Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarVivo X50 Pro Smartphone Review - Does the "revolutionary" gimbal camera make a difference?
Vivo’s X50 Pro is an interesting midrange smartphone featuring a new magnetic camera stabilization technology. The main camera, referred to as “Big Eye”, sits atop a double-hinged spherical suspension. This may not be a real mechanic and motorized gimbal system but still supposedly much better than a traditional OIS, at least according to the smartphone’s Chinese manufacturer.
The gimbal camera system is capable of compensating for mechanical movement with a maximum stabilizing angle of up to 300 % more than a traditional optical image stabilizer. Furthermore, the Vivo smartphone features a 6.56-inch large AMOLED panel running in FHD+ resolution with a refresh rate of 90 Hz, a modern design, a quad-camera array, fast UFS 2.1 storage, 8 GB of RAM, and a Snapdragon 765G-Chipsatz.
Official European prices have not yet been announced since the device is not yet officially available in European markets. Upon release in China, the device sold for around 540 Euros, and first imports with 128 GB of storage are available for around 500 Euros. In the US, prices started at around $650 at the time of writing.
Vergleichsgeräte
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84.2 % | 10/2020 | Vivo X50 Pro SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 181.5 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.56" | 2376x1080 | |
| 87.8 % | 05/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 06/2020 | Realme X50 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 205 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.44" | 2400x1080 | |
| 88.4 % | 06/2020 | OnePlus 8 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 180 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83.5 % | 07/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Neo SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 171 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85 % | 07/2020 | LG Velvet SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 180 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.80" | 2460x1080 |
Case – Vivo Smartphone with Punch-Hole Design
At 182 g and just 8 mm thickness the fairly slim X50 Pro feels very sturdy and premium. Build quality is adequate, however it lacks an IP certification against ingress of dust and water.
The front is almost entirely covered by a scratch-resistant glass shield that curves into the metal frame along the edges. Rumor has it that the X50 Pro is protected by Asahi Dragontail Glass but Vivo has not yet released any official statements. The fact that the X50 Pro is nowhere to be found on Corning’s website gives this assumption extra credence.
Thanks to its tiny punch-hole design the OLED panel covers almost the entire front of the device, which makes for a very modern look and feel. Accordingly, at more than 90 % the display-to-body-ratio is very high.
Like the front the back side is also covered in slightly curved glass. The physical buttons are easy to tell apart without looking, and they are very well made and offer a well-defined accentuation point.
Connectivity – X50 Pro with large UFS Storage
On the spec sheet we find among other things a fingerprint reader as well as an always-on display for notifications. The 4,315 mAh battery is charged via a USB-C port at the bottom of the device, which supports USB-OTG for connecting external peripherals such as keyboards or thumb drives. Unfortunately, it is only connected via USB 2.0.
Our review unit came equipped with a total of 256 GB of UFS storage of which just 228 GB were available to the user after first boot. The dual SIM smartphone does not support storage expansion via memory card.
Software – Vivo Smartphone with Android 10
Vivo’s smartphone comes preloaded with Android 10. Our review unit’s security patches were as of June 2020.
The default skin installed by Vivo is FunTouch version 10.5, a highly modified user interface with various customization possibilities. Despite the fact that the X50 Pro officially supports multiple languages, among others German, some parts of the operating system remained Chinese. In addition, the FunTouch UI does not support any Google services, such as the Play Store, by default. Fortunately, installing those retroactively is a piece of cake. All you need to do is download a Google application such as Gmail from the built-in app store, which will install all Google services as dependencies automatically. The device is even Play Protect-certified, which means you can use mobile payment services such as Google Pay with the X50 Pro.
Keep in mind that a Vivo account will be required when digging deeper into the system, and it was impossible at the time of writing to have it verified using a German phone number. Streaming video in resolutions higher than HD was also not possible due to the fact that Widevine reported a DRM Level 3 certification. Other restrictions of FunTouch OS include for example the developer mode, which is displayed permanently in the status bar with no obvious way to disable the warning.
