Vivo X51 5G Review - The smartphone with gimbal camera for Europe
mögliche Konkurrenten im Vergleich
Bewertung | Rating Version | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84.9 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 12 / 2020 | Vivo X51 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 181.5 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.56" | 2376x1080 | |
| 86.3 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 12 / 2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G SD 865, Adreno 650 | 216 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 84.6 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 10 / 2020 | Google Pixel 5 SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 151 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.00" | 2340x1080 | |
| 87.9 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 02 / 2021 | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G SD 865, Adreno 650 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 |
Case, equipment and operation
The Vivo X51 5G has the same casing as its Asian sister model X50 Pro. It convinces with impeccable build quality and feels great in the hand. The smartphone is only available in Alpha Gray in this country
The features are also on a similar level. The USB 2.0 port supports OTG. It is not possible to expand the storage via microSD card, but that should be acceptable for most users in view of the large internal storage. However, a USB-C to jack adapter is now included in the scope of delivery
The biggest change is found in the communication modules. Wi-Fi 5 is not the most modern Wi-Fi standard, but it is very fast and stable due to the integrated MIMO antenna technology. The mobile frequency bands have been increased considerably. Eight additional bands are available for LTE and six for 5G
We received the X51 5G with Android 10 and Funtouch OS 10 as delivered, but the update to Android 11 with Funtouch OS 11 would already be distributed during the test. The European variant is less playful and relies more on Google's apps; other third-party apps are not preinstalled on the smartphone
According to Vivo, there are currently no plans to roll out Origin OS on the European market. However, the company wants to guarantee software support and security updates for four years
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
Cameras - Optimized algorithms in the X51 5G
The camera equipment of the Vivo X51 5G is identical to its sister model and consists of a 48 MP wide-angle, a dual optical zoom that is touted as a portrait lens, an ultra-wide-angle lens and a periscope camera. The latter allows for five times optical magnification and even up to 60x digitally
The main camera also offers gimbal stabilization, which not only facilitates zooming and photos in the dark, but also ensures stable videos in Ultra HD (60 FPS), but drags slightly during fast pans
The pictures are quite similar to those of the X50 Pro, but especially portraits retain more details and the blur is more subtle
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelZoom (5-fach)UltraweitwinkelLow-Light
Display - AMOLED panel with 90 Hz in the Vivo X51
The AMOLED screen of Vivo's X51 5G offers a crisp display and can get very bright when the ambient light sensor is enabled. Those who prefer manual control will only have about 400 cd/m² available. With evenly distributed bright and dark areas (APL50), the panel even scratches the 1,000 cd/m² mark, which makes it perfectly suitable for HDR content and also supports HDR10 and HDR10+
The typical OLED flickering ranges between 192.3 and 373.1 Hz, and an optional DC dimming function is also on board. The color reproduction is most natural in the Professional mode, but it uses the smaller sRGB color space instead of DCI-P3
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 784 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.99
| Vivo X51 5G AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Google Pixel 5 OLED, 2340x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -562% | -35% | -6% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 3.6 ? | 52.8 ? -1367% | 6.8 ? -89% | 2.8 ? 22% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 2.8 ? | 26.8 ? -857% | 3.2 ? -14% | 2.8 ? -0% |
| PWM Frequency | 373.1 ? | 2381 ? 538% | 367.6 ? -1% | 227.3 ? -39% |
| Screen | 22% | 25% | 14% | |
| Brightness middle | 784 | 614 -22% | 635 -19% | 714 -9% |
| Brightness | 780 | 593 -24% | 636 -18% | 721 -8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 92 -5% | 97 0% | 95 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.48 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.5 | 0.9 74% | 0.8 77% | 1.8 49% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.4 | 2.5 61% | 2.2 66% | 5.1 20% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 1.6 47% | 1.7 43% | 2 33% |
| Gamma | 1.99 111% | 2.2 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.16 102% |
| CCT | 6666 98% | 6744 96% | 6492 100% | 6588 99% |
| Contrast | 1279 | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -270% /
-173% | -5% /
5% | 4% /
7% |
* ... smaller is better
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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 373.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 373.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life
The Snapdragon 765G in Vivo's X51 5G is comparatively fast and delivers a good system performance in combination with its 8 GB of working memory. However, it falls far behind the rivals with the Snapdragon 865, especially the GPU performance is lower
This is also evident in games. While older titles like Dead Trigger 2 run smoothly, the details have to be reduced a lot in current top games like Genshin Impact. Despite the 90 Hz panel, we also could not find a title that supports it
The surface temperatures are pleasantly low and the stress test of 3DMark Wild Life certifies a constant performance of the Vivo smartphone
The speaker on the bottom edge delivers a decent sound, provided the output is not too loud. In this case, it starts to rattle and overdrive. The audio codecs SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD and LDAC are available via Bluetooth
The battery runtimes come as a big surprise because the Vivo X51 surpasses the Asian version by almost two and a half hours in the Wi-Fi test.
| PCMark for Android - Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (13 - 23, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 247, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (12 - 24, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 263, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8.8 - 15, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (5.3 - 13, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 112, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Vivo X51 5G | Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | Google Pixel 5 | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 103% | -7% | 96% | 16% | 221% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 939 | 1635 74% | 851 -9% | 1528 63% | 826 ? -12% | 1859 ? 98% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 205.6 | 722 251% | 190 -8% | 676 229% | 358 ? 74% | 1445 ? 603% |
| Random Read 4KB | 155.8 | 231 48% | 138.9 -11% | 228.4 47% | 166.6 ? 7% | 278 ? 78% |
| Random Write 4KB | 152.3 | 211.2 39% | 155.9 2% | 218.4 43% | 141.5 ? -7% | 310 ? 104% |
Gaming-Benchmarks
Temperature
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °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 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Loudspeaker
Vivo X51 5G 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
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Google Pixel 5 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Vivo X51 5G 4315 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G 5000 mAh | Google Pixel 5 4080 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G 4500 mAh | Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 907 | 1166 29% | 808 -11% | 763 -16% | 763 -16% | 985 ? 9% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Well done, Vivo!
The Vivo X51 5G is a premium mid-range smartphone that pleases with a great design and feel. The 90 Hz AMOLED screen can also be very bright and now also supports HDR in the European variant. In addition, there is a DRM certification that does not limit multimedia enjoyment anymore. Only the speakers could have been a bit more
Vivo shows what is possible with dedicated software tuning and extends the runtimes of the X51 noticeably
Considering the ambitious price of 799 Euros (RRP), the processor seems a bit too small. Premium features like wireless charging or IP certification are also missing. In return, Vivo invests a lot in the camera, which covers a wide range of focal lengths and also offers very good stabilization
The delayed market launch due to Corona might be another reason why the Vivo X51 seems a bit too expensive, especially since the successor is supposed to be launched in China later this year. Nevertheless, Vivo offers a really good smartphone that feels very complete and is also future-proof with 5G and a long-term update supply
Vivo X51 5G
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Price comparison
