Notebookcheck Logo

Vivo X Note Review: Giant smartphone with all the zips and zaps

7-inch monstrosity. The Vivo X Note is a full-fledged flagship smartphone and wants to convince with all kinds of high-end specs. The centerpiece is the huge 7.0-inch AMOLED display and a versatile quad camera. The equipment leaves hardly anything to be desired. A direct hit? Let's find out.
Vivo X Note (X Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 8 x 1.8 - 3 GHz, Cortex-X2 / A710 / A510 (Kryo) Waipio
Graphics adapter
Memory
12288 MB 
, LPDDR5
Display
7.00 inch 19.25:9, 3080 x 1440 pixel 486 PPI, capacitive, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 512 GB 
, 480.37 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.2, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 1900, 2100 MHz) LTE (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 66), 5G-Sub6 (Band 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78, 79), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.75 x 168.8 x 80.3 ( = 0.34 x 6.65 x 3.16 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (Samsung GN1, f/1.6, 1/1.31", 1.2 µm) + 8 MPix (OmniVision OV08A10, 5x optical zoom, f/3.4, 125 mm) + 12 MPix (IMX663, 2x optical zoom, f/2.0, 47 mm, 1/2.93", 1.2 µm) + 48 MPix (IMX598, f/2.2, 14 mm, 1/2.0", 0.8 µm); Camera2-API-Level: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix (f/2.5)
Additional features
Speakers: Dual, Keyboard: Onscreen, 80W-Charger, Case, USB-Cabel (Type-C), SIM-Tool, SIM-Tool, Headset, Origin OS, 12 Months Warranty, SAR: not specified; DRM Widevine L1; GNSS: GPS (L1, L5), Glonass (L1), Galileo (E1, E5a), BeiDou (B1, B1C, B2a), fanless, waterproof
Weight
221 g ( = 7.8 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 159 g ( = 5.61 oz / 0.35 pounds)
Price
900 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
87.3 %
07/2022
Vivo X Note
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
221 g512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash7.00"3080x1440
89.3 %
03/2022
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920
228 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"3088x1440
89 %
04/2022
Oppo Find X5 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
221 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3216x1440
87.4 %
02/2022
Xiaomi 12 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
204 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.73"3200x1440

Case and equipment: Vivo X Note with USB 3.2 and IR blaster

The Vivo X Note looks really big, but it is lighter than expected at 221 g and features a 5,000 mAh battery. It is certainly not a lightweight device, though. Our blue test model has a matte aluminum frame and a leather-like back texture. It looks quite chic and offers a good grip that is insensitive to fingerprints. Black and a gray versions are also available.

The workmanship is very good. Tight and even gaps with high torsional stiffness characterize the Vivo X Note smartphone. However, there is some audible crackling that is perceivable when the smartphone is bent back and forth a bit. The casing is protected against dust and water ingress thanks to the IP68 rating.

The features hardly leave anything to be desired. The USB 3.2 port not only allows fast data transfers and OTG but also wired image output. The display content, however, is only mirrored on the external display, which does not work very smoothly. In addition, there is an IR blaster for controlling multimedia devices, cameras, and air conditioners. The lack of memory expansion can certainly be coped with due to the huge internal memory. A physical mute button is also located on the left long side.

Size comparison

168.8 mm / 6.65 inch 80.3 mm / 3.16 inch 8.75 mm / 0.3445 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs163.6 mm / 6.44 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.66 mm / 0.3409 inch 204 g0.4497 lbs163.3 mm / 6.43 inch 77.9 mm / 3.07 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 228 g0.503 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 73.9 mm / 2.91 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs

Communication, software and operation: Everything in it, but no Wi-Fi 6E

The Vivo X Note's communication equipment is largely full-fledged. The Wi-Fi module supports Wi-Fi 6 with VHT80, but it weakens slightly when sending data in combination with our reference Asus ROG Rapture AXE11000 router. However, this will not be noticed in everyday use since the transmission speed is still very high.

A wide range of frequencies is available for mobile Internet, which does not leave anything to be desired even though our test device is an import from China. This applies to both LTE and 5G. If a German SIM is inserted, the system complains that it is not from "mainland China" and that there might be restrictions with 5G. We could not determine these. The smartphone connected to the 5G network without problems in the test and the transmission rates were also on the expected level.

