sell any IQOO specific accessories on its website or through third-party retailers.

The IQOO comes with a 12-month limited manufacturer’s warranty. However, we would recommend researching the risks and pitfalls of importing a smartphone from China, as you may find yourself with a costly warranty repair if you must return the device to China.

Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

Vivo preinstalls SwiftKey as the default keyboard on the IQOO. The app works just as well as it does on other devices that we have tested. You can download other keyboard apps from places like the Google Play Store too.

The touchscreen in our review unit precisely and reliably reproduces inputs onscreen. The glass protecting the touchscreen has a pleasantly smooth finish, on which it is easy to perform multi-finger gestures like drag-and-drop movements. The accelerometer also responds quickly when we rotate the display.

Vivo has incorporated an in-screen fingerprint scanner within the IQOO, as many other OEMs are doing with their flagship smartphones. Unfortunately, we found ourselves having to press the screen unnaturally hard before the sensor would recognise our registered fingers. Hence, the inclusion of an in-screen sensor may be the fashionable choice, but the one in the IQOO is not as practical as a conventional capacitive sensor would have been.

The IQOO also has touch-sensitive shoulder buttons, which are adjacent to the power and volume buttons. You can customise which actions they trigger while gaming with FunTouch OS settings, although we found we had to rather deliberately press them before they would activate. This means that you should not find yourself accidentally triggering them, but you may also occasionally find that you have not quite pressed them correctly while gaming, which could become annoying.

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

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

Vivo has equipped the IQOO with a 6.41-inch AMOLED panel that operates natively at 2340x1080. Our review unit gets exceptionally bright and has a maximum luminosity of 618 cd/m² according to X-Rite i1Pro 2, which puts it well clear of our comparison devices. The panel in our review sample is 98% evenly lit too, so you should notice no differences in brightness even when looking at large areas of homogenous colours. By contrast, the more practical APL50 test records the maximum luminosity at 640 cd/m², which drops to 400 cd/m² when we disable the ambient light sensor.

The display in the IQOO uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate luminosity like most AMOLED panels. Our review unit flickers at 219 Hz across the whole brightness range, which is low enough to cause PWM-sensitive people health issues like eye strain and headaches.

620
cd/m²
613
cd/m²
625
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
612
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
626
cd/m²
620
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 626 cd/m² Average: 618.4 cd/m² Minimum: 2.2 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 612 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255
Vivo IQOO
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
IPS, 2520x1080, 6.5
Xiaomi Mi 9
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Nokia 8.1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
Google Pixel 3a XL
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
-13%
37%
4%
26%
Brightness middle
612
572
-7%
593
-3%
567
-7%
409
-33%
Brightness
618
580
-6%
587
-5%
547
-11%
410
-34%
Brightness Distribution
98
96
-2%
94
-4%
92
-6%
96
-2%
Black Level *
0.4
0.61
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.37
4.5
16%
0.9
83%
4.39
18%
1.3
76%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.65
12.2
-15%
2
81%
7.28
32%
2.3
78%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.8
7.9
-65%
1.5
69%
4.9
-2%
1.5
69%
Gamma
2.255 98%
2.16 102%
2.27 97%
2.248 98%
2.22 99%
CCT
7440 87%
8726 74%
6548 99%
7642 85%
6621 98%
Contrast
1430
930

* ... 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 219 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 219 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 219 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9354 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

AMOLED can individually switch off pixels though, which gives them a theoretically infinite contrast ratio and a 0 cd/m² black level. Correspondingly, colours are well separated, while black tones look rich. We also did not notice a grey haze, which is typical of cheaper displays.

CalMAN analysis demonstrates that the display in our review unit has a blue tint to it. You can mitigate against this by using the eye-protection mode to make the display look warmer, but the tint should not be a big deal in daily use.

CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy
CalMAN: Colour Space
CalMAN: Colour Space
CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: Colour Saturation
CalMAN: Colour Saturation

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.7 ms).

