Notebookcheck

Vivo NEX Dual Smartphone Review

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Alex Alderson), 03/27/2019

Is the front-facing camera a thing of the past? The highlight of the Vivo NEX Dual is its two displays. In addition to the traditional screen on the front, the NEX Dual has another AMOLED panel on the back. The latter means that you can take selfies with what would typically be rear-facing cameras without the need for dedicated front-facing sensors or an intrusive notch. Read on to find out how well this concept works and how the NEX Dual compares against other flagship smartphones.

Vivo NEX Dual

Vivo has shaken up the race to release a 100% screen-to-body ratio smartphone once again with the NEX Dual. While the market has moved towards mechanical sliders such as the Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and Lenovo Z5 Pro or motorised elements such as the Oppo Find X, Vivo has created a phone with two displays. While devices such as the YotaPhone have offered similar concepts, Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with two AMOLED panels rather than an E Ink display. The main display measures 6.39-inches and takes up almost all the front of the device save for a small chin because the NEX Dual has only what would traditionally be rear-facing cameras. Thus, no notch. The 5.49-inch rear display sits below the cameras and the associated sensors, allowing you to take a selfie by just flipping the phone around. Vivo has equipped the device with a 12 MP primary camera and a 2 MP secondary sensor along with a 12 MP time of flight (ToF) sensor that measures the time it takes for light to bounce between each camera pixel and the photographed object to create a 3D profile. Theoretically, the ToF sensor should add more depth to photos than traditional sensors could.

The NEX Dual is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SoC and a whopping 10 GB of RAM. The SoC may be one of last year’s flagship chips, but it should still be powerful enough for even the most complex applications and games.

The NEX Dual currently retails for approximately €630 (~$709) but is only available through import companies, about which we will discuss more in the Accessories & Warranty section of this review.

We have chosen to compare the NEX Dual against comparably priced flagship smartphones. Our comparison devices will include the Honor View 20, the LG V40 ThinQ, the Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and the ZTE Axon 9 Pro. We will also compare the NEX Dual against the Samsung Galaxy S10, although the latter is considerably more expensive than our review unit.

Vivo Nex Dual Display (Nex Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
10240 MB 
Display
6.39 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Capacitive multitouch, Super AMOLED, 5.49-inch OLED screen - 1,920 x 1,080, glossy: yes
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm jack, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, proximity sensor, electronic compass, gyroscope , USB Type-C, Miracast, notification LED
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. 3G CDMA: BC0, BC1, BC10. 3G TD-SCDMA: B34, B39. 3G WCDMA: B1, B2, B4, B5, B8, B19. 4G FDD-LTE: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, B8, B12, B17, B19, B20, B25, B26. 4G TDD-LTE: B34, B38, B39, B40, B41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.1 x 157.2 x 75.3 ( = 0.32 x 6.19 x 2.96 in)
Battery
3500 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix , f/1.8, 1/2.55 ", 1.4 μm. 2 MP secondary sensor, f/1.8. ToF sensor, f/1.3. Camera2 API Level: Full.
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Virtual, USB cable, modular power supply, protective cover, screen protector, Funtouch OS 4.5, 12 Months Warranty, LTE Cat 16, DRM Widevine: L3, fanless
Weight
199 g ( = 7.02 oz / 0.44 pounds), Power Supply: 79 g ( = 2.79 oz / 0.17 pounds)
Price
630 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! Indian citizens welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case

The NEX Dual comes in Star Purple
The NEX Dual comes in Star Purple
and Ice Field Blue
and Ice Field Blue

Vivo has covered the NEX Dual in Gorilla Glass 5, which sandwiches a metal frame. The device measures 157 x 75 mm (~6.2 x 3 in) and has what looks like an almost all-screen front. However, the NEX Dual has thicker bezels than the Galaxy S10 that result in an 84.7% screen-to-body ratio. By contrast, the Galaxy S10 has an 88.3% ratio, while even devices with a notch such as the OnePlus 6T have higher ratios than the NEX Dual.

Nonetheless, our review unit sits well in our hands and is only 8.1 mm (~0.32 in), which is on par with our comparison devices. However, its flat design makes the NEX Dual slipperier than we would have liked. The device does not sit completely flat on a desk or table either because of its rear-facing camera ring that protrudes slightly from the back case. The ring doubles as a notification or camera light, which is novel.

Vivo currently sells the NEX Dual in blue and purple, which the company markets as Ice Field Blue and Star Purple respectively.

Vivo NEX Dual
Vivo NEX Dual
Vivo NEX Dual

Size Comparison

157.8 mm / 6.21 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 218 g0.4806 lbs158.7 mm / 6.25 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 169 g0.3726 lbs157.2 mm / 6.19 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 199 g0.4387 lbs156.9 mm / 6.18 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs156.5 mm / 6.16 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 179 g0.3946 lbs149.9 mm / 5.9 inch 70.4 mm / 2.77 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 157 g0.3461 lbs

Connectivity

Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage, of which around 112 GB is available upon first booting the device. The device does not support microSD cards, but it has dual-SIM functionality thanks to its two nano-SIM card slots.

The NEX Dual has a 3,500 mAh battery too that charges via the USB 2.0 Type-C port on the underside of the device. The Type-C port does not support USB On-The-Go (OTG) so you cannot connect wired peripherals such as a keyboard or mouse. There is no wireless charging functionality either.

