Notebookcheck
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Vivo X60 Pro review - Upper-class smartphone with virtual RAM & gimbal camera

The X60 Pro starts with Zeiss lenses and a new gimbal camera system. Whether the collaboration with the traditional German manufacturer makes the classic OIS stabilization forgettable or serves more for marketing purposes, you can find out in our review of the Vivo phone.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Brian Burriston (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 🇩🇪 🇮🇹 ...
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone

The X60 Pro from Vivo is the first smartphone to be launched as part of the strategic partnership between the Chinese manufacturer and Zeiss, which was announced in December 2020. Vivo's promising gimbal technology of the Vivo X50 Pro, which will be available in this country as the X51 5G, is said to have been improved once again in the course of the cooperation.

In China, the Vivo X60 was launched at the end of last year with the 5 nm Exynos 1080 from Samsung and a periscope camera for zoom shots. However, the global version of the Vivo smartphone available here with the 6.56-inch 120 Hz AMOLED display features a Snapdragon 870, a slightly faster Snapdragon 865 from the previous year. In addition, the global X60 Pro loses the periscope zoom camera of the Chinese variant and is only launched with a triple cam in this country.

, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Vivo X60 Pro (X Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G 8 x 2.4 - 3.2 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)
Graphics adapter
Memory
12288 MB 
Display
6.56 inch 19.8:9, 2376 x 1080 pixel 398 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, adaptive refresh rate, 240Hz sampling rate, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 226 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB-Type-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, color spectrum, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz; 3G: B1/B2/B4/B5/B8: 4G FDD_LTE: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B26/B28/B32, TDD_LTE: B38/B39/B40/B41; 5G: n1/n3/n5/n7/n8/n20/n28/n38/n40/n41/n77/n78, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.59 x 158.58 x 73.24 ( = 0.3 x 6.24 x 2.88 in)
Battery
4200 mAh Lithium-Polymer, 33W (Vivo FlashCharge 2.0)
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (f/1.5, 26mm, 1/2.0", 0.8µm) +13 MP (2x optical zoom, f/2.5, 50mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm) + 13MP (f/2.2, 120˚, 16mm)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 26mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm)
Additional features
Keyboard: Virtual, headset, charger, USB cable, case, Funtouch OS 11.1, 24 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR: head (W/kg) 0.99; body (W/kg) 1.16, fanless
Weight
177 g ( = 6.24 oz / 0.39 pounds), Power Supply: 86 g ( = 3.03 oz / 0.19 pounds)
Price
799 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
87 %
07/2021
Vivo X60 Pro
SD 870, Adreno 650
177 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.56"2376x1080
86 %
06/2021
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
188 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.68"2400x1080
87 %
02/2021
Xiaomi Mi 11
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
196 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.81"3200x1440
87 %
04/2021
OnePlus 9
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
192 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.55"2400x1080
89 %
02/2021
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14
200 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"2400x1080

Case - X60 Pro with Punch-Hole

Vivo X60 Pro in Midnight Black is a bit lighter than the color version
Vivo X60 Pro in Midnight Black is a bit lighter than the color version

The case is made of glass and metal, is very well manufactured and feels good in the hands. With a weight of 177 g or 179 g (~6.2 or 6.3 oz) depending on the color, it is also pleasantly light.

In the X60 Pro neither Corning Gorilla Glass nor Asahi Dragontrail Glass, used for the X50 Pro, but a special lithium aluminosilicate glass called Xensation Up from the German manufacturer Schott, a sister company of Zeiss. This glass is supposed to compensate for drops from up to six times the height compared to conventional aluminosilicate glass in addition to a high scratch resistance.

Thanks to the relatively narrow display edges and the punch hole of only 3.96 mm (~0.16 in), the display-to-surface ratio of the Vivo phone is over 90 percent. The X60 Pro is only IP52 certified, so the casing is not water- and dust-proof.

Vivo X60 Pro in Shimmer Blue
Vivo X60 Pro in Shimmer Blue
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Size comparison

164.3 mm / 6.47 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.06 mm / 0.3173 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs161.53 mm / 6.36 inch 72.96 mm / 2.87 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs161.5 mm / 6.36 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs160 mm / 6.3 inch 74.2 mm / 2.92 inch 8.7 mm / 0.3425 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs158.58 mm / 6.24 inch 73.24 mm / 2.88 inch 7.59 mm / 0.2988 inch 177 g0.3902 lbs

Equipment - Vivo smartphone with USB 2.0

The internal UFS storage has a capacity of 256 GB. The actual available storage is lower at 226 GB due to the operating system and the preinstalled apps. MicroSD cards cannot be stored in Vivo's phone.

The 4,200 mAh battery is charged via the Type-C port with the USB 2.0 specification, which recognizes external peripherals via USB OTG. Wireless transmission of display content to external monitors via Miracast is also supported.

Software - X60 Pro with Android 11

The Chinese manufacturer installs Android version 11 as the operating system, which is supplemented by Vivo's own user interface FunTouch 11.1. The security patches are not quite up to date at the time of the test with May 2021. Vivo nevertheless promises three years of updates for its upper-class smartphone.

Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone

Communication and GNSS - Vivo cell phone with 5G

Vivo relies on the 5G standard and Bluetooth version 5.1 for the communication modules. An NFC chip for near field communication including Google Pay is also on board. The X60 Pro supports access to a total of 19 LTE bands and covers all relevant LTE frequencies for the German-speaking region.

The X60 Pro also offers a lot within the domestic WLAN. The current Wi-Fi standard WiFi 6 and multi-user MIMO are supported, which ensures high and relatively constant transfer rates in the home network. In combination with our reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, the Vivo phone achieves peak transfer rates of over 900 Mbps, which is appealing for a smartphone in this price range.

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1175 (1141min - 1218max) MBit/s ∼100% +34%
Vivo X60 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
880 (816min - 909max) MBit/s ∼75%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Mali-G78 MP14, Exynos 2100 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
747 (650min - 862max) MBit/s ∼64% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Mali-G78 MP14, Exynos 2100 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
600 (305min - 657max) MBit/s ∼51% -32%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
685 (654min - 709max) MBit/s ∼58% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
519 (391min - 604max) MBit/s ∼44% -41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=303, last 2 years)
415 MBit/s ∼35% -53%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Vivo X60 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
871 (796min - 910max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Mali-G78 MP14, Exynos 2100 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
855 (827min - 886max) MBit/s ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Mali-G78 MP14, Exynos 2100 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
854 (804min - 879max) MBit/s ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
842 (329min - 976max) MBit/s ∼97% -3%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
786 (755min - 837max) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
777 (623min - 829max) MBit/s ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=303, last 2 years)
419 MBit/s ∼48% -52%
050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900840836825820809796841846866889906905904884901910893877874809810887892892906898896901893885840836825820809796841846866889906905904884901910893877874809810887892892906898896901893885893897902909902886904894877894887895898894887843855874884816821849886854872877885896892882Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø870 (796-910)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø880 (816-909)
Indoors
Indoors
Outdoors
Outdoors

The position is determined using the GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BeiDou (B1+B1+B2a) and Galileo (E1+E5a) satellite systems. In order to assess the positioning accuracy of our test device in practice, we record a route with a Garmin Edge 500 in parallel for comparison purposes. The GPS module's deviations are satisfactory over the course of the route. About 150 meters (~164 yards) difference is between the Vivo smartphone and the navigation device at the end of the ten-kilometer (~16 miles) test route.

Tracking: Garmin Edge 500 vs. Vivo X60 Pro
Tracking: Garmin Edge 500 vs. Vivo X60 Pro
Tracking: Garmin Edge 500 vs. Vivo X60 Pro
Tracking: Garmin Edge 500 vs. Vivo X60 Pro

Phone features and voice quality - X60 Pro with dual SIM

Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone

Dual-SIM, VoLTE and calls via the home WLAN are supported by the X60 Pro. The intelligibility during test calls is good, but the maximum volume of the earpiece could be a bit higher. Voice reproduction is natural, and the quality of the two microphones was described as easy to understand by our call partner.

Cameras - Vivo smartphone with gimbal cam

Portrait mode
Portrait mode
Photo mode
Photo mode

The front-facing camera has a resolution of 32 MP and offers a good quality, which is quite suitable for the one or other snapshot. Colors look realistic, and blurring is kept within limits - at least in photo mode.

The X60 Pro also features three rear-facing cameras. The 48 MP main sensor delivers very decent results with good dynamics in a lot of light, even though the sharpness visibly decreases in the peripheral areas. The noise level is quite high and the basic sharpness is low in less well-lit scenes.

The demands have to be lowered for the 13 MP ultra-wide-angle lens. The pictures offer a good contrast, but the sharpness is not particularly high and the photos have many image errors. In terms of zoom, the X60 Pro can convince with quite satisfactory results up to 5x, but the photos get a bit reddish.

Video recordings are recorded in a maximum UHD resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels at 60 fps. The Gimbal Stabilization 2.0 builds on last year's four-axis image stabilization solution, but now offers a fifth axis for video recordings that stabilizes unintentional rotations of the smartphone. The recordings are satisfactory, but especially the stabilization of the "super anti-shake" mode is a bit disappointing since no real improvements are visible here compared to a classic OIS smartphone.

Ultra wide angle
Ultra wide angle
Wide angle
Wide angle
20x zoom (max)
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X60 Pro smartphone

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.

Wide angleWide angleLow Light5x ZoomUltra wide angle
ColorChecker
6.6 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
1.4 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X60 Pro: 4.94 ∆E min: 1.4 - max: 10.07 ∆E
ColorChecker
21.1 ∆E
30.1 ∆E
26.3 ∆E
24.7 ∆E
30.2 ∆E
37.9 ∆E
30.5 ∆E
22.8 ∆E
20.8 ∆E
20.1 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
40.9 ∆E
19.1 ∆E
27.8 ∆E
17.7 ∆E
28.1 ∆E
27 ∆E
29.3 ∆E
32.9 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
35.2 ∆E
28.9 ∆E
21.6 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X60 Pro: 27.14 ∆E min: 12.77 - max: 40.87 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - X60 Pro with case

The accessories list of the X60 Pro includes a headset, a charger as well as a USB cable and a protective cover. A protective film is also applied to the display ex-works.