The telephony features are convincing too. VoLTE and Wi-Fi calls are supported. The Vivo X Note also accommodates two nano-SIM cards. When held to the ear, the X Note delivers a good voice quality and also suppresses most ambient noise; it reverberates a bit in speaker mode. Phone calls can also be recorded directly via the call app.

The operating system is Android 12, which is covered by Vivo's own Origin OS. The security patches were up to date on June 1, 2022, at the time of the review. However, it is not clear as to how long the Vivo X Note will be supported with updates. Although it is an imported device, German can also be selected as the system language. The translation is a bit bumpy in some places but is largely successful.

The capacitive touchscreen of the Vivo X Note works very reliably in all areas and implements inputs precisely. A matching screen protector is already applied ex-factory, which offers decent gliding properties.

Biometric security is ensured by a large 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor. Setup is lightning fast with just one touch and is very reliable. The recognition area is much larger than conventional smartphones. Individual apps can even be protected with two-finger authentication, in which case two different fingers are checked by the sensor at the same time. In addition, facial recognition via the front-facing camera can also be used.

Networking
Vivo X Note
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
717 (min: 540) MBit/s ∼59%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
857 (min: 831) MBit/s ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Wi-Fi 6E
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
521 (min: 311) MBit/s ∼43%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
716 (min: 539) MBit/s ∼49%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1704 (min: 852) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1702 (min: 1642) MBit/s ∼100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
890 (min: 433) MBit/s ∼73%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
820 (min: 799) MBit/s ∼56%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Wi-Fi 6E
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
1214 (min: 516) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1465 (min: 1307) MBit/s ∼100%
0801602403204004805606407208008809601040112012001280136014401520Tooltip
Vivo X Note Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø855 (831-878)
Xiaomi 12 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1463 (1307-1536)
Vivo X Note Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø717 (540-788)
Xiaomi 12 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1197 (516-1524)

Cameras: Quad optics in the Vivo X Note

Selfie with the Vivo X Note
Selfie with the Vivo X Note

The Vivo X Note takes impressive selfies. A wide range of filters and a beauty mode can be used for this. However, the front-facing camera only records videos in Full HD 30 fps.

The quad camera on the back offers a wide range of applications. Besides the 50 MP main sensor, an ultra-wide-angle, and two zoom lenses are installed. Vivo calls the 2x optical magnification a portrait lens, and the periscope camera even allows a 5x optical magnification. Digitally, a 60x zoom is possible. The pictures have a respectable dynamic range and present themselves with high contrasts. Only in low light do quite a few details get lost. Furthermore, slight aberrations can be seen at the ultra-wide angle.

Videos can be recorded in 8K, but stabilization will not be available in this mode. The situation is different up to Ultra HD 60 fps, and those who are satisfied with Full HD 30 fps can make use of an even more powerful Ultra and 360-degree stabilization.

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.

HauptkameraHauptkameraUltraweitwinkel5-facher ZoomLow-Light
click to load images
ColorChecker
17.4 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
14.4 ∆E
20.1 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
6 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
8 ∆E
14 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
1.8 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X Note: 9.25 ∆E min: 1.83 - max: 20.08 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.1 ∆E
52.6 ∆E
39.3 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
44.9 ∆E
60.7 ∆E
51 ∆E
35.7 ∆E
41.2 ∆E
28.3 ∆E
63.4 ∆E
62 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
47.1 ∆E
35.8 ∆E
72.6 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
41.5 ∆E
73.2 ∆E
68.3 ∆E
51 ∆E
36.4 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X Note: 45 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 73.19 ∆E

Display: Super bright LTPO AMOLED with up to 120 Hz

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

The 7.0-inch LTPO OLED panel of the Vivo X Note works with a QHD+ resolution, which can also be reduced. The refresh rate can be adjusted automatically by the system and works between 1 and 120 Hz. A fixed 60 Hz or 120 Hz refresh rate can be set manually.

The brightness is very high with the ambient light sensor enabled and even reaches a peak of 1,360 cd/m² in the APL18 measurement. Those who prefer to adjust the brightness manually have 497 cd/m² at their disposal.