Moreover, the NEX Dual cannot stream HD content from services such as Amazon Prime Video or Netflix. Devices must be DRM Widevine Level 1 certified to be able to do so, but Vivo has only attained Level 3 certification for the device, meaning that you will be stuck streaming in standard definition instead. Frustratingly, Vivo cannot fix this via a software update, so there is no chance of your NEX Dual even being able to stream DRM protected in HD. You can wirelessly transmit audio and video to an external monitor with Miracast though, as most modern smartphones can do.

Software

The NEX Dual display third-party apps only in 19.5:9
The NEX Dual display third-party apps only in 19.5:9

Vivo ships the NEX Dual with Android 9.0 Pie atop of which it adds its Funtouch custom UI. Our review unit had February 2019 security patches installed at the time of testing, which were only one month old at that point.

Our review unit had version 4.5 of Funtouch OS installed at the time of writing, which is heavily customised and has numerous customisation options that stock Android lacks. The UI is more reminiscent of iOS than it is of Android such as the placement of the Quick Settings menu, which rises from the bottom of the screen like iOS rather than from the top as with most versions of Android.

We should also point out that Funtouch OS currently only displays third-party apps in 19.5:9 regardless of the screen that you are using. While this is not an issue for the main display, the rear screen has a 16:9 aspect ratio, which makes content look smaller than it should do.

Much of Funtouch OS also remains untranslated. Although the NEX Dual ships with a multi-language ROM, many UI elements remain in Chinese regardless of the language to which the system is set. We currently have no workaround for this other than installing a third-party launcher, which may have scaling issues with the secondary display.

Additionally, Funtouch has no Google apps pre-installed, with Vivo opting for Chinese equivalents instead. Hence, you cannot download apps from the Play Store or use anything that requires Google Play Services. Fear not, as we have written a guide on how to install Google applications on Chinese ROMs, although it is currently only available in German.

Default home screen
Default home screen
A look at the default keyboard and mostly Chinese UI
A look at the default keyboard and mostly Chinese UI
The Quick Settings menu in Funtouch 4.5
The Quick Settings menu in Funtouch 4.5

Communication & GPS

The NEX Dual supports all modern Wi-Fi standards up to IEEE 802.11 ac and can connect to 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz networks. Vivo has also equipped the device with a 2x2 MIMO antenna that allows it to achieve fast transfer speeds. Our review unit averaged over 550 MBit/s in both iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests that we ran when connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router. These speeds are well above average, but they are slower than what the Axon 9 Pro, Galaxy S10 and Mi Mix 3 averaged in the same tests. Our review unit also achieved a -45 dBm attenuation when placed next to and connected to our Telekom Speedport W921V router, which is worse than we would have expected from a device at this price.

The NEX Dual supports LTE Cat.16 on both SIM cards and supports 19 LTE bands for near worldwide connectivity. Please keep in mind that the device does not support Band 28 though, which some carriers in Asia, Latin America, Oceania, Finland, France, Kenya and Nigeria use for LTE.

The device also has an NFC chip for use with services such as Google Pay, once you have installed the requisite Google apps. The Wi-Fi module also supports Bluetooth 5.0.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
685 (min: 657, max: 705) MBit/s ∼100% +18%
LG V40 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
677 (min: 655, max: 698) MBit/s ∼99% +16%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
674 (min: 646, max: 691) MBit/s ∼98% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Mali-G76 MP12, 9820, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
639 (min: 612, max: 683) MBit/s ∼93% +10%
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Adreno 630, 845
582 (min: 430, max: 702) MBit/s ∼85%
Honor View 20
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
339 (min: 325, max: 351) MBit/s ∼49% -42%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=424)
223 MBit/s ∼33% -62%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 507, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100% +16%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 (min: 613, max: 699) MBit/s ∼100% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Mali-G76 MP12, 9820, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
579 (min: 558, max: 592) MBit/s ∼87% +2%
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Adreno 630, 845
570 (min: 557, max: 582) MBit/s ∼86%
LG V40 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
554 (min: 492, max: 579) MBit/s ∼84% -3%
Honor View 20
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
298 (min: 278, max: 319) MBit/s ∼45% -48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=424)
213 MBit/s ∼32% -63%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø577 (430-702)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø570 (557-582)
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Outside
GPS test: Outside

The NEX Dual uses BeiDou, Galileo and GLONASS, GPS and SBAS for location services. Our review unit found a satellite fix with up to 6 metres (~17 ft) accuracy indoors after a few seconds, which narrowed to 3 metres (~10 ft) when we stepped outside.

We also subjected our review unit to a bike ride to compare its location accuracy against the Xiaomi Mi 9. We would usually use a Garmin Edge 500 or 520, but we were unable to use either at the time of testing. However, the Mi 9 is a good reference device because it supports the more accurate dual-GPS. Our review unit deviated by around 40 metres (~131 ft) over the 6.86 km (~4.3 mi) course that the Mi 9 plotted, with both devices recording roughly the same route. Hence, the NEX Dual is accurate enough for all general navigation tasks.

GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Overview
GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Overview
GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Corners
GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Corners
GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Roundabout
GPS test: Vivo NEX Dual - Roundabout
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Corners
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Corners
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Roundabout
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9 - Roundabout

Telephone Features & Call Quality

Dialler
Dialler

Our review unit has decent call quality, and we experienced no disturbing dropouts or reception problems during our tests. The microphone picked out our voice well too, while our call partner remained intelligible throughout. In short, you should have no issues with making or receiving calls using the NEX Dual.

The device does not support Wi-Fi calls (VoWiFi), although it does have voice over LTE (VoLTE) functionality that should work in China. Unfortunately, VoLTE only works if your carrier provisions your device on its network, which is unlikely to be the case with the NEX Dual.

Cameras

A selfie or a regular photo? You decide
A selfie or a regular photo? You decide

Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with a 12 MP Sony IMX363 CMOS sensor that is supported by a 2 MP depth of field sensor, which can help create bokeh effect photos. The NEX Dual has a 3D TOF sensor for use with augmented reality (AR) applications among other things. The main camera can record videos in up to UHD resolution at 30 FPS, but the maximum resolution in which you can shoot at 60 FPS is just 720p, which is disappointing.

The NEX Dual can take decent photos in good ambient light that are mostly free from focusing issues thanks to its dual-pixel autofocus and 4-axis optically stabilised (OIS) sensor. The main camera’s f/1.8 aperture should be wide enough to photograph scenes well in low light too, but our review unit captured far fewer details than the V40 ThinQ and View 20 managed, as demonstrated by scene 3. Image noise also dominates the photo, and it is noticeably underexposed compared to the picture taken with the V40 ThinQ.

However, while the cameras are below par as rear-facing sensors, they take more detailed selfies than any other flagship that we have tested so far. In short, the NEX Dual is an excellent smartphone for selfie takers.

Regular photo
Regular photo
Photo shot in portrait mode
Photo shot in portrait mode
Regular photo
Regular photo
Photo shot in portrait mode
Photo shot in portrait mode
Regular photo
Regular photo
Photo shot with HDR activated
Photo shot with HDR activated
Regular photo
Regular photo
Photo shot with HDR activated
Photo shot with HDR activated
Default camera app UI
Default camera app UI
Default camera app UI
Default camera app UI

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
A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

Accessories & Warranty

The NEX Dual comes with a modular 22.5-W charger (10 V/2.25 A), a matching USB cable along with a silicone case and some headphones.

TradingShenzhen, which kindly provided us with our review unit, also include an EU adapter. This is not part of the standard delivery though, so your experience may vary if you buy the device elsewhere.

The NEX Dual comes with 12 months manufacturer’s warranty. However, this typically involves a lengthy returns process to China, so TradingShenzhen has a German shipping address to which you can send your device if you need to make a warranty claim.

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

Input Devices & Operation

The NEX Dual has a 10-point capacitive touchscreen that precisely and quickly reproduced our inputs onscreen throughout testing. The glass covering both displays has a smooth finish that is easy on which to perform multi-finger or swiping gestures.

The device also has the traditional three navigation button array that most Android smartphones have. However, Vivo has included gesture controls that function like those on iOS or One UI do. The company pre-installs its version of the Sogou Pinyin keyboard, but you could replace this with another keyboard if you wish.

Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with an in-screen fingerprint sensor too, which worked accurately throughout our tests and unlocked our review unit quickly. Nevertheless, it is slower and more inaccurate than a traditional sensor that you would usually find on the back of a device. Likewise, while the NEX Display also uses its ToF camera for 3D facial authentication, you must turn the device around to unlock it before switching back to the main display again. The face unlock works reliably even in the dark, which is good, but the process is unnecessarily arduous in daily use. Hence, a fingerprint, password, pattern or PIN are easier to use.

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

Display

Sub-pixel array of the main display
Sub-pixel array of the main display
Sub-pixel array of the rear display
Sub-pixel array of the rear display

Both displays operate natively at 1080p, although the main screen has a slightly higher pixel density at 403 PPI compared to the rear display’s 401 PPI. The main display has a marginally higher resolution too, because of its taller aspect ratio. Subjectively, both displays look just as sharp as each other, and we noticed no individual pixels throughout our tests.

The main display achieved an average maximum brightness of 632 cd/m², according to X-Rite i1Pro 2 and is 92% evenly lit. This is only with the ambient light sensor activated though. Switching to manual brightness reduces the average maximum luminosity to 414 cd/m². By contrast, the more realistic APL50 (Average Picture Level) test, which measures brightness by evenly distributing light and dark areas across a display, records our review unit as having a maximum luminosity of 771 cd/m² with the ambient light sensor activated.

By contrast, the rear display only achieved an average maximum brightness of 414 cd/m² in X-Rite i1Pro 2 and 482 cd/m² in APL50.

Please keep in mind that both displays use pulse-width modulation to regulate their brightness as OLED panels do not have a dedicated backlight like LCD or IPS panels do. The displays flicker at around 250 Hz at 99% brightness and below, which is rather low. We did not notice any flickering during our tests, but the NEX Dual could cause eye strain or headaches for those who are PWM sensitive.

