Notebookcheck Logo

Vivo X80 Pro smartphone review: Primus camera with huge fingerprint sensor

Not only for thick fingers. Vivo is cooperating closely with Zeiss for the X80 Pro's camera. In addition to the well-known gimbal stabilization, Vivo aims to ensure natural color reproduction in a flagship-like smartphone that is visually and technically appealing, but not exactly cheap.

After Vivo shipped a slimmed-down version of the X60 Pro with the X61 in 2020 and completely cancelled the X70 series for Europe last year, the full flagship experience is coming to us this year. As part of the BBK Group, which also includes Oppo, realme, and OnePlus, Vivo is attempting to create a particularly strong camera package and has been working with the German company Zeiss for quite some time in this regard. This not only includes the lenses, but also the software algorithms (since the X80 Pro).

Vivo bundles everything in a visually and technically appealing high-end smartphone that conceals an incredibly large fingerprint sensor under the display, which we already know from the Vivo X Note. Our review reviews whether this is enough to justify the high price of around US$1,300.

Vivo X80 Pro (X Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 8 x 1.8 - 3 GHz, Cortex-X2 / A710 / A510 (Kryo) Waipio
Graphics adapter
Memory
12 GB 
, LPDDR5
Display
6.78 inch 20:9, 3200 x 1440 pixel 518 PPI, Capacitive, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 GB 
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, OTG, IR-Blaster
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 5.2, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 8), LTE (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66), 5G-Sub6 (Band 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.1 x 164.57 x 75.3 ( = 0.36 x 6.48 x 2.96 in)
Battery
4700 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.6, 1/1.3") + 8 MPix (5x optical zoom, f/3.4, 1/4.4", 1.0 µm) + 12 MPix (2x optical zoom, f/1.9, 50 mm, 1/2.93", 1.22 µm) + 48 MPix (f/2.2, 1/2.0"); Camer2-API-Level: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 24 mm, 1/2.8", 0.8 µm)
Additional features
Speakers: Dual, Keyboard: Onscreen, 80W-Charger, Case, SIM-Tool, USB-Cabel (Type-A to Type-C), Headset, Funtouch OS 12, 24 Months Warranty, DRM Widevine L1, Body-SAR: 1.09 W/kg, Head-SAR: 0.98 W/kg; GPS (L1, L5), Glonass (L1), Galileo (E1, E5a), BeiDou (B1, B1C, B2a), QZSS, fanless, waterproof
Weight
215 g ( = 7.58 oz / 0.47 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
1299 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
88.5 %
09/2022
Vivo X80 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
215 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.78"3200x1440
89.4 %
03/2022
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920
228 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"3088x1440
89.2 %
04/2022
Oppo Find X5 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
221 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3216x1440
87.5 %
08/2022
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
204 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"2480x1116
87.6 %
02/2022
Xiaomi 12 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
204 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.73"3200x1440

Case - Lots of glass and great haptics

Worldwide, the Vivo X80 Pro comes in three colors: Cosmic Black, Blue and Orange. The range of these colors, however, may vary from location to location. For example, only Cosmic Black is available in Germany, hence the color of our review sample. Our black smartphone is equipped with an unspecified kind of glass on the front and back. It is matte on the back and feels slightly roughened, which makes it not only haptically pleasing but also fingerprint-proof.

Although the camera is very prominent and protrudes up to 2.1 millimeters, its width ensures that the X80 Pro sits firmly on the table. We particularly like the build quality. Gaps are mostly even; only in the round corners, where the back meets the aluminum frame, are they not quite even. On the other hand, torsional stiffness is very good, which is why the Vivo smartphone hardly makes a peep when we try to bend it.

The X80 Pro is IP68 certified, namely dust- and waterproof. The SIM slot has an aluminum cover and connects seamlessly with the frame, whereas the card holder is made of plastic. 

Size Comparison

164.57 mm / 6.48 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 215 g0.474 lbs163.6 mm / 6.44 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.66 mm / 0.3409 inch 204 g0.4497 lbs163.3 mm / 6.43 inch 77.9 mm / 3.07 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 228 g0.503 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 73.9 mm / 2.91 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs163.28 mm / 6.43 inch 73.56 mm / 2.9 inch 8.41 mm / 0.3311 inch 204 g0.4497 lbs

Equipment - Vivo X80 Pro without microSD support

The Vivo X80 Pro possesses a USB 3.2 port (Gen. 1), which not only enables fast data transfers, but also wired image output to HDMI or DisplayPort interfaces, provided an optional adapter is used.