The IQOO is easy to use outdoors thanks to its bright AMOLED display. You may still have to strain your eyes to see the screen in bright sunlight from oblique angles, but generally we had no issues with seeing what was being displayed onscreen even in the summer sun.

Using the Vivo IQOO outdoors
Using the Vivo IQOO outdoors
Using the Vivo IQOO outdoors
Using the Vivo IQOO outdoors

The AMOLED panel also has stable viewing angles. We can read the display from practically any viewing angle undisturbed. There is no loss of brightness, contrast or a greenish tint that is common for OLED panels even at acute viewing angles.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

Vivo has equipped the IQOO with a Snapdragon 855 SoC, which is currently Qualcomm’s flagship chipset. The SoC integrates an Adreno 640 GPU among other components and is complemented by 6 GB of RAM along with 128 GB of flash storage. In short, the IQOO should handle any app or task with ease regardless of its complexity. We also experienced no lags or stuttering even during heavy multitasking in daily use.

Our review unit performed well in synthetic benchmarks and generally tops our comparison tables or is a few percent behind the Mi 9. We expected as much though since most of our comparison devices are equipped with Snapdragon 600 or 700-series SoCs, which are weaker than the Snapdragon 855 in the IQOO.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7480 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4278 Points ∼56% -43%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7482 Points ∼98% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
6813 Points ∼90% -9%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
6479 Points ∼85% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (7372 - 8024, n=10)
7597 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=319)
4690 Points ∼62% -37%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10187 Points ∼93%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4804 Points ∼44% -53%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10999 Points ∼100% +8%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5856 Points ∼53% -43%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5172 Points ∼47% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10187 - 11388, n=12)
10936 Points ∼99% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=378)
4703 Points ∼43% -54%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3460 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1346 Points ∼38% -61%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3523 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1799 Points ∼51% -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1616 Points ∼46% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3406 - 3537, n=12)
3482 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=378)
1421 Points ∼40% -59%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10450 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6018 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9035 Points ∼86% -14%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
6887 Points ∼66% -34%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7377 Points ∼71% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8342 - 11440, n=12)
9563 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=370)
5253 Points ∼50% -50%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
14439 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
7181 Points ∼50% -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10985 Points ∼76% -24%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
8309 Points ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
9397 Points ∼65% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10330 - 14439, n=12)
12030 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14439, n=541)
5680 Points ∼39% -61%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3121 Points ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2282 Points ∼69% -27%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3288 Points ∼100% +5%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2314 Points ∼70% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2104 - 3365, n=12)
3000 Points ∼91% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=57)
2697 Points ∼82% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5653 Points ∼99%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
809 Points ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5723 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1416 Points ∼25% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4236 - 5884, n=12)
5576 Points ∼97% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=57)
2792 Points ∼49% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4790 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
944 Points ∼19% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4914 Points ∼100% +3%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1550 Points ∼32% -68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3800 - 5012, n=12)
4668 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=57)
2534 Points ∼52% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4037 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2345 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3754 Points ∼93% -7%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2534 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2532 Points ∼63% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1934 - 4535, n=12)
3783 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4635, n=378)
1959 Points ∼49% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6951 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
862 Points ∼12% -88%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7076 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1845 Points ∼26% -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1612 Points ∼23% -77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5184 - 7115, n=12)
6776 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=378)
1765 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5990 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1003 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5913 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1964 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1754 Points ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3969 - 6312, n=12)
5721 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6875, n=379)
1637 Points ∼27% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4023 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2352 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3788 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2516 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2495 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2345 - 4703, n=11)
3910 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=407)
1868 Points ∼46% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10028 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1397 Points ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10291 Points ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2855 Points ∼28% -72%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2537 Points ∼25% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6358 - 10420, n=11)
9422 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=407)
2344 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7530 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1536 Points ∼20% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7449 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2772 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2528 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5268 - 8141, n=11)
7130 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=407)
1969 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4017 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2351 Points ∼59% -41%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3758 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2514 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2466 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2705 - 4320, n=12)
3797 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4492, n=458)
1866 Points ∼46% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6233 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
808 Points ∼13% -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6355 Points ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1702 Points ∼27% -73%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1487 Points ∼23% -76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5663 - 6362, n=12)
6245 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=458)
1455 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5552 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
946 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5509 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1834 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1631 Points ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4556 - 5734, n=12)
5443 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=459)
1400 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3826 Points ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2349 Points ∼60% -39%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3614 Points ∼92% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2467 Points ∼63% -36%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2489 Points ∼63% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3505 - 4454, n=11)
3920 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4454, n=499)
1729 Points ∼44% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9653 Points ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1327 Points ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9963 Points ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2763 Points ∼28% -71%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2428 Points ∼24% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6122 - 10008, n=11)