1) Hauptdisplay (X-Rite i1Pro 2) 2) 2. Display (X-Rite i1Pro 2)
585
cd/m²
600
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
591
cd/m²
586
cd/m²
627
cd/m²
590
cd/m²
604
cd/m²
636
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
Hauptdisplay (X-Rite i1Pro 2)
Maximum: 636 cd/m² Average: 604.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.09 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 586 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
Gamma: 2.1
394
cd/m²
402
cd/m²
412
cd/m²
397
cd/m²
399
cd/m²
414
cd/m²
398
cd/m²
405
cd/m²
412
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
2. Display (X-Rite i1Pro 2)
Maximum: 414 cd/m² Average: 403.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.18 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 399 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 6.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
Gamma: 2.19
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
LG V40 ThinQ
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.4
Samsung Galaxy S10
OLED, 3040x1440, 6.1
Honor View 20
LTPS, 2310x1080, 6.4
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.21
Screen
51%
37%
41%
31%
33%
Brightness middle
399
599
50%
567
42%
701
76%
492
23%
521
31%
Brightness
404
593
47%
559
38%
705
75%
475
18%
517
28%
Brightness Distribution
95
96
1%
89
-6%
98
3%
94
-1%
96
1%
Black Level *
0.4
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.5
1.4
69%
3.3
27%
3.7
18%
2.4
47%
2.9
36%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.6
3.2
67%
6.1
36%
10.3
-7%
5.2
46%
5.5
43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.5
2
69%
1.1
83%
1.4
78%
3.2
51%
2.7
58%
Gamma
2.19 100%
2.25 98%
2.46 89%
2.1 105%
2.06 107%
2.01 109%
CCT
7405 88%
6496 100%
6495 100%
6553 99%
7125 91%
6288 103%
Contrast
1230

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 240.4 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

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

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9367 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Screen flickering / PWM detected 250 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

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

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

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9367 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The lack of backlight allows OLED panels to individually switch off pixels to create absolute blacks. IPS panels cannot do this, which is why black images will shine brightly in a darkened room on an IPS panel but not with an OLED panel. The ability to create absolute blacks also helps the NEX Dual have a theoretically infinite contrast ratio, so colours should look more vivid than they would on an IPS panel. Most of our comparison devices also have OLED panels though, so the NEX Dual has no advantage in this regard.

Both displays look colour accurate in daily use, but our photo spectrometer and CalMAN analysis software tell a different story. Ideally, a display would have a colour temperature of 6,500 K, but both displays are closer to 7,500 K, which looks rather cool. Likewise, greyscale and colour deviations are considerably higher than the ideal value of 3.

CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Space - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Space - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Greyscale - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Greyscale - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - DCI P3 target colour space, main display
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy – DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Colour Space - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Colour Space - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Greyscale - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Greyscale - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - DCI P3 target colour space, rear display

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
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.4 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25 ms).
       Response Time Black to White
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.4 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.8 ms).

Both displays have stable viewing angles, as demonstrated by our photos below. We noticed a slight drop in brightness at acute viewing angles, but there were no issues with colour or image distortions.

The NEX Dual is mostly usable outdoors too regardless of which display you are using. The secondary display is overwhelmed by bright sunlight, but you should have no such issues if you are using the main display, at least with the ambient light sensor activated.

Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Using the Vivo NEX Dual outdoors
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with a Snapdragon 845 SoC, which will soon be eclipsed by the Snapdragon 855. The Snapdragon 845 has four ARM Cortex A75 performance cores and four ARM Cortex A55 cores that can clock up to 2.8 GHz and 1.8 GHz respectively. The SoC also integrates a Qualcomm Adreno 630 GPU.

