Notebookcheck

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone Review - Does the "revolutionary" gimbal camera make a difference?

For trembling hands. The Vivo X50 Pro's highlight and unique selling point is its gimbal camera system that is supposed to stabilize video recordings much better than a traditional OIS. Find out whether the gimbal-like camera in Vivo's latest smartphone offers a real benefit or whether it is nothing but marketing in our review.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Finn D. Boerne),
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

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.

Vivo X50 Pro (X Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G 8 x 1.8 - 2.4 GHz, Kryo 475 Gold / Silver
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.56 inch 19.8:9, 2376 x 1080 pixel 398 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 90 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 228 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB Type-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: geomagnetic sensor, proximity sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G: GSM850/900/1800/1900; 3G: WCDMA B1/B2/B4/B5/B8; 4G: FDD_LTEB1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B20, TDD_LTEB38/B40/B41; 5G: NSA n41/n77/n78, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.04 x 158.46 x 72.8 ( = 0.32 x 6.24 x 2.87 in)
Battery
4315 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix 48MP (f/1.6) + 8 MP (f/3.4, 1/4.0") + 13MP (2x f/2.5, 1/2.8", 0.8µm) + 8 MP (f/2.2, 120˚, 16 mm, 1/4.0", 1.12µm)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 26mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm)
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Virtual, protective case, headset, modular power supply, USB cable, Funtouch OS 10.5, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine L3, fanless
Weight
181.5 g ( = 6.4 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 93 g ( = 3.28 oz / 0.21 pounds)
Price
600 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vergleichsgeräte

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
84 %
10/2020
Vivo X50 Pro
SD 765G, Adreno 620
181.5 g256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.56"2376x1080
88 %
05/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10
SD 865, Adreno 650
208 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2340x1080
86 %
06/2020
realme X50 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
205 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.44"2400x1080
88 %
06/2020
OnePlus 8
SD 865, Adreno 650
180 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.55"2400x1080
83 %
07/2020
Oppo Find X2 Neo
SD 765G, Adreno 620
171 g256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
85 %
07/2020
LG Velvet
SD 765G, Adreno 620
180 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.8"2460x1080

Case – Vivo Smartphone with Punch-Hole Design

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro colors
Vivo X50 Pro colors

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.

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

Size Comparison

167.08 mm / 6.58 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 7.85 mm / 0.3091 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.96 mm / 0.3528 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs160.2 mm / 6.31 inch 72.9 mm / 2.87 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs158.96 mm / 6.26 inch 74.24 mm / 2.92 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 205 g0.4519 lbs159.4 mm / 6.28 inch 72.4 mm / 2.85 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 171 g0.377 lbs158.46 mm / 6.24 inch 72.8 mm / 2.87 inch 8.04 mm / 0.3165 inch 181.5 g0.4001 lbs

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.

Right-hand side
Right-hand side
Left-hand side (buttons)
Left-hand side (buttons)
Top (microphone)
Top (microphone)
Bottom (speaker, microphone, SIM slot)
Bottom (speaker, microphone, SIM slot)

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.

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

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 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
realme X50 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
914 (888min - 928max) MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
903 (881min - 916max) MBit/s ∼99% +34%
OnePlus 8
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
894 (864min - 925max) MBit/s ∼98% +32%
LG Velvet
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
683 (656min - 691max) MBit/s ∼75% +1%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
678 (664min - 686max) MBit/s ∼74% 0%
Vivo X50 Pro
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
676 (631min - 695max) MBit/s ∼74%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼31% -58%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
OnePlus 8
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
937 (466min - 960max) MBit/s ∼100% +46%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
867 (440min - 907max) MBit/s ∼93% +35%
realme X50 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
849 (414min - 930max) MBit/s ∼91% +32%
Vivo X50 Pro
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
642 (627min - 656max) MBit/s ∼69%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
628 (294min - 639max) MBit/s ∼67% -2%
LG Velvet
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
618 (310min - 644max) MBit/s ∼66% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼29% -58%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø665 (631-695)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø642 (627-656)
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

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.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Vivo X50 Pro
GPS Vivo X50 Pro
GPS Vivo X50 Pro
GPS Vivo X50 Pro
GPS Vivo X50 Pro
GPS Vivo X50 Pro

Telephony and Call Quality – X50 Pro with Wi-Fi Calling

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

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

Vivo X50 Pro front-facing camera
Vivo X50 Pro front-facing camera
Vivo X50 Pro portrait photo
Vivo X50 Pro portrait photo

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.