The warranty is 24 months after the purchase date.

Input devices & operation - X60 Pro with 240 Hz sampling rate

Not only is the panel's refresh rate very high at 120 Hz, but the touchscreen's sampling rate of up to 240 updates per second also ensures responsive processing of inputs on the 6.56-inch OLED panel.

Below the display is an optical fingerprint sensor that responds quickly and reliably. Biometric authentication via facial recognition using the front-facing camera also unlocks the X60 Pro quickly, but quite insecurely (2D).

Vivo X60 Pro
Vivo X60 Pro
Vivo X60 Pro

Display - Vivo cell phone with 120 Hz

Sub-pixel representation
Sub-pixel representation
DC dimming mode
DC dimming mode

The OLED panel of the X60 Pro resolves, like its Predecessor, has a resolution of 2,376 x 1,080 pixels at a diagonal of 6.56 inches and thus achieves a pixel density of almost 400 ppi, which ensures sufficiently sharp display content in normal use and at usual viewing distances.

The X60 Pro interprets the panel's refresh rate relatively conventionally. There are 60 Hz, 120 Hz and an auto mode available, whereby the latter only adjusts the 120 Hz and 60 Hz automatically, in contrast to an adaptive solution such as the a Galaxy S21 Ultra, among others.

The maximum luminance of about 800 cd/m² that we measured is very satisfactory for an upper-class smartphone. A Xiaomi Mi 11 however, gets a bit brighter in our measurements. Even the realistic APL50 test with evenly distributed bright and dark areas does not come close to the values of the Xiaomi phone with 983 cd/m².

To control the luminance, the X60 Pro uses PWM over the entire brightness range with a rather low but very even frequency of 236-245 Hz. In DC dimming mode, it is 120-195 Hz.

791
cd/m²
790
cd/m²
803
cd/m²
791
cd/m²
792
cd/m²
804
cd/m²
791
cd/m²
796
cd/m²
805
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 805 cd/m² Average: 795.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.14 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 792 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.7 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 1.2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
98.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Vivo X60 Pro
AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.56
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.68
Xiaomi Mi 11
LED DotDisplay, 3200x1440, 6.81
OnePlus 9
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 2400x1080, 6.70
Screen
-236%
-20%
13%
-38%
Brightness middle
792
638
-19%
840
6%
731
-8%
814
3%
Brightness
796
641
-19%
845
6%
739
-7%
814
2%
Brightness Distribution
98
93
-5%
98
0%
96
-2%
97
-1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
0.7
4
-471%
1.2
-71%
0.59
16%
2
-186%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
2.8
14
-400%
2.7
4%
1.3
54%
3.6
-29%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.2
7.2
-500%
2
-67%
0.9
25%
1.4
-17%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.27 97%
2.26 97%
2.243 98%
2.12 104%
CCT
6504 100%
7190 90%
6492 100%
6573 99%
6568 99%

* ... 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 245.1 Hz ≤ 100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 245.1 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 245.1 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 14804 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Besides pronounced contrasts, the Vivo smartphone offers HDR10+ certification and a high color space coverage. The panel is very well calibrated ex-factory. The analysis of the photospectrometer and the CalMAN software results in very low average Delta E deviations from the sRGB color space of 0.7 (colors) and 1.2 (grayscale), respectively. However, to achieve the high accuracy, the smaller color space must also be used.

Color accuracy (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color accuracy (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color space (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color saturation (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)
Color saturation (Profile: Professional, Target color space: sRGB)

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. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5.2 ms rise
↘ 4.8 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.1 ms).

The viewing angle stability of the OLED panel is on a very good level. The X60 Pro can be used outdoors without restrictions as long as the automatic mode is enabled. The panel stops at 467 cd/m² without a light sensor.

Vivo X60 Pro
Vivo X60 Pro
Vivo X60 Pro
Vivo X60 Pro

Performance - X60 Pro with Snapdragon SoC

The CPU used in the X60 Pro is a Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 that integrates eight cores, divided into three clusters. The fastest Cortex-A77 core reaches up to 3.2 GHz, the performance cluster including three Cortex-A77 cores up to 2.42 GHz and the energy-saving cluster including four frugal Cortex-A55 cores up to 1.8 GHz. The graphics card is an Adreno 650.

The system speed of the Vivo smartphone is first-rate. The operation is pleasantly smooth in everyday use, and there are almost no lags. Thanks to the fast UFS 3.1 storage and the responsive panel, applications open almost instantaneously.