The remaining equipment is quite comprehensive and includes NFC, Bluetooth 5.2, an IR blaster for controlling home entertainment devices, climate control, cameras and more. The lack of options for memory expansion via microSD card is certainly acceptable due to the large memory, but a UWB chip could have been installed for this price range.

Top: IR blaster, microphone
Top: IR blaster, microphone
Left side
Left side
Right: volume rocker, power button
Right: volume rocker, power button
Bottom: Speaker, USB, microphone, SIM
Bottom: Speaker, USB, microphone, SIM

Software - Vivo smartphone with Funtouch OS

The Vivo X80 Pro comes with Google Android 12 and the in-house Funtouch OS. In Asia, Vivo now uses Origin OS, which is used in the X Note, among others, and is also based on Android. So far, however, there are no plans to roll this out to the rest of the world.

The Vivo smartphone is supposed to receive updates for three years, but the manufacturer does not give any specific information about the update interval for the security patches. At the time of review, the last patch was from July 1, 2022 and thus up to date.

Vivo pre-installs a few third-party apps, but they can be easily uninstalled. 

Communication & GNSS - No 6GHz WiFi for the Vivo X80 Pro

The Vivo X80 Pro houses modern communication equipment. At best, it can access the data network with 5G Sub6 and enjoys the support of a broad range of frequency bands.

Wi-Fi 6 is available for local Wi-Fi networks. Unfortunately, Vivo does not support the 6 GHz band. In tandem with our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router, the X80 Pro achieves very high transmission rates thanks to VHT160 support, but these are not always stable in the send direction. Then again, this should not be noticeable in everyday use. 

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1465 (1307min - 1536max) MBit/s ∼100% +6%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1383 (1126min - 1462max) MBit/s ∼94%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
900 (844min - 951max) MBit/s ∼61% -35%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
820 (799min - 837max) MBit/s ∼56% -41%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
716 (539min - 791max) MBit/s ∼49% -48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (44.3 - 1736, n=115, last 2 years)
610 MBit/s ∼42% -56%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1328 (378min - 1471max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1214 (516min - 1524max) MBit/s ∼91% -9%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
890 (433min - 934max) MBit/s ∼67% -33%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
831 (428min - 859max) MBit/s ∼63% -37%
Average of class Smartphone
  (57.7 - 1710, n=116, last 2 years)
657 MBit/s ∼49% -51%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
521 (311min - 704max) MBit/s ∼39% -61%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1704 (852min - 1767max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (853 - 1768, n=14, last 2 years)
1440 MBit/s ∼85%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1702 (1642min - 1735max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (598 - 1751, n=14, last 2 years)
1309 MBit/s ∼77%
0801602403204004805606407208008809601040112012001280136014401520Tooltip
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1380 (1126-1462)
Xiaomi 12 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1463 (1307-1536)
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1306 (378-1471)
Xiaomi 12 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1197 (516-1524)
GPS: outdoors
outdoors
GPS: indoors
indoors
GPSTest: connected GNSS
GNSS

Unfortunately, the Vivo X80 Pro refused to work together with our GNSS tracking app, which is why we are unable to present the usual comparison with the Gamin Venu 2 here. The app opens and also starts recording, but shuts down without warning in the course of the ride. A later system- and app update did not bring about any improvement either.

Localization is very fast and accurate outdoors, and the deviations minimal, even indoors, which is certainly due to the broad network support. 

Telephony & Voice Quality

The Vivo X80 Pro has a good communication quality in both directions, namely listening and speaking. Noise suppression is noticeable. In speaker mode, the user of the Vivo smartphone echoes a little, but is otherwise well understood.

The X80 Pro supports Wi-Fi telephony as well as VoLTE. Two physical nano-SIM slots are available for SIM cards, but eSIM support is not available. SIP account management is integrated directly into the telephony app for this purpose.

Cameras - Strong quad camera in the Vivo X80 Pro

Selfie with the Vivo X80 Pro
Selfie with the Vivo X80 Pro

The front-facing camera in the display enables decent selfies and also has access to numerous settings. While only a few filters are available in the normal photo mode, the portrait options can be customized more extensively. For example, the aperture for the bokeh can be adjusted and different filters (with or without AR) or even make-up effects can be selected. Likewise, posture templates can be faded in to recreate poses more easily. Videos, however, can only be recorded in 1080p at 30 FPS, but can still make use of several beauty filters.

The showpiece is the camera setup on the back. The main sensor (aspect ratios: 1:1, 4:3, 16:9 and full screen) once again makes use of the gimbal stabilization of the predecessor, and now also provides control over the horizontal viewing axis, which ensures that even when the smartphone is rotated 360°, the recorded image does not rotate. In addition, the lenses have a Zeiss T-coating, which is supposed to reduce flare and ghosting. 

