Notebookcheck

Vivo X51 5G Review - The smartphone with gimbal camera for Europe

Go West! Vivo launches the X51 5G in Europe, which is nominally the X50 Pro already known from Asia. Besides software modifications and an optimized camera, the review reveals further positive improvements and enriches the market with an exciting alternative.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 🇩🇪 🇮🇹
Vivo X51 5G (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, 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-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, color spectrum, OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 8), 4G (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41), 5G (Band n1, n3, n7, n8, n28, n38, 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 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (Sony IMX598, f/1.6) + 8 MPix (5x optical zoom, f/3.4, 135 mm, 1/4.0") + 13 MPix (2x optical zoom, f/2.5, 50 mm, 1/2.8", 0.8 µm) + 8 MPix (f/2.2, 120˚ultrawide/macro, 16 mm, 1/4.0", 1.12 µm); Camera2-API-Level: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 26 mm, 1/2.8", 0.8 µm)
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Virtual, 33-W-Charger, USB-Cabel, headset, USB-C to audiojack adapter, clear case, Funtouch OS 11, 24 Months Warranty, Body-SAR: 1.239 W/kg, Head-SAR: 1.205 W/kg, GNSS: GPS (Dual-Band), Glonass (Single-Band), Galileo (Dual-Band), BeiDou (Dual-Band), DRM Widevine L1, fanless
Weight
181.5 g ( = 6.4 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 103 g ( = 3.63 oz / 0.23 pounds)
Price
799 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

mögliche Konkurrenten im Vergleich

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
85 %7
12/2020
Vivo X51 5G
SD 765G, Adreno 620
181.5 g256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.56"2376x1080
86 %7
12/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
SD 865, Adreno 650
216 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.67"2400x1080
84 %7
10/2020
Google Pixel 5
SD 765G, Adreno 620
151 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.00"2340x1080
88 %7
02/2021
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
SD 865, Adreno 650
190 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.50"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

Size comparison

165.1 mm / 6.5 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 216 g0.4762 lbs159.8 mm / 6.29 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs158.46 mm / 6.24 inch 72.8 mm / 2.87 inch 8.04 mm / 0.3165 inch 181.5 g0.4001 lbs144.7 mm / 5.7 inch 70.4 mm / 2.77 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 151 g0.3329 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
798 (409min - 853max) MBit/s ∼100% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
701 (556min - 782max) MBit/s ∼88% +4%
Vivo X51 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
676 (631min - 695max) MBit/s ∼85%
Google Pixel 5
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
625 (521min - 652max) MBit/s ∼78% -8%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
699 (347min - 764max) MBit/s ∼100% +9%
Vivo X51 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
642 (627min - 656max) MBit/s ∼92%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
618 (560min - 664max) MBit/s ∼88% -4%
Google Pixel 5
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
483 (479min - 493max) MBit/s ∼69% -25%
03570105140175210245280315350385420455490525560595630665676659669634676677648678687673684665662655631685680636671672645654695666660655667680654669676659669634676677648678687673684665662655631685680636671672645654695666660655667680654669638635643647644641643643656647643639648640644646643641644653630627641640631644633653646651Tooltip
; 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)

Cameras - Optimized algorithms in the X51 5G

Selfie with the X51 5G.
Selfie with 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
click to load images
ColorChecker
25.2 ∆E
40.5 ∆E
32.4 ∆E
30.2 ∆E
37 ∆E
50 ∆E
38 ∆E
26.8 ∆E
28.2 ∆E
25.5 ∆E
50 ∆E
51.9 ∆E
23.6 ∆E
35 ∆E
22.3 ∆E
46.5 ∆E
32.7 ∆E
35.8 ∆E
41.9 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
33.6 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X51 5G: 34.67 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 51.9 ∆E
ColorChecker
16 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
19.2 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
14.1 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
7 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
10 ∆E
11 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
3 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
13 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
8 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X51 5G: 9.08 ∆E min: 2.73 - max: 19.23 ∆E