The scores in our benchmark measurements are also on a good level, even though the competition with the current SoC generation offers more performance. The 15 GB working memory does not help either. The X60 Pro uses 12 GB of fixed RAM as well as 3 GB of virtual RAM, which is reserved for data storage on the flash memory. However, the X60 Pro scores particularly well in Geekbench, where the values are higher than those of other Snapdragon 870 smartphones, such as the Poco F3.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
1046 Points ∼90%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1156 Points ∼100% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1136 Points ∼98% +9%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1124 Points ∼97% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
1100 Points ∼95% +5%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
998 Points ∼86% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (972 - 1046, n=4)
1005 Points ∼87% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=235, last 2 years)
565 Points ∼49% -46%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
4455 Points ∼100%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3456 Points ∼78% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3784 Points ∼85% -15%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3653 Points ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
3364 Points ∼76% -24%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3368 Points ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (2870 - 4455, n=4)
3522 Points ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4455, n=235, last 2 years)
1939 Points ∼44% -56%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
4324 Points ∼69%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4336 Points ∼69% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4279 Points ∼68% -1%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3894 Points ∼62% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
6259 Points ∼100% +45%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3587 Points ∼57% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (3369 - 4324, n=4)
3788 Points ∼61% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=125, last 2 years)
2045 Points ∼33% -53%
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
3674 Points ∼49%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4764 Points ∼63% +30%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4674 Points ∼62% +27%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
4566 Points ∼61% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
7514 Points ∼100% +105%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3606 Points ∼48% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (3555 - 3724, n=4)
3640 Points ∼48% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=129, last 2 years)
2133 Points ∼28% -42%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
10896 Points ∼66%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
16564 Points ∼100% +52%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
13610 Points ∼82% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (10896 - 16054, n=3)
13520 Points ∼82% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 16564, n=45, last 2 years)
9536 Points ∼58% -12%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=261, last 2 years)
3370 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=261, last 2 years)
3942 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=261, last 2 years)
2757 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
7718 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7970 Points ∼88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (7970 - 11064, n=3)
9023 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=277, last 2 years)
3947 Points ∼44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
9794 Points ∼72%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
12033 Points ∼89%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (12033 - 14968, n=3)
13511 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 22052, n=277, last 2 years)
4982 Points ∼37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3653 Points ∼86%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (3318 - 5784, n=3)
4252 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5784, n=275, last 2 years)
2908 Points ∼68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=259, last 2 years)
2628 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=259, last 2 years)
2784 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=259, last 2 years)
2803 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
9343 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
8001 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7377 Points ∼79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (6960 - 8975, n=3)
7771 Points ∼83%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=275, last 2 years)
3191 Points ∼34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
12023 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
10913 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
9498 Points ∼79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (9498 - 10646, n=3)
10114 Points ∼84%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 12914, n=275, last 2 years)
3565 Points ∼30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5249 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
4137 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4140 Points ∼79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (3296 - 5793, n=3)
4410 Points ∼84%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5793, n=275, last 2 years)
2959 Points ∼56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (426 - 6977, n=216, last 2 years)
2634 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 11259, n=216, last 2 years)
2956 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=216, last 2 years)
2651 Points ∼100%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
4234 Points ∼73%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5598 Points ∼97% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5599 Points ∼97% +32%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
5786 Points ∼100% +37%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
5668 Points ∼98% +34%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4288 Points ∼74% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (4166 - 4351, n=4)
4260 Points ∼74% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (153 - 7275, n=91, last 2 years)
2735 Points ∼47% -35%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
4230 Points ∼70%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5765 Points ∼96% +36%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5678 Points ∼94% +34%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
5751 Points ∼96% +36%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
6010 Points ∼100% +42%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4271 Points ∼71% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (4152 - 4352, n=4)
4251 Points ∼71% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (205 - 8672, n=88, last 2 years)
2941 Points ∼49% -30%
Wild Life Extreme (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
1243 Points ∼80%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1556 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1223 Points ∼79% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (1223 - 1243, n=3)
1233 Points ∼79% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (83 - 2288, n=39, last 2 years)
856 Points ∼55% -31%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
1223 Points ∼83%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1478 Points ∼100% +21%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1222 Points ∼83% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (1222 - 1246, n=3)
1230 Points ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (117 - 1982, n=37, last 2 years)
873 Points ∼59% -29%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
120 fps ∼100%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
120 fps ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
120 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
61 fps ∼51% -49%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
119 fps ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
71 fps ∼59% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (71 - 120, n=3)
93.7 fps ∼78% -22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=216, last 2 years)
57 fps ∼48% -52%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
231 fps ∼80%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
290 fps ∼100% +26%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
268 fps ∼92% +16%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
275 fps ∼95% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
242 fps ∼83% +5%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
200 fps ∼69% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (200 - 231, n=3)
218 fps ∼75% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 322, n=216, last 2 years)
106 fps ∼37% -54%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
113 fps ∼95%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
118 fps ∼99% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
91 fps ∼76% -19%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
60 fps ∼50% -47%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
119 fps ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
60 fps ∼50% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (60 - 113, n=3)
87.3 fps ∼73% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=214, last 2 years)
44.9 fps ∼38% -60%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
136 fps ∼82%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
165 fps ∼100% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
158 fps ∼96% +16%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
101 fps ∼61% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
161 fps ∼98% +18%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
119 fps ∼72% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (119 - 136, n=3)
129 fps ∼78% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 180, n=215, last 2 years)
61.9 fps ∼38% -54%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
95 fps ∼92%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
97 fps ∼94% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
59 fps ∼57% -38%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
57 fps ∼55% -40%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
103 fps ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
59 fps ∼57% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (59 - 95, n=3)
77.7 fps ∼75% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=213, last 2 years)