Ultra-wide angle
Ultra-wide angle
Wide angle
Wide angle
2x zoom
2x zoom
5x zoom
5x zoom
60x zoom (max)
60x zoom (max)
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

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.

ColorChecker
22.2 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
28 ∆E
23.7 ∆E
32.1 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
32.2 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
22.3 ∆E
21.7 ∆E
36.6 ∆E
42.8 ∆E
21.2 ∆E
30.6 ∆E
17.8 ∆E
29.2 ∆E
27.7 ∆E
31.2 ∆E
31.3 ∆E
33.4 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X50 Pro: 28.59 ∆E min: 12.85 - max: 42.82 ∆E
ColorChecker
7.6 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
15.8 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X50 Pro: 8.71 ∆E min: 3.47 - max: 15.77 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty – X50 Pro with Protective Case

Vivo X50 Pro 33.5 W charger
Vivo X50 Pro 33.5 W charger

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.

Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review
Vivo X50 Pro Smartphone review

Display – AMOLED Panel for the Vivo X50 Pro

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

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.

782
cd/m²
771
cd/m²
784
cd/m²
769
cd/m²
784
cd/m²
784
cd/m²
779
cd/m²
776
cd/m²
791
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 791 cd/m² Average: 780 cd/m² Minimum: 2.35 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 784 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.64-98 Ø6
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, 6.5
LG Velvet
P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.8
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 DeltaE2000 *
3.5
1.1
69%
3.2
9%
0.9
74%
5.4
-54%
2.8
20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.4
2.2
66%
6.2
3%
2.2
66%
9.2
-44%
6.3
2%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)

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 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17495 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) 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.

CalMAN color accuracy (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN color accuracy (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN color space (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN color space (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN grayscale (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN grayscale (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN saturation (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN saturation (target color space: sRGB), color profile: Normal
CalMAN color accuracy (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN color accuracy (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN color space (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN color space (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN grayscale (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN grayscale (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN saturation (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard
CalMAN saturation (target color space: P3), color profile: Standard