Communication and GPS – Vivo Smartphone with 5G
Vivo’s mid-range smartphone comes with a full dual SIM slot for two nanoSIM cards, both of which can be used for mobile internet access via 4G/LTE. Unfortunately, the number of supported LTE bands is fairly low and limited to just 11. A 5G modem supporting the next generation cellular standard is also available by default.
Wireless communication protocols include Bluetooth 5.1 as well as NFC, which means that the phone can be used as payment device for mobile payment systems.
The wireless modem supports 802.11a/b/g/n/ac with MIMO technology. When connected to our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router it achieved respectable and consistent transfer rates of more than 600 Mbps.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average of class Smartphone (99.2 - 864, n=8, last 2 years) | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (101 - 836, n=9, last 2 years) | |
Supported location services include GPS, Galileo, BeiDou, and GLONASS. Outdoor and indoor GPS lock is obtained without significant delay at an accuracy of just 3 m.
In order to get a better impression of the Vivo’s GPS capabilities we compare its recorded track of our quick tour around the block to that of a professional Garmin Edge 500 satnav. After around 7.5 miles the deviation between the two was just 100 m (328 ft). Location accuracy was satisfactory overall, and the Vivo X50 Pro is thus well suited for navigational purposes.
Telephony and Call Quality – X50 Pro with Wi-Fi Calling
Call quality was inconspicuous overall. We experienced neither distortions nor noise or dropped calls during our review period. Voices were recorded and reproduced very clearly.
Using the front-facing camera for video calls via Skype worked without a hitch in our tests. Call quality using the internal speaker and microphone was decent and adequate so there is little to complain about in this regard.
Wi-Fi calling is supported, and we also found an option for enabling VoLTE in the phone’s settings menus.
Cameras – Vivo Smartphone with Gimbal Camera
The main sensor of Vivo’s midrange smartphone is a Sony IMX598 with a resolution of 48 MP mounted on a gimbal mount with additional EIS. Compared to the newer IMX698 the IMX598 is more akin to an improved version of the IMX586. The main sensor’s hardware upgrade is thus not particularly impressive. In addition to some minor improvements the main lens’s aperture has been increased to f/1.6.
The IMX598’s Quad Bayes color filter combines 2x2 pixels into a single large pixel, thereby reducing the effective photo resolution to 12 MP. Images captured in bright daylight showed a high level of details and good colors albeit they were slightly oversharpened. In low light, photos turned out slightly worse. Illumination and exposure were decent and adequate at the cost of increased noise and decreased sharpness.
The 8 MP ultra-wide angle camera that also serves as macro camera and the 8 MP periscope lens did not perform as well as the main camera. Ultra-wide angle photos showed significantly less detail and brightness when compared to the main 48 MP Sony sensor, and we found a large number of artifacts particularly around the edges. In daylight, you can take decent 5x zoom photos with the X50 Pro although at a slightly reduced sharpness when compared to other high-end periscope cameras.
The camera sensor at the front hidden behind the punch hole took high-quality selfies. That said we would have wished for better sharpness as the level of details in fine structures, such as the beard, was not particularly high and too soft overall.
Videos recorded with the gimbal camera support a resolution of up to 3840 x 2160 at 60 FPS. Stabilization is excellent for its class, and the X50 Pro held itself very well and produced very smooth and stable videos even when compared directly to various high-end smartphones.
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.
WeitwinkelLow Light UltraweitwinkelWeitwinkel5-facher-Zoom
We looked at the Vivo’s color accuracy in more detail under normalized lighting conditions in our lab. Overall, its colors were mostly overexposed when compared to their respective reference colors. The X-Rite ColorChecker Passport (no postprocessing) attests a high overall color accuracy for the 48 MP main camera.
In order to better evaluate the sharpness of captured photos we take a photo of our test chart under normalized conditions. Overall sharpness and focus were decent; however, we did notice increased blurriness as well as increased artifacts around the edges.