35.4 fps ∼34% -63%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
84 fps ∼75%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
112 fps ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
111 fps ∼99% +32%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
96 fps ∼86% +14%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
107 fps ∼96% +27%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
81 fps ∼72% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (81 - 92, n=3)
85.7 fps ∼77% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 121, n=213, last 2 years)
42.4 fps ∼38% -50%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
50 fps ∼89%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
56 fps ∼100% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
33 fps ∼59% -34%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
48 fps ∼86% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
56 fps ∼100% +12%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
44 fps ∼79% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (44 - 50, n=3)
47 fps ∼84% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 61, n=212, last 2 years)
22.1 fps ∼39% -56%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
58 fps ∼87%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
66 fps ∼99% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
67 fps ∼100% +16%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
42 fps ∼63% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
62 fps ∼93% +7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
48 fps ∼72% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (48 - 58, n=3)
54.3 fps ∼81% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 75, n=212, last 2 years)
25.4 fps ∼38% -56%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
52 fps ∼81%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
63 fps ∼98% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
41 fps ∼64% -21%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
58 fps ∼91% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
64 fps ∼100% +23%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
49 fps ∼77% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (49 - 53, n=4)
50.8 fps ∼79% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 73, n=281, last 2 years)
22.2 fps ∼35% -57%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
59 fps ∼75%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
70 fps ∼89% +19%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
79 fps ∼100% +34%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
57 fps ∼72% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
64 fps ∼81% +8%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
57 fps ∼72% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (57 - 61, n=4)
58.5 fps ∼74% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=280, last 2 years)
25.5 fps ∼32% -57%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
33 fps ∼75%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
41 fps ∼93% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
25 fps ∼57% -24%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
41 fps ∼93% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
44 fps ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
33 fps ∼75% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (31 - 34, n=4)
32.8 fps ∼75% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=281, last 2 years)
14.7 fps ∼33% -55%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
22 fps ∼76%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
29 fps ∼100% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
29 fps ∼100% +32%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
28 fps ∼97% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
27 fps ∼93% +23%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
22 fps ∼76% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (22 - 23, n=4)
22.3 fps ∼77% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=280, last 2 years)
10.1 fps ∼35% -54%
Antutu v9 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
716502 Points ∼88%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
809906 Points ∼100% +13%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
680139 Points ∼84% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (678958 - 716502, n=3)
691866 Points ∼85% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (121238 - 815441, n=37, last 2 years)
465139 Points ∼57% -35%
AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
117345 Points ∼44%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
264766 Points ∼100% +126%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
209984 Points ∼79% +79%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
226728 Points ∼86% +93%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
111838 Points ∼42% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (111838 - 117345, n=2)
114592 Points ∼43% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 264766, n=65, last 2 years)
58160 Points ∼22% -50%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
6245 Points ∼91%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
6843 Points ∼100% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
6361 Points ∼93% +2%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
6537 Points ∼96% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
6144 Points ∼90% -2%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
6356 Points ∼93% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (5916 - 6356, n=3)
6172 Points ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 6959, n=199, last 2 years)
3623 Points ∼53% -42%
System (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
9758 Points ∼84%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
10896 Points ∼94% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
10377 Points ∼89% +6%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
11627 Points ∼100% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
10492 Points ∼90% +8%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
9997 Points ∼86% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (8852 - 9997, n=3)
9536 Points ∼82% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=199, last 2 years)
6633 Points ∼57% -32%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
7785 Points ∼89%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
7684 Points ∼87% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
8789 Points ∼100% +13%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
7526 Points ∼86% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
6246 Points ∼71% -20%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7692 Points ∼88% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (6757 - 7785, n=3)
7411 Points ∼84% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=199, last 2 years)
4238 Points ∼48% -46%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
11754 Points ∼80%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
13543 Points ∼93% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
12732 Points ∼87% +8%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
12938 Points ∼88% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
14636 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
12801 Points ∼87% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (11431 - 12801, n=3)
11995 Points ∼82% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 16996, n=199, last 2 years)
5605 Points ∼38% -52%
Web (sort by value)
Vivo X60 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 12288
1678 Points ∼85%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1983 Points ∼100% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1434 Points ∼72% -15%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1627 Points ∼82% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Samsung Exynos 2100 5G, Mali-G78 MP14, 8192
1486 Points ∼75% -11%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1658 Points ∼84% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
  (1658 - 1791, n=3)
1709 Points ∼86% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=199, last 2 years)
1272 Points ∼64% -24%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G (chrome 90)
107.656 Points ∼100% +77%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
83.152 Points ∼77% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G (60.7 - 91.2, n=3)
75.7 Points ∼70% +25%
Samsung Galaxy S21+ (Chrome 88.0.4324.152)
66.27 Points ∼62% +9%
OnePlus 9 (MS Edge)
61.34 Points ∼57% +1%
Vivo X60 Pro (Chrome91)
60.675 Points ∼56%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=185, last 2 years)
50 Points ∼46% -18%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G (chrome 90)
114 runs/min ∼100% +122%
Samsung Galaxy S21+ (Chrome 88.0.4324.152)
85.8 runs/min ∼75% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G (51.4 - 74.8, n=3)
66.6 runs/min ∼58% +30%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
62.8 runs/min ∼55% +22%
OnePlus 9 (MS Edge)
54.65 runs/min ∼48% +6%
Vivo X60 Pro (Chrome91)
51.4 runs/min ∼45%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=166, last 2 years)
50.7 runs/min ∼44% -1%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G (chrome 90)
158 Points ∼100% +60%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
124 Points ∼78% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G (99 - 147, n=3)
124 Points ∼78% +25%
OnePlus 9 (MS Edge)
119 Points ∼75% +20%
Samsung Galaxy S21+ (Chrome 88.0.4324.152)
102 Points ∼65% +3%
Vivo X60 Pro (Chrome91)
99 Points ∼63%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 194, n=203, last 2 years)
77.9 Points ∼49% -21%
Octane V2 - Total Score
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G (chrome 90)
38401 Points ∼100% +87%
Samsung Galaxy S21+ (Chrome 88.0.4324.152)
28247 Points ∼74% +38%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
27539 Points ∼72% +34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G (20543 - 34161, n=3)
27094 Points ∼71% +32%
OnePlus 9 (Chrome89)
23843 Points ∼62% +16%
Vivo X60 Pro (Chrome91)
20543 Points ∼53%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=210, last 2 years)
17317 Points ∼45% -16%
Vivo X60 ProZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5GXiaomi Mi 11OnePlus 9Samsung Galaxy S21+Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-17%
-5%
-12%
6%
-6%
-57%
Sequential Read 256KB
1756.87
1463.95
-17%
1614.92
-8%
1872.3
7%
1623.02
-8%
1751 (1330 - 2037, n=18)
0%
751 (41.9 - 2037, n=286, last 2 years)
-57%
Sequential Write 256KB
791.11
689.07
-13%
754.41
-5%
739.39
-7%
1037.14
31%
788 (671 - 1321, n=18)
0%
328 (11.9 - 1321, n=286, last 2 years)
-59%
Random Read 4KB
298.54
208.21
-30%
278.54
-7%
225.38
-25%
309.61
4%
255 (187 - 325, n=18)
-15%
134 (13.5 - 325, n=286, last 2 years)
-55%
Random Write 4KB
288.49
265.02
-8%
289.32
0%
221.45
-23%
283.31
-2%
263 (205 - 330, n=18)
-9%
120 (4.97 - 330, n=286, last 2 years)
-58%