9197 Points ∼92% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=498)
1894 Points ∼19% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7212 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1469 Points ∼20% -80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7166 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2691 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2441 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5251 - 7820, n=11)
7067 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8136, n=501)
1638 Points ∼23% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41855 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25339 Points ∼61% -39%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
14820 Points ∼35% -65%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
14631 Points ∼35% -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (23877 - 45072, n=11)
31364 Points ∼75% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=660)
14068 Points ∼34% -66%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
107036 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
106534 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
39655 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
35596 Points ∼33% -67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (97354 - 110432, n=10)
105749 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=658)
21690 Points ∼20% -80%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
79518 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
62225 Points ∼78% -22%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
28895 Points ∼36% -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
26999 Points ∼34% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (60279 - 83518, n=10)
68338 Points ∼86% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=658)
17606 Points ∼22% -78%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
162 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
35 fps ∼21% -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
65 fps ∼39% -60%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
58 fps ∼35% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (85 - 167, n=13)
156 fps ∼93% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=681)
37.6 fps ∼23% -77%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
30 fps ∼48% -50%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼95% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
57 fps ∼90% -5%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
53 fps ∼84% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (59 - 91, n=13)
63.1 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=690)
27.9 fps ∼44% -53%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
97 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
16 fps ∼16% -84%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
100 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
32 fps ∼32% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
29 fps ∼29% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (50 - 102, n=13)
94.6 fps ∼95% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=587)
21.6 fps ∼22% -78%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
13 fps ∼22% -78%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
31 fps ∼51% -48%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
28 fps ∼46% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (51 - 85, n=13)
60.3 fps ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=596)
19.2 fps ∼32% -68%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
10 fps ∼14% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
23 fps ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
20 fps ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (35 - 71, n=13)
62.5 fps ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=453)
17.7 fps ∼26% -74%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
56 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
8.4 fps ∼14% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +4%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
22 fps ∼38% -61%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
19 fps ∼33% -66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (36 - 58, n=13)
48.9 fps ∼84% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=455)
16.6 fps ∼29% -70%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
3.2 fps ∼13% -87%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
8.2 fps ∼34% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7.2 fps ∼30% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (14 - 26, n=12)
21.4 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=171)
10.2 fps ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼95%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2.2 fps ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼95% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5 fps ∼30% -69%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
4.5 fps ∼27% -72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8.5 - 24, n=13)
16.9 fps ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=170)
7.08 fps ∼42% -56%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼97%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4.9 fps ∼13% -86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼100% +3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
13 fps ∼35% -64%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼30% -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 38, n=12)
34 fps ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=175)
14.9 fps ∼40% -59%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.1 fps ∼15% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
14 fps ∼34% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 43, n=13)
40.4 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=175)
16.7 fps ∼41% -59%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6.3 fps ∼15% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +2%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
13 fps ∼31% -68%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼26% -73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 42, n=13)
39.9 fps ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=378)
12.1 fps ∼29% -70%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
35 fps ∼92%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.1 fps ∼13% -85%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼100% +9%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼32% -66%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼29% -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (21 - 41, n=13)
32.8 fps ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=382)
10.9 fps ∼29% -69%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
217967 Points ∼58%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
117574 Points ∼31% -46%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
374820 Points ∼100% +72%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
169262 Points ∼45% -22%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
158868 Points ∼42% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (217967 - 398720, n=13)
354658 Points ∼95% +63%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=289)
141941 Points ∼38% -35%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1415 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1046 Points ∼74% -26%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1378 Points ∼97% -3%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
1077 Points ∼76% -24%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1186 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1076 - 1431, n=12)
1321 Points ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=625)
755 Points ∼53% -47%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9254 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1611 Points ∼17% -83%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9270 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
3086 Points ∼33% -67%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2815 Points ∼30% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8125 - 9510, n=12)
9142 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=625)
2037 Points ∼22% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4970 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1236 Points ∼25% -75%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4031 Points ∼81% -19%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2947 Points ∼59% -41%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
3316 Points ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2661 - 7500, n=12)
4973 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=625)
1504 Points ∼30% -70%
System (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8974 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
4342 Points ∼48% -52%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8441 Points ∼94% -6%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
5681 Points ∼63% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5507 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5993 - 9143, n=12)
8509 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=625)
2952 Points ∼33% -67%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo IQOO
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4917 Points ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1734 Points ∼35% -65%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4595 Points ∼93% -7%
Nokia 8.1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 4096
2731 Points ∼56% -44%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2794 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3847 - 5397, n=12)
4726 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=625)
1480 Points ∼30% -70%