Accessories and Warranty – X50 Pro with Protective Case
Inside the box we find the Vivo X50 Pro itself, a modular 33 W fast charger, a USB cable, a headset, a quick start guide, a protective case, and last but not least a SIM tool.
In addition, TradingShenzhen who provided us with the review unit added an adapter for EU power sockets as well as a USB OTG dongle, both of which are not included in the original box and have to be considered an optional service provided by the seller.
Warranty is limited to the usual 12 months from the day of purchase. Our review unit offered the additional service of having a German address to send it to should a warranty service or repair be required within the first 12 months.
Input Devices and Handling – Vivo Smartphone with Face Unlock
In our test, the capacitive touchscreen turned out to be very accurate and quick to react to touch input. The in-display fingerprint reader worked okay overall but turned out to be fairly slow, and we would have wished for a higher detection rate.
Another feature is 2D face unlock, a biometric authentication feature that scans your face. It worked very fast and reliably even with fading light.
Display – AMOLED Panel for the Vivo X50 Pro
The 6.56-inch large OLED display runs at a native resolution of 2376 x 1080 and a refresh rate of 90 Hz providing a pixel density of around 400 ppi as well as a sharp and responsive display content. Given that organic LEDs almost never run at their maximum brightness the X50 Pro resorts to PWM for display brightness regulation at a frequency of 192.3-373.1 Hz, which is average for an OLED panel.
On an all-white background, we were able to measure a maximum brightness of very good 791 nits, which dropped to 395 nits with the ambient light sensor disabled. In the APL50 test, which unlike the all-white background test uses an evenly dispersed pattern of black and white tiles, the Vivo X50 Pro peaked at 975 nits.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 784 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5.1
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
96.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.99
| Vivo X50 Pro AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.56 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Realme X50 Pro OLED, 2400x1080, 6.44 | OnePlus 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Oppo Find X2 Neo OLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | LG Velvet P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.80 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 29% | -8% | 30% | -35% | -1% | |
| Brightness middle | 784 | 786 0% | 679 -13% | 778 -1% | 797 2% | 586 -25% |
| Brightness | 780 | 791 1% | 690 -12% | 783 0% | 807 3% | 587 -25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 96 -1% | 97 0% | 95 -2% | 95 -2% | 97 0% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.5 | 1.1 69% | 3.2 9% | 0.9 74% | 5.4 -54% | 2.8 20% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.4 | 2.2 66% | 6.2 3% | 2.2 66% | 9.2 -44% | 6.3 2% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 1.8 40% | 4.1 -37% | 1.7 43% | 6.4 -113% | 2.3 23% |
| Gamma | 1.99 111% | 2.26 97% | 2.28 96% | 2.25 98% | 2.27 97% | 2.01 109% |
| CCT | 6666 98% | 6315 103% | 6604 98% | 6481 100% | 7245 90% | 6827 95% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 373.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 373.1 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 373.1 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18704 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Given that organic LEDs are capable of displaying a true and absolute black the theoretical contrast ratio is infinite, which makes for great contrasts in everyday use.
Using a photospectrometer in combination with the CalMAN software and the phone set to the “Standard” color mode we were able to detect DeltaE deviations of 3.5 and 3.0 for colors and grayscale in the P3 color space, respectively. These are average if not slightly higher than expected of phones in this price range. In addition, the display’s color temperature of 6,666 K was slightly higher and thus cooler than the ideal of 6,500 K.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (34.3 ms). | ||
Outdoor usability was great with automatic display brightness enabled. When disabled, the significantly decreased maximum display brightness resulting from the disabled ambient light sensor turned out to be problematic in direct sunlight.
Viewing angles were as wide as expected of an OLED display. The decrease in subjective brightness when looking at the display from the sides was fairly minor.
Performance – Vivo Smartphone with Snapdragon SoC
The Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G includes a so-called Prime core running at up to 2.4 GHz. While both Prime and Gold cores (up to 2.2 GHz) are based on a Cortex A76 design the remaining six cores are based on a Cortex A55 design and are running at up to 1.8 GHz. The GPU integrated into the Snapdragon 765G is an Adreno 620, and as per moniker the G-version of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 765 comes with select Snapdragon gaming features, such as for example the game fast loader.