Games - X60 Pro plays demanding games

The powerful graphics unit, the Adreno 650 provides enough computing power for smooth playback even for demanding games from the Play Store. The best graphics option is also available with UHD in PUBG mobile.

Armajet
Armajet
PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile

Emissions - X60 Pro only with mono sound

Temperature

The case of the Vivo smartphone heats up within a normal range under permanent load. We also analyze the SoC's temperature behavior under continuous load with the 3DMark stress tests. The X60 Pro achieves very good rates here, which attest to the upper-class phone's constant performance.

Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Wild Life Stress Test
Wild Life Stress Test
Wild Life Stress Test
Wild Life Stress Test
3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Vivo X60 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
99.3 (4215min - 4246max) % ∼100%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92.8 (5440min - 5882max) % ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
90.2 (5064min - 5613max) % ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S21+
Mali-G78 MP14, Exynos 2100 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
65.8 (3805min - 5781max) % ∼66% -34%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56.2 (3203min - 5696max) % ∼57% -43%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X60 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
99.6 (1230min - 1235max) % ∼100%
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
96.9 (1429min - 1479max) % ∼97% -3%
Max. Load
 38.7 °C
102 F
38.4 °C
101 F
36.1 °C
97 F
 
 38.1 °C
101 F
38.8 °C
102 F
36.6 °C
98 F
 
 37.4 °C
99 F
37 °C
99 F
35.8 °C
96 F
 
Maximum: 38.8 °C = 102 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
35.7 °C
96 F
36.9 °C
98 F
37.4 °C
99 F
35.2 °C
95 F
37.1 °C
99 F
36.9 °C
98 F
34.1 °C
93 F
35.6 °C
96 F
36.5 °C
98 F
Maximum: 37.4 °C = 99 F
Average: 36.2 °C = 97 F
Power Supply (max.)  29.8 °C = 86 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.4 °C / 99 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 38.8 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.4 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Speaker