Photos in daylight are impressive via all lenses and deliver a correspondingly good image quality. Those who prefer natural colors can activate the Zeiss mode, but even without it, the colors do not show any oversaturation or other aberrations. Furthermore, additional shooting modes remain integrated in the camera app.

The ultra-wide-angle not only delivers lot of resolution, but also a clear correction of the lens curvature. No aberrations were registered. Only the in-depth details could be a bit clearer. The ultra-wide angle can also be used as a macro lens, and there are also two optical zooms. The 2x magnification is primarily used as a portrait lens, but can also be used for normal photos. The fivefold periscope is quite compact, but does not show particularly good imaging performance in comparison either. Up to 60x digital magnification is possible.

The Vivo X80 Pro can record videos in all common resolutions up to 8k at 30 FPS, including HDR10+. Ultra HD and Full HD are available at up to 60 FPS. Those who want to use Ultra or 360° stabilization have to limit themselves to 1080p (60 FPS). The aspect ratio is fixed at 16:9, while the film option uses 21:9, but can also film in Ultra HD at 30 FPS at best. The Zeiss Cinematic mode is even limited to Full HD at 24 frames per second. 

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.

Main cameraMain cameraUltra wide angle5x zoomLow light shot
click to load images

Our positive impressions from everyday use are further confirmed under controlled lighting conditions. The Vivo X80 Pro tidily reproduces our test chart without going overboard with the sharpness, and there is hardly any loss of sharpness even in the peripheral areas.

The ColorChecker is displayed very naturally when Zeiss mode is used. But even without this, the Vivo smartphone does not show any serious outliers (DeltaE: 3.23 - 8.99, average: 6.03).

ColorChecker
5.5 ∆E
1.8 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
2 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
3 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
4 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
5 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X80 Pro: 4.3 ∆E min: 1.77 - max: 7.89 ∆E
ColorChecker
23.3 ∆E
37.1 ∆E
31.1 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
35.2 ∆E
46.4 ∆E
34 ∆E
26.3 ∆E
25.3 ∆E
25.5 ∆E
48 ∆E
49.2 ∆E
21.8 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
21.3 ∆E
42.6 ∆E
32.8 ∆E
36.2 ∆E
32.1 ∆E
38.5 ∆E
40.9 ∆E
33.1 ∆E
22.9 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X80 Pro: 32.53 ∆E min: 13.42 - max: 49.22 ∆E

Accessories & Warranty - Large scope of delivery

The Vivo X80 Pro comes with a modular 80-watt power adapter, a matching USB cable, SIM tool, a black protective cover and a headset (USB-C). A charging station with a Qi-Pad is offered as an option.  

Vivo grants a 24-month guarantee in Germany. This may vary in other countries, so be sure to check with your supplier before purchasing.

Input Devices & Operation - Huge ultrasonic FPS in the X80 Pro

The Vivo X80 Pro uses a capacitive touchscreen that detects up to ten touches simultaneously and works at a sampling rate of 300 Hz. Inputs are reliably recognized and quickly implemented. The factory-applied protective film offers good gliding properties, but does not cover the entire front glass surface.

A real highlight is the large 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, which, according to Vivo, is 11.1 times larger than in conventional models. We immediately noticed the difference because instead of having to lift the finger up and down a number of times in order for detection to take place, a short touch is sufficient. The large surface is much more comfortable for the unlocking process. The recognition is not only very fast, but also precise. In addition, an app lock can be set up, which can then even be secured with two fingers. Furthermore, preselected apps can be opened directly from the lock screen. Additionally or alternatively, a less secure unlocking method in the form of facial recognition can be set up via the front-facing camera. 

Display - Vivo X80 Pro with bright LTPO-AMOLED and 120 Hz

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid

The 6.78-inch AMOLED screen of Vivo's X80 Pro works with QHD-Plus resolution and thus has a very high level of pixel density. This can be reduced to Full HD+ if desired. The refresh rate can optionally be set to 60 or 120 Hz, but can also be completely managed by the system and adapted to the respective content. In testing, we found that this is also the case with the nominally fixed refresh rates, which are gradually reduced to as low as 10 Hz.

Brightness amounts to an average of 947 cd/m² in a pure white display with the ambient light sensor activated. With an even distribution of light and dark areas (APL18), this even increases up to 1,255 cd/m², which should allow for an excellent HDR experience. HDR standards supported on the Vivo smartphone are HLG, HDR10, and HDR10+. Those who prefer to adjust the brightness manually have 467 cd/m² at their disposal.