Display - AMOLED panel with 90 Hz in the Vivo X51

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

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

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 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
96.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.99
Vivo X51 5G
AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.56
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Google Pixel 5
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.00
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Response Times
-562%
-35%
-6%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
3.6 (2, 1.6)
52.8 (25.2, 27.6)
-1367%
6.8 (3.6, 3.2)
-89%
2.8 (1.6, 1.2)
22%
Response Time Black / White *
2.8 (1.2, 1.6)
26.8 (9.2, 17.6)
-857%
3.2 (1.6, 1.6)
-14%
2.8 (1.2, 1.6)
-0%
PWM Frequency
373.1 (99)
2381 (60)
538%
367.6 (99)
-1%
227.3 (30)
-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 DeltaE2000 *
3.5
0.9
74%
0.8
77%
1.8
49%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.4
2.5
61%
2.2
66%
5.1
20%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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

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 (24.3 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 (38.5 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 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 9686 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


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

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.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1934 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3262 Points ∼100% +69%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1635 Points ∼50% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3252 Points ∼100% +68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1520 - 1966, n=16)
1779 Points ∼55% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=185)
1931 Points ∼59% 0%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
626 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
912 Points ∼100% +46%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
598 Points ∼66% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
903 Points ∼99% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (554 - 673, n=16)
602 Points ∼66% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (63 - 1604, n=185)
557 Points ∼61% -11%
PCMark for Android - Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
7820 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
10641 Points ∼91% +36%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8954 Points ∼77% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11680 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (7245 - 9989, n=16)
8215 Points ∼70% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=583)
6149 Points ∼53% -21%
3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
99.7 (1671min - 1676max) % ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
99.7 % ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
94.7 % ∼95% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
91.2 % ∼91% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (93 - 99.7, n=4)
96.8 % ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (26.6 - 99.8, n=36)
86.5 % ∼87% -13%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1678 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3826 Points ∼100% +128%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1022 Points ∼27% -39%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3826 Points ∼100% +128%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1022 - 1678, n=4)
1333 Points ∼35% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (205 - 8672, n=44)
3205 Points ∼84% +91%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1677 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3841 Points ∼100% +129%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1015 Points ∼26% -39%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3832 Points ∼100% +129%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1015 - 1677, n=4)
1336 Points ∼35% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (153 - 7275, n=44)
2935 Points ∼76% +75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3490 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5028 Points ∼97% +44%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3530 Points ∼68% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5176 Points ∼100% +48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1898 - 3765, n=16)
3277 Points ∼63% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=589)
2309 Points ∼45% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3560 Points ∼37%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
9551 Points ∼100% +168%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2834 Points ∼30% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8633 Points ∼90% +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2814 - 3592, n=16)
3461 Points ∼36% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=589)
2342 Points ∼25% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3544 Points ∼45%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7960 Points ∼100% +125%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2964 Points ∼37% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7517 Points ∼94% +112%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2934 - 3605, n=16)
3405 Points ∼43% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=590)
2154 Points ∼27% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3526 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
4231 Points ∼83% +20%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3544 Points ∼69% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5110 Points ∼100% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1790 - 3651, n=16)
3264 Points ∼64% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=616)