Our review unit felt snappy throughout our tests and in everyday life with applications loading quickly. Moreover, we noticed hardly any delays even while multitasking thanks to the device’s 10 GB of RAM. The NEX Dual largely matched our Snapdragon 845 powered comparison devices in synthetic benchmarks, although the newer Samsung Exynos 9820 SoC in the Galaxy S10 generally scores at least 10% to 15% more than our review unit.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
13467 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
13374 Points ∼98% -1%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13519 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10128 Points ∼75% -25%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9028 Points ∼66% -33%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13505 Points ∼99% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (10876 - 14489, n=25)
13578 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=322)
4603 Points ∼34% -66%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
8879 Points ∼87%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8634 Points ∼85% -3%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8687 Points ∼85% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10162 Points ∼100% +14%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9868 Points ∼97% +11%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8988 Points ∼88% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7754 - 9231, n=27)
8705 Points ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3240 - 11598, n=381)
4621 Points ∼45% -48%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
2407 Points ∼54%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2333 Points ∼52% -3%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2397 Points ∼53% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4499 Points ∼100% +87%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3314 Points ∼74% +38%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2418 Points ∼54% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2272 - 2500, n=27)
2416 Points ∼54% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (903 - 4824, n=383)
1387 Points ∼31% -42%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
8211 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8326 Points ∼90% +1%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8141 Points ∼88% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
7595 Points ∼82% -8%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9243 Points ∼100% +13%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8099 Points ∼88% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7983 - 9868, n=28)
8069 Points ∼87% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3227 - 11440, n=378)
5073 Points ∼55% -38%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
9988 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
10052 Points ∼79% +1%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
10361 Points ∼81% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
9750 Points ∼76% -2%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
12778 Points ∼100% +28%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
9795 Points ∼77% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7998 - 13211, n=26)
10123 Points ∼79% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4096 - 14439, n=546)
5569 Points ∼44% -44%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
2185 Points ∼50%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2802 Points ∼64% +28%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2809 Points ∼64% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
2981 Points ∼68% +36%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4381 Points ∼100% +101%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3639 Points ∼83% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2185 - 3764, n=28)
3088 Points ∼70% +41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4535, n=392)
1844 Points ∼42% -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
5387 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4480 Points ∼78% -17%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4133 Points ∼72% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5358 Points ∼93% -1%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3718 Points ∼65% -31%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5741 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4133 - 8206, n=28)
5439 Points ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (76 - 8206, n=392)
1619 Points ∼28% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
4063 Points ∼80%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3846 Points ∼76% -5%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3741 Points ∼74% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4551 Points ∼89% +12%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3847 Points ∼76% -5%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5088 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3512 - 5200, n=28)
4607 Points ∼91% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (94 - 6312, n=395)
1504 Points ∼30% -63%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
3332 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3060 Points ∼70% -8%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2871 Points ∼65% -14%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4393 Points ∼100% +32%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3649 Points ∼83% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2110 - 3763, n=27)
3094 Points ∼70% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=407)
1821 Points ∼41% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
8445 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8245 Points ∼98% -2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6024 Points ∼71% -29%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5327 Points ∼63% -37%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8341 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5228 - 8451, n=27)
7671 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (131 - 14951, n=407)
2194 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
6308 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
6054 Points ∼93% -4%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4842 Points ∼75% -23%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5087 Points ∼78% -19%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6487 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4034 - 6568, n=27)
5761 Points ∼89% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (159 - 8141, n=408)
1872 Points ∼29% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
2808 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
2653 Points ∼64% -6%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2740 Points ∼66% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
2854 Points ∼68% +2%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4175 Points ∼100% +49%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3623 Points ∼87% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2118 - 3703, n=27)
3217 Points ∼77% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4320, n=468)
1781 Points ∼43% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
5160 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4223 Points ∼82% -18%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4275 Points ∼83% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5176 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4256 Points ∼82% -18%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5181 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3488 - 5246, n=27)
4919 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (65 - 6362, n=470)
1350 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
4349 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3677 Points ∼78% -15%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3802 Points ∼80% -13%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4383 Points ∼93% +1%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4238 Points ∼90% -3%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4729 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3197 - 4734, n=27)
4388 Points ∼93% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (80 - 5734, n=478)
1286 Points ∼27% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
3276 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3221 Points ∼76% -2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2731 Points ∼65% -17%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4214 Points ∼100% +29%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3543 Points ∼84% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2124 - 3668, n=27)
3115 Points ∼74% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (512 - 4454, n=501)
1691 Points ∼40% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
8225 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8236 Points ∼100% 0%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6439 Points ∼78% -22%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5252 Points ∼64% -36%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8219 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5637 - 8312, n=27)
7763 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 10008, n=501)
1815 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
6156 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
6118 Points ∼96% -1%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4947 Points ∼78% -20%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4979 Points ∼78% -19%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6355 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4363 - 6454, n=27)
5811 Points ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 7820, n=509)
1562 Points ∼25% -75%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
33309 Points ∼90%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
35987 Points ∼97% +8%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
30418 Points ∼82% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
31297 Points ∼84% -6%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
37164 Points ∼100% +12%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35430 Points ∼95% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (15614 - 37475, n=27)
33322 Points ∼90% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4811 - 45072, n=659)
13790 Points ∼37% -59%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
85487 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
83976 Points ∼98% -2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
79818 Points ∼93% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
71292 Points ∼83% -17%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
67388 Points ∼79% -21%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
81640 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (53794 - 85487, n=27)
80548 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7567 - 162695, n=659)
20320 Points ∼24% -76%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
63403 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