OLED flickering is most pronounced at minimum display brightness and flickers between 179.6 and 361.7 Hz. Since DC dimming is not possible, sensitive users might find this irritating. We did not register any use of temporal dithering. 

941
cd/m²
940
cd/m²
961
cd/m²
938
cd/m²
938
cd/m²
962
cd/m²
941
cd/m²
936
cd/m²
962
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 962 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 946.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.56 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 938 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.5
94.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.2
Vivo X80 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.80
Oppo Find X5 Pro
AMOLED, 3216x1440, 6.70
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
AMOLED, 2480x1116, 6.80
Xiaomi 12 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.73
Screen
-1%
-8%
-65%
-21%
Brightness middle
938
1077
15%
746
-20%
682
-27%
959
2%
Brightness
947
1093
15%
744
-21%
683
-28%
977
3%
Brightness Distribution
97
97
0%
97
0%
94
-3%
96
-1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.9
1.2
-33%
0.9
-0%
1.8
-100%
1.1
-22%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
1.9
2
-5%
1.6
16%
4.7
-147%
3.1
-63%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.3
1.3
-0%
1.6
-23%
2.4
-85%
1.9
-46%
Gamma
2.2 100%
2.37 93%
2.23 99%
2.16 102%
2.22 99%
CCT
6518 100%
6526 100%
6499 100%
6634 98%
6498 100%

* ... 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 361.7 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 361.7 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 361.7 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19601 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Minimum display brightness
Min.
25% display brightness
25%
50% display brightness
50%
75% display brightness
75%
Maximum manual display brightness
100%

Series of measurements at a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

The color representation of the AMOLED display in the Vivo X80 Pro can be very accurate. To do this, however, the color mode Professional must be selected and the color temperature left at Standard. The panel then only works with the smaller sRGB color space, but color fidelity is then very good.

If you use the factory settings, you get a cooler and more saturated display, which, however, uses the larger DCI-P3 color space.

Grayscale (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Colors (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color mode: Professional, color temperature: Standard, 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
1.74 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.9532 ms rise
↘ 0.7908 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 0.4 (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 (22.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2.52 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.037 ms rise
↘ 1.485 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.9 ms).

The Vivo X80 Pro performs very well outdoors and is very easy to read in any level of lighting, even on very sunny days. The ambient light sensor works very quickly and adjusts the brightness swiftly. 

in the shade
in the shade
in the sun
in the sun

As expected, the viewing-angle stability of the Vivo smartphone is very good. There are no color inversions at any viewing angle, and we did not detect the iridescence that is typical of many OLEDs. At most, the display is a little cooler and the brightness wanes. 

Viewing angle stability of the Vivo X80 Pro
Viewing angle stability of the Vivo X80 Pro

Performance - Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 in the X80 Pro

The Vivo X80 Pro is powered by a Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, which has 12 GB of LPDDR5 working memory. This can be increased by up to 4 GB if necessary and uses the flash storage for this.