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
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 0.8 (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 (24.4 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 0.8 (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 (38.7 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 5.1 / 5.2
OpenCL Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1302 Points ∼64%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1242 Points ∼61% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1242 - 1302, n=6)
1265 Points ∼62% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 5532, n=34)
2048 Points ∼100% +57%
Vulkan Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1265 Points ∼72%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1187 Points ∼68% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1128 - 1265, n=6)
1180 Points ∼67% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 4789, n=36)
1750 Points ∼100% +38%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1876 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3309 Points ∼97% +76%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3087 Points ∼90% +65%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3427 Points ∼100% +83%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
1854 Points ∼54% -1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1797 Points ∼52% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1520 - 1966, n=12)
1787 Points ∼52% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=125)
1943 Points ∼57% +4%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
634 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
910 Points ∼99% +44%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
915 Points ∼100% +44%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
919 Points ∼100% +45%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
620 Points ∼67% -2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
554 Points ∼60% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (554 - 673, n=12)
602 Points ∼66% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=125)
554 Points ∼60% -13%
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
9965 Points ∼100%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9576 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8591 - 9965, n=3)
9175 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=358)
4916 Points ∼49% -51%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
7665 Points ∼56%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13589 Points ∼100% +77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (6213 - 7765, n=3)
7214 Points ∼53% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 13589, n=421)
5027 Points ∼37% -34%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2882 Points ∼67%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4304 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2689 - 2882, n=3)
2811 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4965, n=421)
1539 Points ∼36% -47%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8065 Points ∼61%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10613 Points ∼80% +32%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13202 Points ∼100% +64%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10800 Points ∼82% +34%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
8456 Points ∼64% +5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
7808 Points ∼59% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (7737 - 9989, n=12)
8355 Points ∼63% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=528)
5988 Points ∼45% -26%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
9675 Points ∼49%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11850 Points ∼60% +22%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
19711 Points ∼100% +104%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13079 Points ∼66% +35%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
9955 Points ∼51% +3%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
9154 Points ∼46% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8730 - 10876, n=12)
9679 Points ∼49% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=686)
6572 Points ∼33% -32%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2893 Points ∼73%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3336 Points ∼85% +15%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3947 Points ∼100% +36%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3763 Points ∼95% +30%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
2756 Points ∼70% -5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2145 Points ∼54% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2145 - 2979, n=12)
2712 Points ∼69% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=179)
2668 Points ∼68% -8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3149 Points ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8175 Points ∼99% +160%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8263 Points ∼100% +162%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8294 Points ∼100% +163%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3147 Points ∼38% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3193 Points ∼38% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2364 - 3198, n=12)
3093 Points ∼37% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=179)
3070 Points ∼37% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3087 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6182 Points ∼93% +100%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6644 Points ∼100% +115%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6543 Points ∼98% +112%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3065 Points ∼46% -1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2877 Points ∼43% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2478 - 3130, n=12)
2988 Points ∼45% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=179)
2734 Points ∼41% -11%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3765 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5187 Points ∼94% +38%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5523 Points ∼100% +47%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5401 Points ∼98% +43%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3301 Points ∼60% -12%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1898 Points ∼34% -50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1898 - 3765, n=12)
3247 Points ∼59% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=531)
2236 Points ∼40% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3556 Points ∼37%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9389 Points ∼98% +164%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9567 Points ∼100% +169%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9542 Points ∼100% +168%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3569 Points ∼37% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3547 Points ∼37% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2834 - 3589, n=12)
3489 Points ∼36% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=531)
2174 Points ∼23% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3597 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7957 Points ∼97% +121%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8204 Points ∼100% +128%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8153 Points ∼99% +127%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3501 Points ∼43% -3%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2934 Points ∼36% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2934 - 3605, n=12)
3414 Points ∼42% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=532)
2027 Points ∼25% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3651 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3973 Points ∼73% +9%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5478 Points ∼100% +50%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5406 Points ∼99% +48%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3099 Points ∼57% -15%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1790 Points ∼33% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1790 - 3651, n=12)
3225 Points ∼59% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=563)
2153 Points ∼39% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5265 Points ∼41%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12601 Points ∼98% +139%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12895 Points ∼100% +145%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12873 Points ∼100% +145%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
5356 Points ∼42% +2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5437 Points ∼42% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (4036 - 5437, n=12)
5214 Points ∼40% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=563)
2928 Points ∼23% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4819 Points ∼49%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8499 Points ∼86% +76%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9910 Points ∼100% +106%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9850 Points ∼99% +104%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
4621 Points ∼47% -4%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3678 Points ∼37% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3678 - 4893, n=12)
4555 Points ∼46% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=563)