The X50 Pro performed decently well in our benchmarks and was on a par with other Snapdragon 765G contenders. That said devices powered by the Snapdragon 865, such as the Xiaomi Mi 10, were significantly faster, particularly regarding GPU performance.
We were surprised by how poorly the device performed in our browser benchmarks, both with Vivo’s own browser and with Google Chrome. That said this won’t be noticeable in everyday use considering that the Vivo smartphone performed similarly to the LG Velvet and Oppo Find X2 Neo. Everyday system performance was adequate and mostly smooth thanks to its 8 GB of RAM. However, as soon as CPU load intensified the device started to stutter, CPU performance became inconsistent, and apps started to visibly drop frames.
| Geekbench 5.5 | |
| Single-Core (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (554 - 673, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (119 - 2138, n=219, last 2 years) | |
| Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (1520 - 1966, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (473 - 5538, n=219, last 2 years) | |
| Vulkan Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (168 - 1278, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (79 - 9992, n=119, last 2 years) | |
| OpenCL Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (1231 - 1302, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (376 - 10711, n=113, last 2 years) | |
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2689 - 2882, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (800 - 8424, n=85, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (6213 - 7765, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 21505, n=85, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8591 - 9965, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2053 - 14785, n=65, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8687 - 11041, n=16) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10884 - 19297, n=2, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9101 - 12871, n=9, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (43 - 86, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (48 - 97, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 504, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (30 - 55, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=184, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (31 - 56, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=184, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (21 - 37, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=184, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (22 - 38, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=184, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (285731 - 332305, n=14) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (101336 - 695964, n=5, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (21.2 - 351, n=165, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (15.8 - 60.5, n=12) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (53.7 - 414, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (10.8 - 96.9, n=11) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=153, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (9 - 54.9, n=9) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (37 - 304, n=130, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=13) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=197, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=14) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2359 - 15230, n=14) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=163, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo X50 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 | Realme X50 Pro | OnePlus 8 | Oppo Find X2 Neo | LG Velvet | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 88% | 113% | 101% | 27% | 19% | 13% | 115% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 925 | 1498 62% | 1756 90% | 1707 85% | 943 2% | 925 0% | 826 ? -11% | 1284 ? 39% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 209.1 | 680 225% | 756 262% | 748 258% | 454.4 117% | 409.2 96% | 358 ? 71% | 902 ? 331% |
| Random Read 4KB | 165.2 | 207 25% | 229.4 39% | 215 30% | 160.5 -3% | 154.3 -7% | 166.6 ? 1% | 225 ? 36% |
| Random Write 4KB | 156.8 | 215.9 38% | 252 61% | 203.9 30% | 143.8 -8% | 135.9 -13% | 141.5 ? -10% | 239 ? 52% |
Gaming – Gaming-Capable X50 Pro
In addition to synthetic GPU benchmarks we also use GameBench to run and analyze various games from Google’s Play Store in detail in order to determine real-world 3D performance. Unfortunately, we were unable to capture and record any gaming benchmark data with Vivo’s smartphone.
When set to maximum details graphically demanding games, such as PUBG Mobile or Asphalt 9 Legends, ran smoothly with occasional short-lived frame rate drops (see hands-on video). All sensors and the touchscreen worked reliably and well in our tests.
Emissions – A Cool Vivo Contender
Temperature
Under load, the case warmed up to around 33 °C, which was barely noticeable in everyday use. Due to these low temperatures we were very keen to find out whether the X50 Pro’s Qualcomm SoC would resort to thermal throttling to keep cool.