Like most OLEDs, the Vivo smartphone's also flickers. We measured a frequency between 182.3 Hz and 359.1 Hz in minimum display brightness. Although a DC dimming mode can be enabled via the developer options, it does not show any effect in a control measurement. Thus, users sensitive to PWM may experience some inconvenience due to prolonged viewing.

995
cd/m²
1005
cd/m²
1014
cd/m²
988
cd/m²
997
cd/m²
1032
cd/m²
991
cd/m²
1000
cd/m²
1023
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 1032 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1005 cd/m² Minimum: 2.59 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 997 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.7 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.3
ΔE Greyscale 1.4 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
98.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Vivo X Note
AMOLED, 3080x1440, 7.00
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.80
Oppo Find X5 Pro
AMOLED, 3216x1440, 6.70
Xiaomi 12 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.73
Response Times
-21%
9%
-216%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
1.09 ?(0.5585, 0.5345)
0.872 ?(0.448, 0.424)
20%
0.711 ?(0.364, 0.348)
35%
7.2 ?(3.6, 3.6)
-561%
Response Time Black / White *
1.28 ?(0.7145, 0.569)
1.501 ?(0.7, 0.801)
-17%
1.389 ?(0.793, 0.597)
-9%
2.4 ?(1.2, 1.2)
-88%
PWM Frequency
359.1
120
-67%
361
1%
367.6
2%
Screen
-6%
-11%
-24%
Brightness middle
997
1077
8%
746
-25%
959
-4%
Brightness
1005
1093
9%
744
-26%
977
-3%
Brightness Distribution
96
97
1%
97
1%
96
0%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.7
1.2
-71%
0.9
-29%
1.1
-57%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
2.2
2
9%
1.6
27%
3.1
-41%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.4
1.3
7%
1.6
-14%
1.9
-36%
Gamma
2.22 99%
2.37 93%
2.23 99%
2.22 99%
CCT
6528 100%
6526 100%
6499 100%
6498 100%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-14% / -11%
-1% / -4%
-120% / -88%

* ... smaller is better

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
1.28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.7145 ms rise
↘ 0.569 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.1 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.09 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.5585 ms rise
↘ 0.5345 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.5 ms).

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 359.1 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 359.1 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 359.1 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19947 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

minimum panel brightness
min.
25 % Panel brightness
25 %
50 % Panel brightness
50 %
75 % Panel brightness
75 %
maximum manual panel brightness
100 %

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

Grayscale (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Colors (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Colors (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
outdoors
outdoors
Viewing angle stability
Viewing angle stability

Performance, emissions and battery life

The Vivo X Note is powered by a Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 with 12 GB LPDDR5 working memory. Graphics calculations are handled by the integrated Adreno 730. Thus, the smartphone relies on a cutting-edge and powerful platform, which is also ideally suited for gaming.

The Vivo smartphone delivers well in the benchmarks and positions itself in the expected range. The installed cooling solution is also comparatively good because the X Note achieves higher frame rates than other rivals in long-term performance and does not throttle the SoC as much. Despite all that, it does not even get warm to the touch.

The two speakers can be very powerful, but they are not optimally tuned. The sound is quite appealing in the medium volume range, although the low and super-high tones are somewhat lacking. This can be reflected negatively especially in the latter. The sound can be output via USB-C and Bluetooth  — most important audio codecs (SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, LDAC) are available wirelessly.