The Vivo smartphone gives decent performance values in the CPU and system benchmarks. It only falls behind the competition a little in PCMark. Conversely, the results in the AI tests are even more convincing.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1257 Points ∼100% +2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1234 Points ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1182 - 1298, n=20)
1234 Points ∼98% 0%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
1217 Points ∼97% -1%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1192 Points ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1154 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1885, n=265, last 2 years)
730 Points ∼58% -41%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3738 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3685 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3560 Points ∼95% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (3269 - 3839, n=20)
3554 Points ∼95% -4%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3488 Points ∼93% -5%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
3289 Points ∼88% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 5538, n=265, last 2 years)
2356 Points ∼63% -36%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
962824 Points ∼100% +2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
944782 Points ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (692924 - 1041980, n=17)
930046 Points ∼97% -2%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
922942 Points ∼96% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
856953 Points ∼89% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
704479 Points ∼73% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1119358, n=158, last 2 years)
579836 Points ∼60% -39%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (10140 - 17025, n=21)
13216 Points ∼100% +30%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13131 Points ∼99% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
12579 Points ∼95% +24%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12144 Points ∼92% +20%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
10745 Points ∼81% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 19200, n=212, last 2 years)
10339 Points ∼78% +2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10140 Points ∼77%
CrossMark - Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (749 - 1169, n=13)
993 Points ∼100% +13%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
956 Points ∼96% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
942 Points ∼95% +7%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
879 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
811 Points ∼82% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1332, n=96, last 2 years)
765 Points ∼77% -13%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
749 Points ∼75% -15%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
7665 Points ∼100% +8%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7085 Points ∼92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (6007 - 7665, n=15)
6951 Points ∼91% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6799 Points ∼89% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6319 Points ∼82% -11%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6007 Points ∼78% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (411 - 8753, n=178, last 2 years)
4612 Points ∼60% -35%
System
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10464 Points ∼100% +7%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10340 Points ∼99% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (9273 - 11338, n=15)
10312 Points ∼99% +6%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10006 Points ∼96% +2%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
9873 Points ∼94% +1%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9765 Points ∼93%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2083 - 19657, n=178, last 2 years)
8151 Points ∼78% -17%
Memory
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
8906 Points ∼100% +19%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7492 Points ∼84%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (5125 - 8906, n=15)
6787 Points ∼76% -9%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6523 Points ∼73% -13%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6212 Points ∼70% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 11617, n=178, last 2 years)
5192 Points ∼58% -31%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5125 Points ∼58% -32%
Graphics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
21944 Points ∼100% +8%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
21650 Points ∼99% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (15216 - 22308, n=15)
20338 Points ∼93% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
20288 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
17104 Points ∼78% -16%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
15216 Points ∼69% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 26660, n=178, last 2 years)
8874 Points ∼40% -56%
Web
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
1813 Points ∼100% +7%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1698 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1669 Points ∼92% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1291 - 1888, n=15)
1659 Points ∼92% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1444 Points ∼80% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1434 Points ∼79% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2392, n=178, last 2 years)
1406 Points ∼78% -17%
UL Procyon AI Inference - Overall Score
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
74725 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (61568 - 81722, n=8)
72917 Points ∼98% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
68880 Points ∼92% -8%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
63613 Points ∼85% -15%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
61568 Points ∼82% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (207 - 84787, n=98, last 2 years)
22272 Points ∼30% -70%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10841 Points ∼15% -85%
AImark - Score v2.x
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
72572 Points ∼100% +1042%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1043 - 286905, n=155, last 2 years)
52108 Points ∼72% +720%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (5783 - 96317, n=13)
18331 Points ∼25% +188%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 8192
6442 Points ∼9% +1%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6355 Points ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6217 Points ∼9% -2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5982 Points ∼8% -6%

Graphics processing is handled by the Adreno 730. A Vivo V1 Plus chip is also integrated, which, unlike the MariSilicon X in Oppo's Find X5 Pro, not only supports the DSP, but is also supposed to improve graphics processing. However, this is not noticeable in the benchmarks. The results are good, but not significantly better than other smartphones with the same GPU.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2523 Points ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2513 Points ∼100% +2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2456 Points ∼97%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2188 Points ∼87% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1916 Points ∼76% -22%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2609 Points ∼100% +2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2575 Points ∼99% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2567 Points ∼98%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2528 Points ∼97% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2044 Points ∼78% -20%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10384 Points ∼100% +2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10175 Points ∼98% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10151 Points ∼98%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9593 Points ∼92% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7288 Points ∼70% -28%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9927 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9826 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7236 Points ∼73%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4156 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4150 Points ∼100% 0%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4033 Points ∼97% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3957 Points ∼95% -5%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3902 Points ∼94% -6%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18090 Points ∼100% +2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
17770 Points ∼98%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
14143 Points ∼78% -20%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13950 Points ∼77% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12972 Points ∼72% -27%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10284 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10005 Points ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9149 Points ∼89% -11%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9083 Points ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8612 Points ∼84% -16%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12123 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
11974 Points ∼99%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
11000 Points ∼91% -8%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10958 Points ∼90% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10415 Points ∼86% -13%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
25285 Points ∼100% +3%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
24487 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
20842 Points ∼82% -15%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
20795 Points ∼82% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18689 Points ∼74% -24%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4296 Points ∼100% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4294 Points ∼100%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4153 Points ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4120 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4085 Points ∼95% -5%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
121 fps ∼100% +102%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
118 fps ∼98% +97%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
114 fps ∼94% +90%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
426 fps ∼100% +60%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
425 fps ∼100% +59%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
380 fps ∼89% +42%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
302 fps ∼71% +13%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
267 fps ∼63%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps ∼100% +100%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
117 fps ∼98% +95%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
108 fps ∼90% +80%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
251 fps ∼100% +71%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
193 fps ∼77% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
187 fps ∼75% +27%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
181 fps ∼72% +23%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
147 fps ∼59%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
111 fps ∼100% +85%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps ∼78% +45%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼64% +18%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼54%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 fps ∼50% -7%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
169 fps ∼100% +71%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
127 fps ∼75% +28%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
115 fps ∼68% +16%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
111 fps ∼66% +12%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
99 fps ∼59%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
64 fps ∼100% +31%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
49 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼61% -20%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼61% -20%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼56% -27%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼100% +42%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
70 fps ∼99% +40%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps ∼96% +36%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
63 fps ∼89% +26%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
50 fps ∼70%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
52 fps ∼100%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
52 fps ∼100% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼69% -31%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps ∼60% -40%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
27 fps ∼52% -48%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
40 fps ∼100% +18%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps ∼85% 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps ∼85%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps ∼85% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps ∼75% -12%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
76 fps ∼100% +27%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼79%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
53 fps ∼70% -12%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps ∼58% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼55% -30%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
94 fps ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼98% +6%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps ∼93%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
80 fps ∼85% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps ∼72% -22%