2213 Points ∼43% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5366 Points ∼41%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
13044 Points ∼100% +143%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4036 Points ∼31% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11956 Points ∼92% +123%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (4036 - 5437, n=16)
5168 Points ∼40% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 22052, n=618)
3161 Points ∼24% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4808 Points ∼52%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8917 Points ∼97% +85%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3915 Points ∼42% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
9213 Points ∼100% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (3678 - 4893, n=16)
4548 Points ∼49% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=618)
2597 Points ∼28% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3400 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
4695 Points ∼91% +38%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3547 Points ∼69% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5144 Points ∼100% +51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2964 - 3556, n=16)
3330 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=665)
2167 Points ∼42% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3277 Points ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
6511 Points ∼75% +99%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2106 Points ∼24% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8629 Points ∼100% +163%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2048 - 3342, n=16)
3128 Points ∼36% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=665)
1910 Points ∼22% -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3304 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5996 Points ∼80% +81%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2315 Points ∼31% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7500 Points ∼100% +127%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2261 - 3346, n=16)
3153 Points ∼42% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=666)
1811 Points ∼24% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3462 Points ∼72%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
4604 Points ∼95% +33%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3529 Points ∼73% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
4841 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (1689 - 3529, n=16)
3229 Points ∼67% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5301, n=708)
2044 Points ∼42% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5115 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
10665 Points ∼92% +109%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2844 Points ∼24% -44%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11632 Points ∼100% +127%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2844 - 5832, n=16)
4866 Points ∼42% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=707)
2563 Points ∼22% -50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4624 Points ∼52%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8251 Points ∼93% +78%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2972 Points ∼34% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8868 Points ∼100% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (2972 - 4693, n=16)
4300 Points ∼48% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=710)
2186 Points ∼25% -53%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
13 fps ∼41%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
29 fps ∼91% +123%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8.8 fps ∼28% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
32 fps ∼100% +146%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (8.8 - 13, n=16)
12.1 fps ∼38% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=382)
12 fps ∼38% -8%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8.4 fps ∼42%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
20 fps ∼100% +138%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5.3 fps ∼27% -37%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
20 fps ∼100% +138%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (5.3 - 13, n=16)
8.38 fps ∼42% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=380)
8.32 fps ∼42% -1%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
21 fps ∼44%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
46 fps ∼96% +119%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
13 fps ∼27% -38%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
48 fps ∼100% +129%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (13 - 23, n=16)
20.1 fps ∼42% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 64, n=386)
17.9 fps ∼37% -15%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X51 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
23 fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
54 fps ∼100% +135%
Google Pixel 5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
13 fps ∼24% -43%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
47 fps ∼87% +104%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
  (12 - 24, n=16)
21.5 fps ∼40% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=386)
20.4 fps ∼38% -11%
Vivo X51 5GXiaomi Mi 10T 5GGoogle Pixel 5Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5GAverage 256 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
103%
-7%
96%
9%
-55%
Random Write 4KB
152.33
211.22
39%
155.87
2%
218.37
43%
125 (22.1 - 172, n=15)
-18%
42 (0.14 - 319, n=953)
-72%
Random Read 4KB
155.84
231
48%
138.93
-11%
228.4
47%
160 (127 - 208, n=15)
3%
64.7 (1.59 - 325, n=953)
-58%
Sequential Write 256KB
205.57
721.66
251%
189.99
-8%
676.12
229%
322 (206 - 474, n=15)
57%
144 (2.99 - 1321, n=953)
-30%
Sequential Read 256KB
938.6
1635.44
74%
851.37
-9%
1528.12
63%
859 (687 - 967, n=15)
-8%
370 (12.1 - 2037, n=953)
-61%