Using GFXBench’s built-in battery test we run the same Manhatten OpenGL ES 3.1 sequence 30x in a row. Our records show very consistent frame rates and thus indicate that thermal throttling under sustained load, such as gaming, is most likely not going to be an issue.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °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 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speakers
The X50 Pro features a single speaker at the bottom, which with a maximum volume of 93 dB(A) can get very loud. Sound quality was very decent for a mid-range smartphone and should thus be more than adequate for enjoying short videos. As expected, the device lacked bass, but mids and highs were very linear in return.
Vivo opted not to equip the X50 Pro with a headphone jack. Consequently, wired headphones can only be connected via the USB-C port at the bottom.
Vivo X50 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (93.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Battery Life – X50 Pro is no Endurance Runner
Power Consumption
The Vivo smartphone’s 4,315 mAh battery takes around one hour to charge from near empty to full using the included fast charger with vivo FlashCharge 2.0 technology. Wireless charging is not supported.
| Off / Standby |   0.03 / 0.39 Watt |
| Idle |  1.18 / 2.45 / 2.51 Watt |
| Load |
3.61 / 5.36 Watt |
    
| |
| Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Neo 4025 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 12% | -4% | -1% | 13% | 25% | 7% | 4% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.18 | 0.53 55% | 1 15% | 0.9 24% | 0.8 32% | 0.66 44% | 0.965 ? 18% | 0.89 ? 25% |
| Idle Average * | 2.45 | 1.46 40% | 1.77 28% | 2.3 6% | 2.21 10% | 1.58 36% | 1.899 ? 22% | 1.464 ? 40% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.51 | 1.52 39% | 1.86 26% | 2.33 7% | 2.23 11% | 1.6 36% | 2.07 ? 18% | 1.669 ? 34% |
| Load Average * | 3.61 | 3.83 -6% | 4.23 -17% | 3.5 3% | 3.14 13% | 3.3 9% | 3.98 ? -10% | 4.84 ? -34% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.36 | 8.89 -66% | 9.13 -70% | 7.68 -43% | 5.44 -1% | 5.46 -2% | 6.19 ? -15% | 7.71 ? -44% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
The X50 Pro is most certainly no endurance runner. Nevertheless, in our Wi-Fi test with display brightness normalized to 150 nits the mid-range smartphone managed to last a solid 12.5 hours, and it ran for around 3.5 hours under load. Running our video test with Wi-Fi disabled indicated that the Wi-Fi module’s power consumption is in dire need of improvement.
| Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Neo 4025 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -2% | -8% | -4% | -7% | -3% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1529 | 1789 17% | 1507 -1% | 1374 -10% | ||
| H.264 | 1352 | 1126 -17% | 1029 -24% | 1096 -19% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 763 | 662 -13% | 775 2% | 1045 37% | 712 -7% | 741 -3% |
| Load | 216 | 226 5% | 194 -10% | 168 -22% |
Pros
Cons
Vivo X50 Pro Verdict: Stylish Design meets Gimbal Camera
The Vivo X50 Pro combines mid-range hardware with a great build quality, a high-quality feel, and a modern design. It features a bright AMOLED panel as well as a gimbal camera capable of taking very good photos. Despite the fact that the Vivo X50 Pro is but an upper mid-range device its level of image stabilization is excellent when compared directly to high-end smartphones with traditional OIS.
The Vivo X50 Pro is a good-looking mid-range smartphone. However, its FunTouch operating system is in dire need of some “europeanization”.
Official European prices have not yet been announced. Should it turn out to cost around the same as the LG Velvet this “exotic” mid-range contender will most certainly become a very interesting choice. That said competition in this segment is hard and numerous, and once the X50 Pro will be officially available in Europe we expect devices such as the Xiaomi Mi 10 or OnePlus 8 to compete roughly in the same price range.
Given that the Chinese manufacturer has already established its presence in Germany with among others an official Instagram account we expect these devices to become officially available by no later than the end of this year. With the release of the global version of this device we hope to see adjusted software features when compared to our Chinese review unit, a DRM certification, and support for additional LTE bands, such as the fairly common band 28.
Vivo X50 Pro
-
08/31/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich
Pricecompare