In terms of battery runtimes, the Vivo X Note is just at the top of the comparison field with its 5,000 mAh battery. With a runtime of over 14 hours, there should be enough power for a day. Otherwise, the smartphone can be recharged quickly with the included 80 W charger.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1253 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1154 Points ∼92% -8%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1257 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1192 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1182 - 1298, n=20)
1234 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=268, last 2 years)
689 Points ∼55% -45%
Multi-Core (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3661 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3560 Points ∼95% -3%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3488 Points ∼93% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3738 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (3269 - 3839, n=20)
3554 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=268, last 2 years)
2238 Points ∼60% -39%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12062 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
12579 Points ∼95% +4%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12144 Points ∼92% +1%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13131 Points ∼99% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (10140 - 17025, n=20)
13251 Points ∼100% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=174, last 2 years)
10245 Points ∼77% -15%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12813 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10415 Points ∼81% -19%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12123 Points ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10958 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (6784 - 13121, n=16)
10944 Points ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 13341, n=226, last 2 years)
5024 Points ∼39% -61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
25761 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
18689 Points ∼73% -27%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
25285 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
20842 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (15268 - 26049, n=16)
22492 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 31940, n=226, last 2 years)
7343 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
4644 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
4085 Points ∼88% -12%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
4296 Points ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
4120 Points ∼89% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (2237 - 4811, n=16)
3963 Points ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (651 - 6394, n=224, last 2 years)
3254 Points ∼70% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
11035 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
8612 Points ∼78% -22%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10005 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9149 Points ∼83% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (5983 - 11528, n=15)
9646 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 11909, n=241, last 2 years)
4072 Points ∼37% -63%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
18620 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
12972 Points ∼70% -30%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
18090 Points ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13950 Points ∼75% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (11082 - 19392, n=15)
16543 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 20955, n=241, last 2 years)
5265 Points ∼28% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
4549 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3957 Points ∼87% -13%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3902 Points ∼86% -14%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
4150 Points ∼91% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (2283 - 4771, n=15)
3962 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (635 - 5793, n=241, last 2 years)
3238 Points ∼71% -29%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9839 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
7236 Points ∼73% -26%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9826 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9927 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (6351 - 10062, n=13)
9150 Points ∼92% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (216 - 10062, n=200, last 2 years)
3079 Points ∼31% -69%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10138 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
7288 Points ∼70% -28%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10175 Points ∼98% 0%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10384 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (6483 - 10412, n=19)
9626 Points ∼93% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (205 - 11700, n=206, last 2 years)
3437 Points ∼33% -66%
Wild Life Extreme (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2577 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
2044 Points ∼78% -21%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2575 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2609 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1629 - 2639, n=19)
2469 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (22 - 3080, n=164, last 2 years)
1002 Points ∼38% -61%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2514 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1916 Points ∼76% -24%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2523 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
2513 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1567 - 2585, n=20)
2403 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (101 - 2876, n=159, last 2 years)
992 Points ∼39% -61%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
38 fps ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
42 fps ∼70% +11%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
53 fps ∼89% +39%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
44 fps ∼74% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (38 - 98, n=19)
59.7 fps ∼100% +57%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.7 - 104, n=263, last 2 years)
29.6 fps ∼50% -22%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
81 fps ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
68 fps ∼70% -16%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
94 fps ∼97% +16%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
92 fps ∼95% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (60 - 131, n=21)
96.7 fps ∼100% +19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 136, n=264, last 2 years)
35.8 fps ∼37% -56%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
35 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
31 fps ∼68% -11%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
36 fps ∼79% +3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
27 fps ∼59% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (27 - 69, n=19)
45.5 fps ∼100% +30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3 - 69, n=264, last 2 years)
20.7 fps ∼45% -41%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X Note
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
36 fps ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
30 fps ∼75% -17%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
40 fps ∼100% +11%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
34 fps ∼85% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (19 - 49, n=21)
38 fps ∼95% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.7 - 52, n=264, last 2 years)
13.7 fps ∼34% -62%
Vivo X NoteSamsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5GOppo Find X5 ProXiaomi 12 ProAverage 512 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-13%
-35%
6%
-12%
-53%
Sequential Read 256KB
1873.54
1653
-12%
1410
-25%
1620
-14%
1873 ?(1710 - 1999, n=14)
0%
943 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=258, last 2 years)
-50%
Sequential Write 256KB
1439.88
1074
-25%
894
-38%
1465
2%
941 ?(575 - 1484, n=14)
-35%
502 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=258, last 2 years)
-65%
Random Read 4KB
292.73
322.3
10%
183.7
-37%
324.9
11%
281 ?(208 - 323, n=14)
-4%
170.9 ?(13.5 - 345, n=258, last 2 years)
-42%
Random Write 4KB
358.43
273.1
-24%
210.4
-41%
448.9
25%
324 ?(221 - 475, n=14)
-10%
167.4 ?(30.3 - 475, n=259, last 2 years)
-53%