The Vivo X80 Pro's performance in the browser benchmarks is only average and sometimes falls well short of the expected rates. But this unnoticeable in everyday use and web browsing is very smooth. 

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra (Chrome 103.0.5060.71)
130.189 Points ∼100% +79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (72.8 - 130.2, n=15)
106.1 Points ∼81% +46%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
103 Points ∼79% +42%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
96.8 Points ∼74% +33%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
84.1 Points ∼65% +16%
Average of class Smartphone (14.8 - 282, n=175, last 2 years)
73.4 Points ∼56% +1%
Vivo X80 Pro
72.786 Points ∼56%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra (Chrome 103.0.5060.71)
118.5 runs/min ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
108 runs/min ∼91% +23%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
104 runs/min ∼88% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (64.4 - 129.3, n=16)
104 runs/min ∼88% +18%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
87.9 runs/min ∼74%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
73.5 runs/min ∼62% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (12.5 - 375, n=163, last 2 years)
70.3 runs/min ∼59% -20%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (79 - 193, n=15)
142.9 Points ∼100% +81%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
133 Points ∼93% +68%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
124 Points ∼87% +57%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
119 Points ∼83% +51%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 292, n=175, last 2 years)
102.2 Points ∼72% +29%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra (Chrome 103.0.5060.71)
99 Points ∼69% +25%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
79 Points ∼55%
Octane V2 - Total Score
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra (Chrome 103.0.5060.71)
47182 Points ∼100% +6%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
44631 Points ∼95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (27730 - 50626, n=17)
42391 Points ∼90% -5%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
38407 Points ∼81% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
34055 Points ∼72% -24%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
29750 Points ∼63% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (3905 - 74261, n=194, last 2 years)
26793 Points ∼57% -40%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 12437, n=184, last 2 years)
2597 ms * ∼100% -109%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
1330 ms * ∼51% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
1259 ms * ∼48% -2%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
1240.1 ms * ∼48%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
1125 ms * ∼43% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (814 - 1440, n=15)
1020 ms * ∼39% +18%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra (Chrome 103.0.5060.71)
813.5 ms * ∼31% +34%

* ... smaller is better

The 256 GB UFS 3.1 storage of the Vivo smartphone is fast and shows excellent performance in all areas. 

Vivo X80 ProSamsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5GOppo Find X5 ProZTE Axon 40 UltraXiaomi 12 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-15%
-37%
-16%
4%
-16%
-50%
Sequential Read 256KB
1856.39
1653
-11%
1410
-24%
1638.15
-12%
1620
-13%
1773 ?(1014 - 2037, n=64)
-4%
985 ?(45.6 - 1999, n=257, last 2 years)
-47%
Sequential Write 256KB
1424.91
1074
-25%
894
-37%
1065.13
-25%
1465
3%
1034 ?(452 - 1776, n=64)
-27%
561 ?(11.9 - 1776, n=257, last 2 years)
-61%
Random Read 4KB
303.72
322.3
6%
183.7
-40%
313.35
3%
324.9
7%
273 ?(173.5 - 543, n=64)
-10%
182.1 ?(13.5 - 543, n=257, last 2 years)
-40%
Random Write 4KB
382.17
273.1
-29%
210.4
-45%
273.19
-29%
448.9
17%
293 ?(197.5 - 490, n=65)
-23%
183.4 ?(18.4 - 503, n=258, last 2 years)
-52%

Gaming - Vivo smartphone is a real gamer

The Adreno 730 and the fast 120 Hz display ensure that the Vivo X80 Pro is predestined for gaming, since there is plenty of power and nothing stands in the way of high-frame-rate gaming, at least technically. The Vivo smartphone did not reveal any shortcomings in the tested games, which we recorded with GameBench, and delivered appealing and stable frame rates, even in the highest detail settings. However, Dead Trigger 2 stops at 60 FPS, although the game supports up to 120 FPS and the system is nominally strong enough.