The IQOO continued to perform well in browser benchmarks. Our review unit typically finished behind the Mi 9 in first place. Browsing the web on Chrome 74 always remained smooth, as did the scrolling animation. Websites load quickly, as does media content.

WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
108 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (94 - 129, n=13)
108 Points ∼100% +8%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
100 Points ∼93%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
72 Points ∼67% -28%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=156)
67.2 Points ∼62% -33%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼57% -38%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
54 Points ∼50% -46%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
24534 Points ∼100% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 25640, n=13)
23006 Points ∼94% +22%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
18882 Points ∼77%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
12717 Points ∼52% -33%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
11056 Points ∼45% -41%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
8163 Points ∼33% -57%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=683)
6705 Points ∼27% -64%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=708)
10599 ms * ∼100% -306%
Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73)
4739 ms * ∼45% -82%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
3360.7 ms * ∼32% -29%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
3034.9 ms * ∼29% -16%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
2610.5 ms * ∼25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=12)
2130 ms * ∼20% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
1873.2 ms * ∼18% +28%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
110.54 Points ∼100% +22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90.8 - 118, n=10)
108 Points ∼98% +19%
Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74)
90.763 Points ∼82%
Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71)
66.048 Points ∼60% -27%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
57.573 Points ∼52% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=524)
41.4 Points ∼37% -54%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo has equipped the IQOO with 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage, of which around 108 GB is available upon first booting the device. While the write speeds of the UFS storage are below average, its read rates are on par with our comparison devices that are also equipped with UFS storage.

Vivo IQOOSony Xperia 10 PlusXiaomi Mi 9Nokia 8.1Google Pixel 3a XLAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-36%
154%
-46%
32%
56%
-51%
Random Write 4KB
26.2
16.77
-36%
165.32
531%
7.3
-72%
86.96
232%
86.8 (18.2 - 250, n=39)
231%
21.5 (0.14 - 250, n=733)
-18%
Random Read 4KB
147.46
77.67
-47%
149.36
1%
69.9
-53%
92.12
-38%
139 (98.9 - 158, n=39)
-6%
46.5 (1.59 - 196, n=733)
-68%
Sequential Write 256KB
194.16
205.19
6%
388.27
100%
203.8
5%
179.09
-8%
205 (182 - 503, n=39)
6%
95.4 (2.99 - 590, n=733)
-51%
Sequential Read 256KB
794.73
280.34
-65%
666.06
-16%
279.3
-65%
315.6
-60%
751 (427 - 912, n=39)
-6%
269 (12.1 - 1504, n=733)
-66%