The X60 Pro only has a mono speaker, but it offers a high maximum volume of 94 dB(A) and a quite linear reproduction. For those who prefer a wireless variant via Bluetooth 5.1, the codecs AAC, LDAC as well as aptX, aptX HD and aptX Adaptive are available.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.741.82531.844.73126.5414023.645.25038.547.8633042.48027.645.610024.548.712514.851.916018.352.620015.953.925016.656.731515.360.340014.261.850015.166.363014.165.880012.572100014.776.1125015.176.7160014.779.9200014.385.8250014.788.8315014.585.8400014.374.2500014.177.9630014.377.7800014.477.21000014.376.81250014.369.51600013.162.4SPL26.794.1N0.891median 14.5median 72Delta0.77.92634.528.328.623.329.224.328.833.936.422.527.722.525.923.925.617.23719.948.916.548.613.350.917.656.82055.919.66623.268.613.270.712.672.412.674.91473.512.776.512.777.513.278.613.774.613.773.913.974.113.473.31474.614.768.815.763.227.386.80.967.5median 14median 70.72.79.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X60 ProXiaomi Mi 11
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X60 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (94.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Mi 11 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life - Vivo phone with Fast Charging

Energy consumption

The consumption of the X60 Pro is overall okay, although the power consumption in idle mode could have been a bit more efficient. When fully discharged, the Vivo phone needs about 60 minutes with the included 33-watt power supply until it reaches 100 percent battery charge again.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.37 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.93 / 1.52 / 1.55 Watt
Load midlight 4.69 / 7.92 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Vivo X60 Pro
4200 mAh
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
4600 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 11
4600 mAh
OnePlus 9
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S21+
4800 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-22%
-40%
-28%
-1%
-4%
-8%
Idle Minimum *
0.93
1
-8%
1.57
-69%
0.9
3%
0.74
20%
0.863 (0.76 - 0.93, n=3)
7%
0.934 (0.37 - 2.5, n=234, last 2 years)
-0%
Idle Average *
1.52
1.99
-31%
1.92
-26%
1.7
-12%
1.27
16%
1.437 (1.29 - 1.52, n=3)
5%
1.843 (0.65 - 3.94, n=234, last 2 years)
-21%
Idle Maximum *
1.55
2.02
-30%
1.94
-25%
2.7
-74%
1.33
14%
1.7 (1.45 - 2.1, n=3)
-10%
2.1 (0.69 - 4.2, n=234, last 2 years)
-35%
Load Average *
4.69
5.15
-10%
6.32
-35%
5.4
-15%
6.32
-35%
5.33 (4.6 - 6.7, n=3)
-14%
4.46 (2.1 - 8.4, n=234, last 2 years)
5%
Load Maximum *
7.92
10.36
-31%
11.65
-47%
11.1
-40%
9.61
-21%
8.43 (7.92 - 8.87, n=3)
-6%
7.24 (3.16 - 12.3, n=234, last 2 years)
9%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910113.994.233.963.993.221.9694.122.213.644.914.344.421.8572.314.471.864.651.8642.693.22.121.8394.731.8544.494.54.524.142.013.921.9035.545.735.75.392.23.971.8844.442.532.751.8864.524.723.692.231.8665.124.144.284.852.782.564.794.681.9261.841.8672.115.755.765.595.715.725.725.695.755.786.568.458.035.087.977.57.894.384.96.557.557.377.647.727.721.9827.061.996.882.147.146.451.9731.9466.56.446.522.156.485.361.9396.171.9526.076.242.076.325.021.9236.311.9856.286.296.28.272.138.918.592.079.097.767.368.127.597.031.9872.954.968.057.488.027.877.997.467.997.268.038.012.14.234.317.438.668.598.438.48.258.658.262.235.722.172.051.9452.345.451.4652.883.643.53.543.352.61.6273.32.262.033.173.973.84.11.4353.541.6021.6623.73.653.581.5713.711.3913.361.3584.714.484.564.441.4363.281.6345.3755.052.731.4622.314.34.241.4524.221.4983.763.922.351.7962.513.753.713.773.653.954.082.674.784.341.6892.233.691.4797.587.217.87.757.247.897.346.987.477.127.527.61.5717.887.117.441.8553.145.797.987.988.027.8651.4534.673.399.251.3818.929.631.4921.4021.3789.099.910.61.5349.943.444.747.891.9447.647.281.48111.14.381.5488.141.6910.29.558.459.531.4919.29.331.4510.810.9119.0910.72.852.149.955.0310.91110.710.58.93106.3610.47.7910.39.91.593.613.393.458.798.147.899.338.558.5510.11.52210.41.5951.686Tooltip
Vivo X60 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G: Ø4.96 (1.839-9.09)
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G: Ø5.28 (1.358-11.1)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