A practical additional feature is the Ultra gaming mode, which is not as comprehensive as the X mode of the ROG Phone 6, but still offers a few useful settings, such as disabling notifications so as not to be disturbed during gaming.

PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Dead Trigger 2 with Ultra game mode console
Dead Trigger 2
Ultra game mode settings
USM
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
; Dead Trigger 2; 1.8.18: Ø60 (58-61)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 2.1.0: Ø58.9 (50-61)
; PUBG Mobile; Ultra HD; 2.1.0: Ø39.8 (36-41)

Emissions - Smartphone with good speakers

Temperature

The surface temperatures of the Vivo X80 Pro remain pleasantly low at all times and does not even become lukewarm under constant load.

Inside the smartphone, however, it is a different story. In the 3DMark stress tests, the X80 Pro shows a continuous loss in performance over time, but it still remains slightly faster than the Find X5 Pro. But this is unlikely to be noticeable in everyday use since the performance reserves are very large. 

Max. Load
 33.5 °C
92 F
33.6 °C
92 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
 33.4 °C
92 F
34.2 °C
94 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
 33.6 °C
92 F
34.1 °C
93 F
33 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 34.2 °C = 94 F
Average: 33.5 °C = 92 F
32.2 °C
90 F
32.3 °C
90 F
32 °C
90 F
31.8 °C
89 F
32.5 °C
91 F
32 °C
90 F
32.3 °C
90 F
31.9 °C
89 F
32.5 °C
91 F
Maximum: 32.5 °C = 91 F
Average: 32.2 °C = 90 F
Power Supply (max.)  30.8 °C = 87 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.5 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.5 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68.1 % ∼100%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 % ∼92% -8%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
59.6 % ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
58.5 % ∼86% -14%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
47.2 % ∼69% -31%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
73.3 % ∼100%
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
64.8 % ∼88% -12%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 % ∼86% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
61.8 % ∼84% -16%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
% ∼0% -100%
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø13.2 (11.5-15.7)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø10.9 (9.64-15.4)
Vivo X80 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø46.8 (40.4-59.3)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø41.7 (37.2-59.4)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø43.7 (38.1-60.9)

Speakers

The two speakers of the Vivo X80 Pro have comparatively good sound output. At high volumes, low tones are not very present, which makes the sound a bit hollow. Alternatively, headphones can be connected via the USB-C port or wirelessly via Bluetooth. A wide range of audio codecs (SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, aptX TWS+ and LDAC) are available for the latter.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.634.4252925.23127.826.74025.829.45032.537.56322.426.48024.535.710019.436.312516.541.316018.451.320012.854.62509.955.731511.358.940013.16350011.4726301171.380011.672100012.373.912501273.8160012.477.4200012.280.325001381.3315012.882400013.277.4500013.475.6630013.875800013.3721000013.368.41250013.567.11600013.158.1SPL24.989.4N0.676median 13median 72Delta0.78.635.233.421.727.818.627.921.721.33230.825.727.927.424.424.336.816.345.218.951.717.547.212.35615.757.911.658.511.866.512.468.711.672.312.574.113.172.212.571.413.171.912.871.412.877.212.971.713.367.713.472.813.767.913.76814.46713.759.125.284.20.759.9median 13.1median 67.91.57.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X80 ProXiaomi 12 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X80 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi 12 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 16% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery Life - Vivo X80 Pro with 4,700 mAh

Power Consumption

In our measurements, the Vivo X80 Pro shows increased power consumption when idling, although the LTPO display should actually be more economical here, since it can also lower the refresh rate below 60 Hz.