Gaming-Benchmarks

05101520253035404550556065707580616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626162626162616262616261626261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626162626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616162626162616262616261626261626162626162616261626261626162626162616262616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616261626261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626143414044394043424343424144424246474333333442424343454550474645413939393840393837363838404242434134353636373635404239363335363635363635363536373938394143434344441241235676151323872112337437234116164727782126972131882111329475213613143216745364122289271466442422361012321883523157421351015361793724159215225821952013140325391017371410402435557919391610412547512944917391611402346712739819411612412357166819401513432436521676213914134021565216162241131541207697041936111339187641358319351013341564449314257102210537342142269211052213145217276922952013138112204924116281826312336716361493520361588163614104022359416671834108291724222616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626162626162616262616261626261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626162626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262614341404439404342434342414442424647433333344242434345455047464541393939384039383736383840424243413435363637363540423936333536363536363536353637393839414343434444124123567615132387211233743723411616472778212697213188211132947521361314321674536412228927146644242236101232188352315742135101536179372415921522582195201314032539101737141040243555791939161041254751294491739161140234671273981941161241235716681940151343243652167621391413402156521616224113154120769704193611133918764135831935101334156444931425710221053734214226921105221314521727692295201313811220492411628182631233671636149352036158816361410402235941667183410829172422251575657565653595458545755505352575755575658595758555759575251545755555957595857595659595956565757585654535554555555535355524345504950484549365049515345544752534956545555545455545051505451544748535355495455575656564953535754535252525352545354565750535653545556534848525353535050495454545554585152434949494851484950485250454746414345444840414546444127212127353332353839252122252741374343393021313040403540434342433842423428222221222022212223206162626162616262616261626261626162626162616261626261626162626162616262616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616261626261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626162616262616261626261626162626143414044394043424343424144424246474333333442424343454550474645413939393840393837363838404242434134353636373635404239363335363635363635363536373938394143434344441241235676151323872112337437234116164727782126972131882111329475213613143216745364122289271466442422361012321883523157421351015361793724159215225821952013140325391017371410402435557919391610412547512944917391611402346712739819411612412357166819401513432436521676213914134021565216162241131541207697041936111339187641358319351013341564449314257102210537342142269211052213145217276922952013138112204924116281826312336716361493520361588163614104022359416671834108291724222515756575656535954585457555053525757555756585957585557595752515457555559575958575956595959565657575856545355545555555353555243455049504845493650495153455447525349565455555454555450515054515447485353554954555756565649535357545352525253525453545657505356535455565348485253535350504954545455545851524349494948514849504852504547464143454448404145464441272121273533323538392521222527413743433930213130404035404343424338424234282222212220222122232040404139404040414038404040404040404039404040403941394040404040394040404139404038404040413940413940413939394040394140394139404139404040404040404040403940404041394137394040404139394039403940413940414041374041394041394040404040404040384040404040403941404040404040394140394140394140404039414039394039414039404040404040403940413940404039404140394139404138364140403941404040403941394140394041394040364139414039374040404040404040404040404037393940404041384039384040404139404139404040404041403940404040394140404037403739384037383940413540403836404040404041394040404040404139403839413940413940404041394041394040404040404139383940404040404040394140394139414039404139404040413940413940374041394040404040404040404040413940413940404040404041394040374040404040404040403941Tooltip
; Dead Trigger 2; 1.6.10: Ø61.6 (61-62)
; Genshin Impact; highest 60 fps; 1.1.1_1437351_1398019: Ø26 (1-82)
; Genshin Impact; medium 60 fps; 1.1.1_1437351_1398019: Ø48 (20-59)
; PUBG Mobile; 1.1.0: Ø39.8 (35-41)

Temperature

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 32.9 °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 35.2 °C / 95 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 33.8 °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 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Loudspeaker

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 74.9Delta1.111.230.435.123.336.72641.522.64034.540.719.942.114.740.814.439.714.944.517.853.918.952.811.754.913.958.91359.610.363.410.466.812.471.411.177.911.284.412.782.712.375.112.675.312.778.212.78012.783.213.582.91478.813.57114.9641658.524.891.90.688.5median 12.7median 71110.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X51 5GGoogle Pixel 5
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X51 5G 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
» 3% 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, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Google Pixel 5 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 81% 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

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 1.3
907
1166
29%
808
-11%
763
-16%
763
-16%
720 (223 - 2636, n=824)
-21%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 87)
15h 07min

Pros

+ bright AMOLED panel with 90 Hz
+ good camera setup
+ lots of memory
+ long battery runtimes

Cons

- Memory not expandable
- no IP certification
- no wireless charging

Verdict - Well done, Vivo!

In review: Vivo X51 5G. Test device provided by Vivo Germany.
In review: Vivo X51 5G. Test device provided by Vivo Germany.

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 - 12/15/2020 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
88%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
52 / 70 → 74%
Weight
90%
Battery
91%
Display
88%
Games Performance
36 / 64 → 57%
Application Performance
75 / 86 → 88%
Temperature
94%
Noise
100%
Audio
76 / 90 → 84%
Camera
74%
Average
79%
85%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Vivo X51 5G Review - The smartphone with gimbal camera for Europe
Daniel Schmidt, 2020-12-16 (Update: 2020-12-16)
Daniel Schmidt
Editor of the original article: Daniel Schmidt - Managing Editor Mobile - @Tellheim
Already as a little dwarf I was fascinated by my Commodore 16 and ignited my enthusiasm for computers. With my first modem I surfed the Btx and later also the World Wide Web. The latest technology trends have always fascinated me and this is especially true for mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. For Notebookcheck, I have been on the ball since 2013 and I am looking forward to the innovations that are still to come and that we will put to the acid test for you.