0123456789104.884.854.95.214.684.794.314.257.086.996.966.916.827.167.037.057.127.067.127.047.097.116.997.117.017.156.987.017.0177.097.097.057.047.838.418.328.368.268.438.438.328.318.418.358.388.388.168.098.418.348.48.378.238.338.18.148.538.488.518.68.418.388.338.238.288.388.258.318.238.268.38.195.925.645.856.1810.510.610.610.510.610.710.710.610.710.510.610.610.810.810.810.710.610.910.810.610.610.710.710.610.610.710.710.710.810.710.710.810.610.710.710.810.710.710.710.710.710.710.710.610.610.610.610.610.610.610.710.610.610.510.610.610.610.510.610.810.710.610.710.65.944.884.854.95.214.684.794.314.257.086.996.966.916.827.167.037.057.127.067.127.047.097.116.997.117.017.156.987.017.0177.097.097.057.047.838.418.328.368.268.438.438.328.318.418.358.388.388.168.098.418.348.48.378.238.338.18.148.538.488.518.68.418.388.338.238.288.388.258.318.238.268.38.195.925.645.856.1810.510.610.610.510.610.710.710.610.710.510.610.610.810.810.810.710.610.910.810.610.610.710.710.610.610.710.710.710.810.710.710.810.610.710.710.810.710.710.710.710.710.710.710.610.610.610.610.610.610.610.710.610.610.510.610.610.610.510.610.810.710.610.710.65.941.3261.5671.4061.4011.4061.3741.5991.651.3561.3851.3181.3621.4141.4431.3431.4021.3471.3551.3511.3781.3691.3761.3661.3761.3271.3651.41.3441.3471.3671.361.4361.3371.4491.3571.4061.4591.4081.3681.3771.3531.3441.351.3651.4071.3311.3471.4091.3761.6131.4151.3991.3361.3951.3841.3341.3591.3871.3741.3731.5521.4091.5571.2011.2261.4911.2581.511.7151.7151.2381.2011.5511.7011.5691.5161.2841.4141.581.231.2921.2531.281.3851.3631.2431.261.2171.2461.241.2641.2371.2181.2461.2451.2331.2141.2891.5761.531.4671.2791.2391.2221.2321.61.3181.6071.3161.2391.4271.4211.2711.591.7291.3191.3451.3981.3161.562Tooltip
Vivo X60 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø7.47 (4.25-8.6)
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G; Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø10.3 (5.64-10.9)
Vivo X60 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; Idle 1min: Ø1.39 (1.318-1.65)
Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G; Idle 1min: Ø1.377 (1.201-1.729)

Battery life

In our WLAN test, the X60 Pro shows a decent runtime of eleven hours under practical conditions (display brightness at 150 cd/m²) with a refresh rate of 120 Hz.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 05min
Vivo X60 Pro
4200 mAh
ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
4600 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 11
4600 mAh
OnePlus 9
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S21+
4800 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
665
615
-8%
527
-21%
854
28%
651
-2%

Pros

+ nice feel
+ sizable RAM
+ fast memory
+ performance (previous year) SoC

Cons

- iP52 rating only
- no wireless charging
- only USB 2.0
- no stereo speakers

Conclusion about the Vivo X60 Pro

In review Vivo X60 Pro: Test device provided by Vivo Germany
In review Vivo X60 Pro: Test device provided by Vivo Germany

The Vivo X60 Pro is a lightweight, well-made premium smartphone with a pleasant feel. The bright 120 Hz AMOLED panel is undoubtedly on the plus side as well, although it only offers a 1080p resolution. The performance of the Snapdragon 870 in combination with a lot of RAM ensures a good performance in the Vivo phone. However, a (slightly modified) previous year's SoC is rather the exception in this price range.

Unfortunately, the price (MSRP) is not hot at all.

Overall, the Chinese manufacturer's pricing policy is not entirely comprehensible. The X60 Pro, which is better equipped in China and rather belongs to the upper mid-range, is sold here for an MSRP of 799 Euros (~$942). Compared to a Xiaomi Mi 11, it lacks a number of features, such as wireless charging or stereo speakers, the latest generation of processors, or a WQHD resolution.

Those who accept some sacrifices in terms of the camera will get a better price with the Poco F3, a 120 Hz AMOLED behemoth with Snapdragon 870 and stereo sound for less than half the price of a Vivo X60 Pro.

Price and availability

Vivo's new flagship model, the X60 Pro, is available at a RRP of 799 Euros (~$942) at Cyberport, among others.

Vivo X60 Pro - 07/15/2021 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
54 / 70 → 77%
Weight
90%
Battery
89%
Display
92%
Games Performance
62 / 64 → 96%
Application Performance
87 / 86 → 100%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
75 / 90 → 84%
Camera
74%
Average
81%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Marcus Herbrich
Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Senior Tech Writer - 254 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2016
I have always been very passionately interested in mobile technologies, especially smartphones. Being a tech enthusiast means the half-life of my devices isn’t exactly long, and being the latest hardware is not enough to suffice as the manufacturer and operating system play a minor role – the most important aspect for me is that the device is state-of-the-art. After posting for Mobi Test I joined Notebookcheck in 2016, where I have been pursuing my enthusiasm for technology by reviewing the latest smartphone, tablet, and accessory trends.
contact me via: @Marcus_Herbrich
Ninh Duy
Translator: Ninh Duy - Editorial Assistant - 186543 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2017
My main responsibility as an editorial assistant is maintaining the Library section, which aggregates reviews from other publications and channels. In addition, my daily breakfast is Notebookcheck's long list of new content, which I comb through to select the most interesting topics for translation from English to French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch."
contact me via: Facebook
Please share our article, every link counts!