The Vivo smartphone has a lot to offer in terms of fast charging. Cabled charging has a capacity of 80 watts and a full charge took less than 40 minutes under testing. Wireless charging of 50 watts is also possible, and Vivo offers the corresponding charging station as an option. Users wanting to charge other devices wirelessly can use the smartphone as a charging surface because reverse wireless charging is also supported. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.12 / 0.33 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.92 / 2.04 / 2.05 Watt
Load midlight 4.29 / 8.75 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 X80 Pro
4700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
Oppo Find X5 Pro
5000 mAh
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
5000 mAh
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
10%
13%
8%
9%
-14%
11%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
0.58
37%
1.24
-35%
0.88
4%
0.94
-2%
1.255 ?(0.7 - 3.18, n=15)
-36%
0.886 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=195, last 2 years)
4%
Idle Average *
2.04
0.71
65%
1.39
32%
1.57
23%
1.24
39%
2.02 ?(1.04 - 4.38, n=15)
1%
1.571 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=195, last 2 years)
23%
Idle Maximum *
2.05
1.16
43%
1.42
31%
1.6
22%
1.34
35%
2.21 ?(1.15 - 4.45, n=15)
-8%
1.783 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=195, last 2 years)
13%
Load Average *
4.29
7.07
-65%
3.58
17%
5.06
-18%
5.7
-33%
5.49 ?(3.58 - 8.04, n=15)
-28%
4.34 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=195, last 2 years)
-1%
Load Maximum *
8.75
11.32
-29%
6.99
20%
7.91
10%
8.12
7%
8.75 ?(6.67 - 11.3, n=15)
-0%
7.14 ?(3.56 - 11.7, n=195, last 2 years)
18%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

01234567891011Tooltip
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: Ø5.76 (1.144-11.4)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: Ø5.27 (0.963-10.9)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.59 (8.78-10.7)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.58 (7.9-10.8)
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.378 (1.241-1.559)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.933 (0.856-1.058)

Battery Life

The 4,700 mAh battery of the Vivo X80 Pro is a little smaller than that of some rivals, but it still manages to generate good runtimes. Only the Galaxy S22 Ultra and the Axon 40 Ultra are better in comparison. In the "WLAN browsing" test, which is carried out with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m², only ZTE's smartphone is better.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
28h 48min
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 103)
14h 12min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
15h 43min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 32min
Vivo X80 Pro
4700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
Oppo Find X5 Pro
5000 mAh
ZTE Axon 40 Ultra
5000 mAh
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
Battery Runtime
20%
5%
30%
4%
Reader / Idle
1728
1973
14%
1269
-27%
2446
42%
2036
18%
H.264
943
1078
14%
1142
21%
1468
56%
788
-16%
WiFi v1.3
852
844
-1%
788
-8%
975
14%
766
-10%
Load
272
410
51%
367
35%
296
9%
337
24%

Pros

+ bright and accurate 120 Hz display
+ brisk system
+ good hardware
+ great fingerprint sensor
+ very good photo camera

Cons

- WLAN without 6 GHz
- many video modes only in 1080p
- partly restrictive power management

Verdict: One of the best Android smartphones

In review: Vivo X80 Pro. Sample device provided by Vivo Germany.
In review: Vivo X80 Pro. Sample device provided by Vivo Germany.

The Vivo X80 Pro is one of the best Android smartphones currently available. Under testing, it scores well with its accurate LTPO AMOLED display, which can get very bright. The equipment is also almost complete and includes features such as fast wireless charging, even faster corded charging, IP certification, an IR blaster, good dual speakers and an excellent fingerprint sensor.

The Vivo X80 Pro impresses in most areas, but also has some points of criticism.

Vivo does not leave much room for criticism on the technical side of things. The cameras take great photos, but the low resolution quickly becomes a spoilsport when filming. At least users do not have to worry that the internal storage may be insufficient. On the other hand, an additional storage option would have certainly been desirable for those wanting to make extensive use of Ultra HD or even 8k. The omission of the 6 GHz band in the WLAN is incomprehensible in our view, especially since this should be mandatory in this price range. It would have also been nice to have more than three years of software updates.

Strong alternatives to the Vivo X80 Pro are the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra and the Oppo Find X5 Pro, but also the much cheaper Google Pixel 6 Pro.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and Availability

On the European mainland, the Vivo X80 Pro appears to be widely available via popular online retailers. For example, Amazon offers the smartphone in France and Italy for 1299€.

Outside the European mainland, availabilty becomes sporadic. The Vivo X80 Pro is out of stock at Amazon UK (as of 02.09.2022). We could not find the smartphone listed anywhere in the US, while it is offered in Canada via MI4Canada for CAD$1,495.00. In Australia, Best Mobile Phone offers the smarthpone for AUD$1,680.00. Shopee Mall in Singapore lists the smartphone for SNG$1,699.00.

All prices listed are as of 02.09.2022 and are subject to change.

Vivo X80 Pro - 08/30/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
54 / 70 → 77%
Weight
88%
Battery
90%
Display
94%
Games Performance
60 / 64 → 94%
Application Performance
87 / 86 → 100%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
80 / 90 → 88%
Camera
80%
Average
83%
89%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Vivo X80 Pro smartphone review: Primus camera with huge fingerprint sensor
Daniel Schmidt, 2022-09- 2 (Update: 2022-09- 4)