64627 Points ∼100% +2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
58651 Points ∼91% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
55524 Points ∼86% -12%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
57073 Points ∼88% -10%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
63295 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (34855 - 65330, n=27)
61139 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8316 - 83518, n=660)
16844 Points ∼26% -73%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
146 fps ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
152 fps ∼100% +4%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
105 fps ∼69% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
143 fps ∼94% -2%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
118 fps ∼78% -19%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
150 fps ∼99% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (98 - 152, n=28)
142 fps ∼93% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6 - 251, n=689)
35.3 fps ∼23% -76%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
60 fps ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
60 fps ∼97% 0%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
60 fps ∼97% 0%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (58 - 89, n=27)
62.1 fps ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.8 - 120, n=692)
27.3 fps ∼44% -54%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
69 fps ∼81%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
81 fps ∼95% +17%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
59 fps ∼69% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
85 fps ∼100% +23%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
67 fps ∼79% -3%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
82 fps ∼96% +19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (54 - 83, n=27)
73.1 fps ∼86% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.7 - 132, n=608)
19.6 fps ∼23% -72%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
56 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
56 fps ∼95% 0%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
33 fps ∼56% -41%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
53 fps ∼90% -5%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
59 fps ∼100% +5%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
59 fps ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (33 - 75, n=27)
54.4 fps ∼92% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.4 - 115, n=613)
18.1 fps ∼31% -68%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
49 fps ∼82%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
59 fps ∼98% +20%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
41 fps ∼68% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
53 fps ∼88% +8%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
50 fps ∼83% +2%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (32 - 61, n=28)
53.9 fps ∼90% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 88, n=469)
16.1 fps ∼27% -67%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
43 fps ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
50 fps ∼91% +16%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
21 fps ∼38% -51%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
30 fps ∼55% -30%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
48 fps ∼87% +12%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
55 fps ∼100% +28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (21 - 59, n=27)
45.3 fps ∼82% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.4 - 110, n=472)
15.4 fps ∼28% -64%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
14 fps ∼70%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +43%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
12 fps ∼60% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
16 fps ∼80% +14%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +43%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
14 fps ∼70% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (12 - 25, n=17)
18.6 fps ∼93% +33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.86 - 59, n=172)
8.99 fps ∼45% -36%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
21 fps ∼68%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
31 fps ∼100% +48%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
12 fps ∼39% -43%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
17 fps ∼55% -19%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
14 fps ∼45% -33%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
22 fps ∼71% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (11 - 31, n=17)
15.6 fps ∼50% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.26 - 31, n=172)
6.24 fps ∼20% -70%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
32 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
20 fps ∼57% -37%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
16 fps ∼46% -50%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
25 fps ∼71% -22%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
31 fps ∼89% -3%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35 fps ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (16 - 40, n=17)
29.1 fps ∼83% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 59, n=173)
13.6 fps ∼39% -57%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
36 fps ∼82%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
30 fps ∼68% -17%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
30 fps ∼68% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
44 fps ∼100% +22%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
34 fps ∼77% -6%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
37 fps ∼84% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (29 - 38, n=16)
35.2 fps ∼80% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.94 - 63, n=173)
14.9 fps ∼34% -59%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
33 fps ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
35 fps ∼100% +6%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
26 fps ∼74% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
35 fps ∼100% +6%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
32 fps ∼91% -3%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35 fps ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (25 - 35, n=27)
33.4 fps ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.89 - 54, n=398)
10.7 fps ∼31% -68%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
29 fps ∼88%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
30 fps ∼91% +3%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13 fps ∼39% -55%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
23 fps ∼70% -21%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
28 fps ∼85% -3%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
33 fps ∼100% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (13 - 37, n=27)
27.7 fps ∼84% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.6 - 58, n=402)
9.74 fps ∼30% -66%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
280812 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
292798 Points ∼89% +4%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
270884 Points ∼83% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
328111 Points ∼100% +17%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
306296 Points ∼93% +9%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
287049 Points ∼87% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (246366 - 299878, n=27)
277434 Points ∼85% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (52607 - 398720, n=291)
133058 Points ∼41% -53%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
233369 Points ∼87%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
228173 Points ∼85% -2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
229374 Points ∼85% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
269219 Points ∼100% +15%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
252800 Points ∼94% +8%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
231092 Points ∼86% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (162183 - 242953, n=23)
225534 Points ∼84% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (108601 - 293444, n=491)
87166 Points ∼32% -63%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
1387 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
1386 Points ∼99% 0%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1228 Points ∼87% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
1385 Points ∼99% 0%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
1404 Points ∼100% +1%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1345 Points ∼96% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (1009 - 1613, n=26)
1344 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1731, n=621)
751 Points ∼53% -46%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
7996 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
7891 Points ∼99% -1%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6726 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
7361 Points ∼92% -8%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
7484 Points ∼94% -6%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7930 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5846 - 8001, n=26)
7797 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 15969, n=621)
1986 Points ∼25% -75%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
4356 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
3791 Points ∼68% -13%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2910 Points ∼52% -33%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4570 Points ∼81% +5%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5616 Points ∼100% +29%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4492 Points ∼80% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2193 - 5296, n=26)
3649 Points ∼65% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=621)
1487 Points ∼26% -66%
System (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
7977 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
8146 Points ∼95% +2%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6717 Points ∼78% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
7476 Points ∼87% -6%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
8594 Points ∼100% +8%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8212 Points ∼96% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4417 - 8613, n=26)
7644 Points ∼89% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 12202, n=621)
2910 Points ∼34% -64%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 10240
4421 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 8192
4287 Points ∼90% -3%
LG V40 ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3565 Points ∼75% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S10
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4320 Points ∼91% -2%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4746 Points ∼100% +7%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4454 Points ∼94% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3291 - 4693, n=26)
4111 Points ∼87% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 6097, n=625)
1450 Points ∼31% -67%