2457 Points ∼25% -49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3462 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4813 Points ∼95% +39%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5068 Points ∼100% +46%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4879 Points ∼96% +41%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3395 Points ∼67% -2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3312 Points ∼65% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3133 - 3547, n=12)
3334 Points ∼66% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=612)
2114 Points ∼42% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3342 Points ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8371 Points ∼100% +150%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8345 Points ∼100% +150%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8288 Points ∼99% +148%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3259 Points ∼39% -2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3289 Points ∼39% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2106 - 3342, n=12)
3181 Points ∼38% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=612)
1833 Points ∼22% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3329 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7190 Points ∼99% +116%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7293 Points ∼100% +119%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7174 Points ∼98% +116%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3301 Points ∼45% -1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3278 Points ∼45% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2315 - 3346, n=12)
3199 Points ∼44% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=613)
1743 Points ∼24% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3432 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4196 Points ∼83% +22%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5034 Points ∼100% +47%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4819 Points ∼96% +40%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3259 Points ∼65% -5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1689 Points ∼34% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1689 - 3529, n=12)
3196 Points ∼63% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=655)
1985 Points ∼39% -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5176 Points ∼42%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12234 Points ∼100% +136%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11533 Points ∼94% +123%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11540 Points ∼94% +123%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
5148 Points ∼42% -1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5005 Points ∼41% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2844 - 5832, n=12)
4960 Points ∼41% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=654)
2430 Points ∼20% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4652 Points ∼52%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8581 Points ∼96% +84%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8947 Points ∼100% +92%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8810 Points ∼98% +89%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
4561 Points ∼51% -2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3576 Points ∼40% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2972 - 4693, n=12)
4347 Points ∼49% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=657)
2083 Points ∼23% -55%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
20631 Points ∼61%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
33793 Points ∼100% +64%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
27026 Points ∼80% +31%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
19658 Points ∼58% -5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
18769 Points ∼56% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (14891 - 28331, n=12)
20159 Points ∼60% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=799)
15611 Points ∼46% -24%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
68808 Points ∼47%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
145603 Points ∼100% +112%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
144611 Points ∼99% +110%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
69645 Points ∼48% +1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
68764 Points ∼47% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (60281 - 69645, n=12)
67892 Points ∼47% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=797)
27419 Points ∼19% -60%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
44918 Points ∼54%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
83917 Points ∼100% +87%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
72524 Points ∼86% +61%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
44531 Points ∼53% -1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
43325 Points ∼52% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (38137 - 48201, n=12)
44075 Points ∼53% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=797)
21279 Points ∼25% -53%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
93 fps ∼45%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
202 fps ∼98% +117%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
204 fps ∼99% +119%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
207 fps ∼100% +123%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
94 fps ∼45% +1%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
96 fps ∼46% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (48 - 97, n=10)
90.1 fps ∼44% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=800)
46.1 fps ∼22% -50%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
81 fps ∼90%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
90 fps ∼100% +11%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% -26%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% -26%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
61 fps ∼68% -25%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
60 fps ∼67% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (45 - 86, n=10)
63.2 fps ∼70% -22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=809)
31.6 fps ∼35% -61%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
50 fps ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
123 fps ∼98% +146%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
124 fps ∼99% +148%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
125 fps ∼100% +150%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
56 fps ∼45% +12%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
55 fps ∼44% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (31 - 56, n=10)
51.6 fps ∼41% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=705)
27.3 fps ∼22% -45%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
46 fps ∼52%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
88 fps ∼100% +91%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼68% +30%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼68% +30%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
50 fps ∼57% +9%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
47 fps ∼53% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (30 - 55, n=10)
47.2 fps ∼54% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=713)
22.8 fps ∼26% -50%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
35 fps ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼98% +146%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼98% +146%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼100% +151%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
38 fps ∼43% +9%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
37 fps ∼42% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (22 - 38, n=10)
35.8 fps ∼41% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=568)
21.9 fps ∼25% -37%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
31 fps ∼41%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
75 fps ∼100% +142%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼80% +94%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼80% +94%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
34 fps ∼45% +10%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
32 fps ∼43% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (21 - 34, n=10)
31.7 fps ∼42% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=570)
19.8 fps ∼26% -36%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
13 fps ∼42%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
29 fps ∼94% +123%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
30 fps ∼97% +131%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
31 fps ∼100% +138%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
13 fps ∼42% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
12 fps ∼39% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8.8 - 13, n=12)
12.2 fps ∼39% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=324)
11.5 fps ∼37% -12%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8.3 fps ∼42%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼100% +141%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼100% +141%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼100% +141%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
8.5 fps ∼43% +2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
8.5 fps ∼43% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (5.3 - 13, n=12)
8.59 fps ∼43% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=322)
8.13 fps ∼41% -2%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
21 fps ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
46 fps ∼96% +119%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼96% +119%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
48 fps ∼100% +129%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
21 fps ∼44% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