Games

The IQOO lives up to its marketing as a gaming smartphone. Complex titles like Asphalt 9: Legends and PUBG Mobile always ran smoothly during our tests regardless of the graphics settings at which we played them. The device remained comfortable and easy to use even during prolonged gaming sessions too. The touch-sensitive shoulder buttons must be pressed precisely to activate though, so you need to ensure that your press is a deliberate one.

The accelerometer and associated sensors worked perfectly throughout our gaming sessions. The screen always rotated without delay, while the cars in Asphalt: 9 Legends moved accurately with gesture controls enabled.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

Emissions

Temperature

Our tests certify that surface temperatures on our review unit reach a peak of 44.7 °C under sustained load. The front of the device runs hotter than the rear, with most of the display exceeding 40 °C when the device is pushed hard.

The IQOO never feels cool to the touch either, with surface temperatures remaining above 30 °C even at idle. Parts of the screen reached 32.7 °C in this scenario, which will feel warm in the hand. Our review unit never felt dangerously or uncomfortably hot though.

Max. Load
 44.7 °C
112 F
41.7 °C
107 F
39.2 °C
103 F
 
 44.5 °C
112 F
42.3 °C
108 F
39.3 °C
103 F
 
 44 °C
111 F
41.5 °C
107 F
39.3 °C
103 F
 
Maximum: 44.7 °C = 112 F
Average: 41.8 °C = 107 F
33.8 °C
93 F
37.5 °C
100 F
40.5 °C
105 F
34.5 °C
94 F
37.5 °C
100 F
40.7 °C
105 F
35.2 °C
95 F
38.8 °C
102 F
39.9 °C
104 F
Maximum: 40.7 °C = 105 F
Average: 37.6 °C = 100 F
Power Supply (max.)  45.3 °C = 114 F | Room Temperature 21.3 °C = 70 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 41.8 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heat-map of the front of the device under load
Heat-map of the front of the device under load
Heat-map of the back of the device under load
Heat-map of the back of the device under load

Speakers

Speaker characteristics
Speaker characteristics

The IQOO has a mono speaker, which is both comparatively quiet and underwhelming. Mid-tones dominate its frequency spectrum, with there being a distinct drop in volume below mid and high-frequency peaks. Overall, the speaker sounds good enough for occasionally playing music or video content, but we would recommend using external speakers or headphones where possible.

You can connect external audio equipment via the headphone jack or Bluetooth. Both worked perfectly during our tests, while the former grips headphone jacks firmly.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2047.140.12541.339.33136.833.94043.343.15042.3506332.135.98026.92610024.423.612523.427.216021.840.320019.949.425019.955.331519.759.740019.161.350020.663.863019.165.980017.568.6100017.266.5125016.965.8160017.269.1200016.973.5250016.472.931501568.2400014.365.650001467.2630013.968.180001467.7100001470.61250013.954.9160001443.7SPL61.228.881N141.149.8median 17.2median 65.8Delta2.68.139.432.928.325.418.726.526.725.933.229.422.622.721.822.224.43123.839.218.550.417.149.117.853.815.556.114.162.51467.913.869.114.773.515.47715.276.614.376.514.574.913.971.714.675.914.178.114.374.314.574.614.875.714.87514.864.41558.226.887.10.871.4median 14.8median 71.71.510hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo IQOOXiaomi Mi 9
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo IQOO audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The IQOO generally consumes considerably more than our comparison devices. We recorded it consuming at least 1.2 W at idle, which is between 33% and 44% more than its contemporaries. Our review unit does not hold up much better under load either, during which it consumes a maximum of 8.5 W and averages around 4.8 W. Only the Mi 9 has a higher power draw than the IQOO, although it averages 23% less than our review unit under load. Overall, we would not recommend buying the IQOO for its power efficiency.