We conducted our browser benchmarks with Chrome as we try to with every smartphones that we test. However, our review unit achieved incredibly low benchmark results with Chrome, which were nowhere near what we have come to expect from a Snapdragon 845 powered smartphone. We reran the benchmarks on the pre-installed browser, which achieved similar scores to our comparison devices for some reason.

In daily use, web browsing feels smooth irrespective of the browser being used. Web pages load quickly, as does media content.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
108.07 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
85.976 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0)
84.005 Points ∼78%
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71)
82.61 Points ∼76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (0 - 90.9, n=27)
74.3 Points ∼69%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71)
70.062 Points ∼65%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 273, n=520)
39.3 Points ∼36%
Vivo Nex Dual Display
Points ∼0%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
22500 Points ∼100% +388%
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0)
20286 Points ∼90% +340%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
16489 Points ∼73% +258%
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71)
15906 Points ∼71% +245%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71)
15819 Points ∼70% +243%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28)
15153 Points ∼67% +229%
Average of class Smartphone (1994 - 43280, n=682)
6403 Points ∼28% +39%
Vivo Nex Dual Display (Chrome 72)
4606 Points ∼20%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=702)
10678 ms * ∼100% -83%
Vivo Nex Dual Display (Chrome 72)
5840.7 ms * ∼55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28)
2905 ms * ∼27% +50%
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71)
2361 ms * ∼22% +60%
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71)
2357.6 ms * ∼22% +60%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
2299.9 ms * ∼22% +61%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
2048.1 ms * ∼19% +65%
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0)
1924.2 ms * ∼18% +67%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo has equipped the NEX Dual with UFS 2.1, which is impressively fast as AndroBench 5 benchmark results show. Our review unit can keep up with the fastest of flagship smartphones and has much faster random write 4 KB speeds than even more expensive devices such as the Galaxy S10.

Vivo Nex Dual DisplayXiaomi Mi Mix 3LG V40 ThinQSamsung Galaxy S10Honor View 20ZTE Axon 9 ProGlobal Average -3Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-22%
-21%
-17%
19%
-19%
-71%
-66%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
63.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
64.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
48.1 (9.5 - 87.1, n=468)
48.7 (9.5 - 87.1, n=413)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
84.88 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
85.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
66 (8.1 - 96.5, n=468)
66.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=413)
Random Write 4KB
135.81
19.54
-86%
23.36
-83%
24.44
-82%
138.85
2%
22.52
-83%
17.8 (0.13 - 250, n=946)
-87%
21.3 (0.14 - 250, n=730)
-84%
Random Read 4KB
126.65
133.24
5%
130.13
3%
137.4
8%
168.91
33%
141.34
12%
39.9 (1.32 - 196, n=946)
-68%
46.1 (1.59 - 196, n=730)
-64%
Sequential Write 256KB
193.89
206.76
7%
203.92
5%
193.24
0%
250.06
29%
196.43
1%
81.9 (2.04 - 590, n=946)
-58%
94.6 (2.99 - 590, n=730)
-51%
Sequential Read 256KB
767.76
674.98
-12%
689.59
-10%
831.94
8%
847.48
10%
719.1
-6%
230 (4.36 - 1504, n=946)
-70%
266 (12.1 - 1504, n=730)
-65%

Games

As expected from a Snapdragon 845 powered device, the NEX Dual handles complex 3D games with ease. "Asphalt 9: Legends" and "PUBG Mobile" averaged at least 30 FPS at high graphics settings in our gaming tests, so you should have no problem with playing any game that you like on the NEX Dual.

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

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
PUBG Molbile
PUBG Molbile

Emissions

Temperature

The NEX Dual manages its surface temperatures well in daily use and never felt unpleasantly hot. Our review unit never surpassed 28 °C (~82 °F) at idle, but most areas of its front display did exceed 35 °C, (~95 °F) the hottest area of which reached a maximum of 36.8 °C (~98 °F) under sustained load.

In short, the NEX Dual will feel warm if you push it hard. However, it should generally feel cool to the touch.

Max. Load
 36.8 °C
98 F
35.6 °C
96 F
32.2 °C
90 F
 
 35.9 °C
97 F
35.1 °C
95 F
31.6 °C
89 F
 
 35.5 °C
96 F
32.4 °C
90 F
30.9 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 36.8 °C = 98 F
Average: 34 °C = 93 F
34.3 °C
94 F
33.8 °C
93 F
31.5 °C
89 F
34.1 °C
93 F
32.4 °C
90 F
31.2 °C
88 F
32.8 °C
91 F
31.7 °C
89 F
30.5 °C
87 F
Maximum: 34.3 °C = 94 F
Average: 32.5 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  31.3 °C = 88 F | Room Temperature 21.6 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34 °C / 93 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 36.8 °C / 98 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 34.3 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the rear of the device under load
Heatmap of the rear of the device under load

Speakers

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The NEX Dual has a single speaker that reached a maximum volume of 89 dB(A). It sounds about as good as other mono speakers in devices at this price and only slightly distorts music at high volumes. Medium and high tones dominate any audio that the speaker produces, but super high tones are comparatively quiet so the speaker should never sound overly shrill. There is a distinct lack of bass too, although this is the case even with large laptops.