20 fps ∼42% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (13 - 21, n=12)
20.2 fps ∼42% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=328)
17.1 fps ∼36% -19%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
23 fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
53 fps ∼98% +130%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼98% +130%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼100% +135%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
24 fps ∼44% +4%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
23 fps ∼43% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (13 - 24, n=12)
22.7 fps ∼42% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=327)
19.7 fps ∼36% -14%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
20 fps ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
50 fps ∼96% +150%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼98% +155%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
52 fps ∼100% +160%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
21 fps ∼40% +5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
21 fps ∼40% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (12 - 21, n=10)
20 fps ∼38% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=493)
14.7 fps ∼28% -26%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
18 fps ∼39%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
42 fps ∼91% +133%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
44 fps ∼96% +144%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼100% +156%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
19 fps ∼41% +6%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
18 fps ∼39% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (13 - 19, n=10)
17.9 fps ∼39% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=497)
13 fps ∼28% -28%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
327208 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
566256 Points ∼95% +73%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
593933 Points ∼100% +82%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
563466 Points ∼95% +72%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
326795 Points ∼55% 0%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
308878 Points ∼52% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (288970 - 332074, n=10)
315853 Points ∼53% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=122)
322931 Points ∼54% -1%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1442 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1276 Points ∼81% -12%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1576 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1498 Points ∼95% +4%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
1412 Points ∼90% -2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1226 Points ∼78% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1196 - 1462, n=10)
1375 Points ∼87% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=739)
828 Points ∼53% -43%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4639 Points ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11730 Points ∼100% +153%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11688 Points ∼100% +152%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11654 Points ∼99% +151%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
5216 Points ∼44% +12%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5153 Points ∼44% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2560 - 5247, n=10)
4866 Points ∼41% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=739)
2557 Points ∼22% -45%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4637 Points ∼57%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7450 Points ∼91% +61%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8204 Points ∼100% +77%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6912 Points ∼84% +49%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
4856 Points ∼59% +5%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
4556 Points ∼56% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (4556 - 5683, n=10)
5129 Points ∼63% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=739)
1910 Points ∼23% -59%
System (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
6936 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9810 Points ∼97% +41%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10147 Points ∼100% +46%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10021 Points ∼99% +44%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
6685 Points ∼66% -4%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
6430 Points ∼63% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (5960 - 6936, n=10)
6611 Points ∼65% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=739)
3510 Points ∼35% -49%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3857 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Mi 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5752 Points ∼93% +49%
realme X50 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6205 Points ∼100% +61%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5897 Points ∼95% +53%
Oppo Find X2 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 12288
3931 Points ∼63% +2%
LG Velvet
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3674 Points ∼59% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3290 - 4094, n=10)
3872 Points ∼62% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=739)
1797 Points ∼29% -53%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83)
69.54 Points ∼100% +339%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
51.341 Points ∼74% +224%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
50.998 Points ∼73% +222%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
50.878 Points ∼73% +221%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (15.8 - 58.7, n=9)
45.1 Points ∼65% +185%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=197)
41 Points ∼59% +159%
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83)
39.325 Points ∼57% +148%
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
15.841 Points ∼23%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83)
116.67 Points ∼100% +984%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
109.2 Points ∼94% +914%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
79.083 Points ∼68% +635%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (10.8 - 94.8, n=7)
75.1 Points ∼64% +598%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=628)
47.8 Points ∼41% +344%
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
10.765 Points ∼9%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83)
67.3 runs/min ∼100% +648%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
56.2 runs/min ∼84% +524%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
50.8 runs/min ∼75% +464%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
49.8 runs/min ∼74% +453%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (9 - 54.9, n=7)
45.4 runs/min ∼67% +404%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=178)
43.1 runs/min ∼64% +379%
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
9 runs/min ∼13%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
118 Points ∼100% +490%
realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83)
102 Points ∼86% +410%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
99 Points ∼84% +395%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
76 Points ∼64% +280%
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83)
74 Points ∼63% +270%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=266)
69.9 Points ∼59% +250%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=10)
69.7 Points ∼59% +249%
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
20 Points ∼17%
Octane V2 - Total Score
realme X50 Pro
23768 Points ∼100% +562%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
22016 Points ∼93% +513%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
18546 Points ∼78% +416%
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83)
16523 Points ∼70% +360%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=10)
16097 Points ∼68% +348%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
15745 Points ∼66% +338%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=797)
7984 Points ∼34% +122%
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
3592 Points ∼15%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85)
15230.1 ms * ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=823)
9690 ms * ∼64% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2470 - 15230, n=10)
4156 ms * ∼27% +73%
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83)
2689.4 ms * ∼18% +82%
LG Velvet (Chrome 83)
2665.8 ms * ∼18% +82%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
2538.1 ms * ∼17% +83%
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23)
2103.5 ms * ∼14% +86%
realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83)
1999.7 ms * ∼13% +87%
realme X50 Pro
0 ms * ∼0% +100%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo X50 ProXiaomi Mi 10realme X50 ProOnePlus 8Oppo Find X2 NeoLG VelvetAverage 256 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
88%
113%
101%
27%
19%
6%
-60%
Random Write 4KB
156.8
215.95
38%
251.98
61%
203.85
30%
143.8
-8%
135.87
-13%
123 (22.1 - 172, n=14)
-22%
37.1 (0.14 - 319, n=895)
-76%
Random Read 4KB
165.23
207.04
25%
229.38
39%
215
30%
160.47
-3%
154.28
-7%
160 (127 - 208, n=14)
-3%
60.3 (1.59 - 324, n=895)
-64%
Sequential Write 256KB
209.11
679.51
225%
756.21
262%
747.87
258%
454.36
117%
409.21
96%
330 (209 - 474, n=14)
58%
131 (2.99 - 911, n=895)
-37%
Sequential Read 256KB
924.65
1498.15
62%
1756.1
90%
1706.7
85%
943.1
2%
924.54
0%
854 (687 - 967, n=14)
-8%
348 (12.1 - 1802, n=895)
-62%