Vivo includes a 22.5 W charger in the box, while the IQOO supports in-house fast charging technology. Our review unit takes about an hour to recharge fully from flat.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.2 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt
Load midlight 4.8 / 8.5 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo IQOO
4000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Nokia 8.1
3500 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
22%
30%
33%
39%
15%
23%
Idle Minimum *
1.2
0.68
43%
0.67
44%
0.8
33%
0.7
42%
0.956 (0.6 - 1.96, n=13)
20%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=769)
27%
Idle Average *
2.2
2.12
4%
1.26
43%
1.5
32%
1.63
26%
1.554 (0.85 - 2.8, n=13)
29%
1.734 (0.6 - 6.2, n=768)
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.6
2.17
17%
1.29
50%
1.8
31%
1.67
36%
1.881 (1 - 2.9, n=13)
28%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=769)
22%
Load Average *
4.8
3.82
20%
3.71
23%
3.2
33%
2.64
45%
4.65 (3.64 - 5.8, n=13)
3%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=763)
15%
Load Maximum *
8.5
6.44
24%
9.3
-9%
5.4
36%
4.62
46%
9.12 (7.49 - 11.9, n=13)
-7%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=763)
31%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The IQOO has a 4,000 mAh battery, which compensates well for our review unit’s comparatively high power consumption. The device lasted for 18:05 hours in our practical Wi-Fi battery life test, which trounces its contemporaries. We conduct this test by running a script that simulates the load required to render websites, and we set the display to approximately 150 cd/m², for reference.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
18h 05min
Vivo IQOO
4000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 Plus
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
Nokia 8.1
3500 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
1085
635
-41%
546
-50%
738
-32%
709
-35%

Pros

+ good battery life
+ premium look and feel
+ good value for money
+ decent cameras

Cons

- runs hot
- high power consumption
- slow Wi-Fi
- FunTouch OS optimised for Chinese market

Verdict

The Vivo IQOO smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.
The Vivo IQOO smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.

The Vivo IQOO lives up to its aim of being an affordable gaming smartphone, despite its shortcomings. Its large and bright display is engrossing, which Vivo has underpinned with a powerful SoC. The inclusion of touch-sensitive shoulder buttons is novel even if they are not essential. The Xiaomi Mi 9 gets more from its Snapdragon 855 than the IQOO does, but our review unit handled all modern and complex mobile games with ease.

The Vivo IQOO is a powerful gaming smartphone with a decent set of cameras, but you may struggle to use it if you cannot read Chinese.

The inclusion of a 4,000 mAh battery was a wise move, as the IQOO consumes more power than its contemporaries. The IQOO will last a full day between charges, although its Quick Charge support means that you will not be tethered to the mains for long.

Moreover, the IQOO has a solid set of cameras, which deliver decent results in good light. Perversely, our main gripes with the IQOO are born out of its strengths. Our review unit runs hot and has high power consumption, but this is often the trade-off for consistent performance in games. The weak Wi-Fi performance will put off some gamers though, as will the poorly translated OS. In short, the Vivo IQOO is an understated gaming smartphone that has a lot going for it. Its limited LTE coverage and Chinese-heavy OS are what stops it from challenging the best gaming smartphones on the market though.

Vivo IQOO - 06/20/2019 v6(old)
Mike Wobker

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
95%
Connectivity
39 / 60 → 66%
Weight
88%
Battery
100%
Display
85%
Games Performance
72 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
85 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
86%
Noise
100%
Audio
68 / 91 → 75%
Camera
76%
Add Points
-1%
Average
75%
87%
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 > Vivo IQOO Smartphone Review
Mike Wobker, 2019-06-18 (Update: 2019-06-20)