The NEX Dual has a 3.5 mm headphone jack too, which has now become rare for flagship smartphones. We would recommend using headphones or external speakers where possible for a better listening experience, but you could also use Bluetooth if you prefer listening to music wirelessly.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.432.72528.324.33118.721.74026.721.75033.229.16322.6218021.822.210024.427.212523.83016018.544.720017.150.725017.85531515.554.640014.160.45001465.863013.865.780014.764.6100015.469.4125015.273.7160014.378.4200014.580.3250013.982.8315014.681.7400014.176.3500014.373.6630014.575.8800014.875.81000014.878.31250014.863.8160001549.3SPL26.889.8N0.874.7median 14.8median 65.8Delta1.511.835.739.626.725.828.722.426.52936.936.426.725.426.921.922.323.820.223.917.741.218.741.919.248.815.85515.660.613.964.314.365.614.866.513.466.914.370.114.571.913.873.613.674.914.174.914.17414.976.71572.915.269.814.973.414.766.114.75326.784.80.859.7median 14.8median 66.51.711.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo Nex Dual DisplayXiaomi Mi Mix 3
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo Nex Dual Display audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
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 53%

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The NEX Dual has inconspicuous power consumption for a Snapdragon 845 powered device. Our review unit is slightly more efficient than the average of Snapdragon 845 powered devices that we have currently tested, although it consumes considerably more at idle than the Mi Mix 3 does.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.37 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.72 / 1.36 / 1.38 Watt
Load midlight 3.56 / 8.61 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo Nex Dual Display
3500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
LG V40 ThinQ
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S10
3400 mAh
Honor View 20
4000 mAh
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
23%
-7%
-9%
-53%
-11%
-28%
-16%
Idle Minimum *
0.72
0.49
32%
0.87
-21%
0.61
15%
0.97
-35%
0.86
-19%
0.862 (0.42 - 1.8, n=26)
-20%
0.878 (0.2 - 3.4, n=757)
-22%
Idle Average *
1.36
0.67
51%
1.39
-2%
1.27
7%
2.58
-90%
1.1
19%
1.728 (0.67 - 2.9, n=26)
-27%
1.733 (0.6 - 6.2, n=756)
-27%
Idle Maximum *
1.38
0.87
37%
1.41
-2%
1.3
6%
2.63
-91%
1.21
12%
2.07 (0.87 - 3.5, n=26)
-50%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=757)
-46%
Load Average *
3.56
3.64
-2%
3.96
-11%
6.17
-73%
5.24
-47%
5.02
-41%
4.87 (3.56 - 7.41, n=26)
-37%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=751)
-14%
Load Maximum *
8.61
9.04
-5%
8.6
-0%
8.55
1%
8.73
-1%
10.82
-26%
9.27 (6.2 - 12.3, n=26)
-8%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=751)
31%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The NEX Dual has a 3,500 mAh battery that lasted for 12:56 hours in our practical Wi-Fi test with its main display active. We conduct our Wi-Fi tests by running a script that simulates the load required to render websites and adjust the display to approximately 150 cd/m² luminosity, for reference. Our review unit lasted considerably longer between charges than the V40 ThinQ, Galaxy S10 and even the Axon 9 Pro with its 4,000 mAh battery. The View 20 will go 25% longer between charges though.

We also ran our Wi-Fi test just using the secondary display to see whether the reduced screen size made a difference to battery life. Our review unit lasted just 30 minutes longer with only its secondary display active, which is only around 4% longer than if you exclusively used the main display.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 56min
Vivo Nex Dual Display
3500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
LG V40 ThinQ
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S10
3400 mAh
Honor View 20
4000 mAh
ZTE Axon 9 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
776
719
-7%
510
-34%
427
-45%
969
25%
661
-15%

Pros

+ near bezel free display
+ excellent selfies
+ 10 GB RAM
+ fast UFS storage
+ powerful SoC
+ good battery life
+ bright OLED panel

Cons

- colour inaccurate display
- cameras are not flagship level
- Funtouch OS limitations
- average mono speaker
- cannot stream HD content from Amazon or Netflix
- only available as an import
- no VoLTE
- questionable warranty

Verdict

Vivo NEX Dual smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.
Vivo NEX Dual smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.

The Vivo NEX Dual is an intriguing alternative to devices that obscure their front-facing cameras in the search for a 100% screen-to-body ratio. We are impressed by its near bezel-less and robust design as we are with Vivo’s decision to include a headphone jack. Likewise, it has an immensely bright display and decent battery life that should see you through at least a day’s use between charges.

The Vivo NEX Dual is an exciting smartphone that pushes the boundaries and offers a well-rounded experience with a few limitations from which more widely available smartphones do not suffer.

However, the device has its downsides. Firstly, we are not fans of Funtouch OS, especially its incomplete translations and third-party app scaling bug. Moreover, while the cameras are excellent by front-facing standards, they cannot compete in low light against the optics in other flagship smartphones. There is also the issue of availability and the potential warranty-related pitfalls of importing a device from China. Other minor criticisms include our review unit’s wobbly keys, the level 3 DRM Widevine certification and the IP 67 certification; we would have expected the device to have at least IP68 certification considering its price. Overall, the NEX Dual is a successful realisation of the concept of a dual-display smartphone with few real downsides except for the import issue.

Vivo Nex Dual Display - 03/26/2019 v6(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
43 / 60 → 72%
Weight
88%
Battery
96%
Display
81%
Games Performance
68 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
77 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
61 / 91 → 67%
Camera
76%
Average
79%
86%
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 NEX Dual Smartphone Review
Marcus Herbrich, 2019-03-27 (Update: 2019-03-28)
Alex Alderson
Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj
Prior to writing and translating for Notebookcheck, I worked for various companies including and Apple Neowin. I have a BA in International History and Politics from the University of Leeds, which I have since converted to a Law Degree. Happy to chat on Twitter or Notebookchat.