Temperature

051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Vivo X Note Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø13.9 (12.7-15.6)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø10.9 (9.64-15.4)
Vivo X Note Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø50 (44.5-59.4)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø41.7 (37.2-59.4)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø43.7 (38.1-60.9)
Max. Load
 33.3 °C
92 F
33.2 °C
92 F
32.2 °C
90 F
 
 33.9 °C
93 F
33.3 °C
92 F
32.3 °C
90 F
 
 33.5 °C
92 F
33.9 °C
93 F
32.1 °C
90 F
 
Maximum: 33.9 °C = 93 F
Average: 33.1 °C = 92 F
31.7 °C
89 F
32.8 °C
91 F
32.6 °C
91 F
31.2 °C
88 F
32.5 °C
91 F
32.9 °C
91 F
31.5 °C
89 F
32.2 °C
90 F
33.3 °C
92 F
Maximum: 33.3 °C = 92 F
Average: 32.3 °C = 90 F
Power Supply (max.)  29.4 °C = 85 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.1 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.3 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.


Loudspeaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs203938.62524.427.33120.432.64018.3305030.730.96325.530.18023.93010018.133.21252039.816025.251.420016.852.525014.4573151759.940011.863.250012.969.163014.671.580013.672.1100012.274.1125013.676.3160013.878.2200013.480.6250013.482.6315013.482.8400013.576.9500013.476.2630013.575.3800013.267.11000013.562.21250013.664.21600013.349.9SPL25.990N0.777.4median 13.5median 69.1Delta1.610.235.233.421.727.818.627.921.721.33230.825.727.927.424.424.336.816.345.218.951.717.547.212.35615.757.911.658.511.866.512.468.711.672.312.574.113.172.212.571.413.171.912.871.412.877.212.971.713.367.713.472.813.767.913.76814.46713.759.125.284.20.759.9median 13.1median 67.91.57.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X NoteXiaomi 12 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X Note audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi 12 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Average of class Smartphone
  (424 - 1953, n=266, last 2 years)
906 min ∼34% +6%
Vivo X Note
5000 mAh
852 min ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
844 min ∼32% -1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
5000 mAh
788 min ∼30% -8%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
766 min ∼29% -10%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 103)
14h 12min

Pros

+ very bright and accurate LTPO panel
+ good camera setup
+ great fingerprint sensor

Cons

- no Wi-Fi 6E
- uncertain update supply

Verdict - Strong flagship smartphone with few weaknesses

In review: Vivo X Note. Test device provided by TradingShenzhen.
In review: Vivo X Note. Test device provided by TradingShenzhen.

The Vivo X Note is a strong high-end smartphone that has much more to offer than just a large screen. We especially liked the screen in the test because it is very bright, can work between 1 and 120 Hz, has an enormously high pixel density, and offers an accurate color reproduction.

Additionally, the Vivo smartphone also offers almost everything else that we would want from such a flagship-class device. The storage is ample, all current mobile standards are supported, wireless charging, IP certification, and a versatile camera are on board.

The Vivo X Note is a powerful high-end smartphone with many advantages

A very good rating is ultimately prevented due to the B grade in the camera. The setup is really strong in daylight but rather mediocre in low-light. Furthermore, many features are only available in Full HD in video mode. The uncertain update supply is also a factor that should be considered in this price range.

Alternatives usually cost more money in this country, but the Galaxy S22 Ultra, Honor Magic4 Pro or Oppo Find X5 Pro are worth mentioning at this point. In a similar price range, the Pixel 6 Pro can be an enticing prospect.

Price and availability

The Vivo X Note is only available in Europe as a direct import from China from our loaner TradingShenzhen, for example.

Vivo X Note - 07/13/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
82%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
67 / 70 → 95%
Weight
88%
Battery
90%
Display
92%
Games Performance
69 / 64 → 100%
Application Performance
94 / 86 → 100%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
73 / 90 → 82%
Camera
74%
Average
83%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Vivo X Note Review: Giant smartphone with all the zips and zaps
Daniel Schmidt, 2022-07-19 (Update: 2022-07-19)