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.

PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends

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.

Max. Load
 31.5 °C
89 F
31.7 °C
89 F
30.2 °C
86 F
 
 32 °C
90 F
32.8 °C
91 F
30.9 °C
88 F
 
 32.4 °C
90 F
32 °C
90 F
30.7 °C
87 F
 
Maximum: 32.8 °C = 91 F
Average: 31.6 °C = 89 F
30 °C
86 F
30.2 °C
86 F
30.2 °C
86 F
30 °C
86 F
30.5 °C
87 F
30.7 °C
87 F
28.9 °C
84 F
30.2 °C
86 F
31 °C
88 F
Maximum: 31 °C = 88 F
Average: 30.2 °C = 86 F
Power Supply (max.)  24 °C = 75 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.6 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °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 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

Pink Noise
Pink Noise

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.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.935.7252945.13121.939.4402242.75029.942.76322478019.344.510016.345.41251447.716016.95320014.957.225014.158.53151059.84001161.650011.766.963010.969.580011.974.410001174.9125010.275.8160011.480.1200012.882.2250012.983.2315012.582.540001379.9500013.185.1630013.483.6800015.782.41000013.582.9125001477.31600013.767.4SPL24.893.2N0.695.9median 13median 74.9Delta1.111.232.828.826.228.123.32521.925.52831.119.924.419.122.519.926.116.531.619.644.517.544.317.55113.956.713.961.415.865.215.265.61466.3146713.970.313.473.113.874.514.374.91473.414.572.714.670.914.569.414.768.415.165.41561.914.849.326.583.50.854.8median 14.6median 65.619.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X50 ProXiaomi Mi 10
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X50 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (93.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

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 (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 38% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

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.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.39 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.18 / 2.45 / 2.51 Watt
Load midlight 3.61 / 5.36 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
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%
6%
9%
Idle Minimum *
1.18
0.53
55%
1
15%
0.9
24%
0.8
32%
0.66
44%
0.961 (0.66 - 1.8, n=11)
19%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
24%
Idle Average *
2.45
1.46
40%
1.77
28%
2.3
6%
2.21
10%
1.58
36%
1.964 (0.82 - 2.55, n=11)
20%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
28%
Idle Maximum *
2.51
1.52
39%
1.86
26%
2.33
7%
2.23
11%
1.6
36%
2.13 (0.85 - 2.9, n=11)
15%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
19%
Load Average *
3.61
3.83
-6%
4.23
-17%
3.5
3%
3.14
13%
3.3
9%
3.96 (2.73 - 6.8, n=11)
-10%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
-14%
Load Maximum *
5.36
8.89
-66%
9.13
-70%
7.68
-43%
5.44
-1%
5.46
-2%
6.02 (4.4 - 7.5, n=11)
-12%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
-14%

* ... 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.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
25h 29min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 43min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
22h 32min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 36min
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

+ bright 90 HZ OLED panel
+ almost no heat emissions
+ gimbal technology
+ good main camera
+ good speaker ...

Cons

- ... but only mono
- no IP certification, no wireless charging
- FunTouch OS
- fingerprint reader
- Widevine L3

Vivo X50 Pro Verdict: Stylish Design meets Gimbal Camera

In review: Vivo X50 Pro. Review unit provided by TradingShenzhen.
In review: Vivo X50 Pro. Review unit provided by TradingShenzhen.

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 - 10/02/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
88%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
52 / 70 → 74%
Weight
90%
Battery
91%
Display
88%
Games Performance
36 / 64 → 56%
Application Performance
66 / 86 → 76%
Temperature
94%
Noise
100%
Audio
76 / 90 → 84%