Notebookcheck Logo

Vivo X90 Pro+ Review: Vivo sets the bar very high with its flagship smartphone

First reference phone of 2023. The Vivo X90 Pro+ is one of the first phones with the new Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 SoC on the market. Apart from high performance, the Vivo Phone offers strong cameras, a very bright LTPO panel, and extensive features — a total package that will have to be beaten by upcoming high-end smartphones.
The Vivo X90 Pro+ in review

Last November, Vivo officially launched its X90 smartphone series in China, including X90 Pro+ as the flagship. The X90 Series can be purchased via import, but there are signs of global availability in the near future. However, this would be without the Pro+ variant, which, as in the previous year, will not be released on the European market.

The X90 Pro+ has a strong set of features befitting a flagship smartphone. Vivo uses a 120 Hz 1,440p+ AMOLED panel with a peak brightness of 1,800 nits and the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 SoC. The Vivo X90 Pro+ also really trumps in the camera setup with Sony's IMX989 — a 1-inch image sensor.

Vivo X90 Pro+ (X90 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 8 x 2 - 3.2 GHz, Cortex-X3 / A715 / A710 / A510 (Kryo)
Graphics adapter
Memory
12 GB 
, LPDDR5x
Display
6.78 inch 20:9, 3200 x 1440 pixel 518 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen , AMOLED, Samsung E6, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 256 GB 
, 219 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 0 USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20Gbps, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-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 5.3, 5G: N1/N2/N3/N5/N7/N8/N12/N20/N28/N38/N40/N41/N66/N77/N78/N79; 4G: FDD-LTE: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28/B66/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41/ B42; 3G:850/1900/2100MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 164.35 x 75.29 ( = 0.38 x 6.47 x 2.96 in)
Battery
4700 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 13
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8, 23mm, OIS) + 50 MP (3.5x optical zoom, f/3.5, 90mm, 1/2.0", 0.7µm) + 50 MP (2x optical zoom, f/1.6, 50mm, 1/2.4", 0.7µm) + 48MP (f/2.2, 14mm, 1/2.0", 0.8µm); 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps, Camera2 API: Level3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f(/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, info material, USB cable, Origin OS, 12 Months Warranty, widevine L1, GNSS: GPS L1+L5, BeiDou, Glonass L1, Galileo E1+E5, SBAS , fanless, waterproof
Weight
221 g ( = 7.8 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 158 g ( = 5.57 oz / 0.35 pounds)
Price
1100 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
90 %
02/2023
Vivo X90 Pro+
SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740
221 g256 GB UFS 4.0 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
89.1 %
02/2023
Xiaomi 13
SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740
189 g256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.36"2400x1080
89.1 %
11/2022
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7
212 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3120x1440
88.5 %
09/2022
Vivo X80 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
215 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.78"3200x1440

Case: Vivo smartphone with punch hole

The casing of the X90 Pro+ is made of Gorilla Glass Vicutus, an aluminum frame, and vegan leather back. The X90 Pro+ feels very premium in the hands, and the 90% screen-body ratio is possible thanks to the narrow edges around the OLED panel. There are hardly any distracting edges on the sides due to the curved display.

The build quality of our review sample is first-rate, and the X90 Pro+ also comes with an official IP68 certification. Thus, the casing is both dust and waterproof.

Vivo X90 Pro+ in red
Vivo X90 Pro+ in red
Vivo X90 Pro+ in black
Vivo X90 Pro+ in black
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+

Size comparison

164.35 mm / 6.47 inch 75.29 mm / 2.96 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs164.57 mm / 6.48 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 215 g0.474 lbs163.3 mm / 6.43 inch 77.9 mm / 3.07 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 228 g0.503 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 212 g0.4674 lbs152.8 mm / 6.02 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 7.98 mm / 0.3142 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

Equipment: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with UFS 4.0

The X90 Pro+ is available in two different versions (12 GB + 256 GB and 12 GB + 512 GB). The internal UFS 4.0 storage has a capacity of 256 GB in our review sample, but the user only gets about 219 GB of free space in the state of delivery. If the storage is not enough, you will have to buy the larger storage SKU because the Vivo flagship does not support expansion via micro-SD cards.

Other features include Miracast, Bluetooth 5.3, and NFC including Google Pay (a Play Protect certification is available). Peripherals, such as a memory stick, can be connected via the USB-C port using an OTG adapter. The USB interface's data transfer is based on the 3.2 Gen1 standard.

Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+

Software: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with Android 13

The X90 Pro+ is not based on the Funtouch OS that is common with Vivo phones but on the Chinese equivalent called Origin OS. The UI is based on Android 13 but is strongly adapted to the Chinese market.

Nevertheless, many languages including German, can be selected. Even Google Services can be activated easily, so the Google Play Store and other Google apps can be used relatively smoothly. Streaming content in high resolution is also possible thanks to the Widevine L1 certification.

Origin OS 3 came with December 2022 security patches at the time of testing. How long does Vivo plan to support the X90 Pro+ with OS upgrades and security updates is not yet officially known.

Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+

Communication and GNSS: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Wi-Fi 6

The X90 Pro+ supports access to the mobile 5G network and a wide range of 4G frequencies. The Vivo phone can access a total of 22 LTE bands, including bands 20 and 28.

The flagship phone offers fast Wi-Fi 6 within the domestic WLAN, which is sufficient for average transfer rates of over 900 Mbps in combination with our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router, but the 6 GHz frequency range (Wi-Fi 6E) is missing.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1383 (1126min - 1462max) MBit/s +49%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
931 (890min - 944max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
904 (453min - 912max) MBit/s -3%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
894 (803min - 944max) MBit/s -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
716 (539min - 791max) MBit/s -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (34.8 - 1875, n=214, last 2 years)
651 MBit/s -30%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1328 (378min - 1471max) MBit/s +35%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
981 (965min - 1014max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
945 (917min - 968max) MBit/s -4%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
770 (459min - 912max) MBit/s -22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (40.5 - 1810, n=215, last 2 years)
686 MBit/s -30%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
521 (311min - 704max) MBit/s -47%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
1894 (955min - 1923max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1704 (852min - 1767max) MBit/s
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1645 (1586min - 1695max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone
  (229 - 1894, n=64, last 2 years)
1532 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1743 (1585min - 1798max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1702 (1642min - 1735max) MBit/s
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
1656 (1620min - 1684max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone
  (598 - 1844, n=64, last 2 years)
1362 MBit/s
075150225300375450525600675750825900975105011251200127513501425Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Qualcomm Adreno 740; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø925 (890-944)
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1380 (1126-1462)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Qualcomm Adreno 740; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø982 (965-1014)
Vivo X80 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1306 (378-1471)
GPS test in the building
GPS test in the building
Outdoor GPS test
Outdoor GPS test

In order to assess the GPS tracking accuracy in practice, we record a route with the Garmin Venu 2 in parallel for comparison purposes.

The detailed course hardly reveals any inaccuracies for the X90 Pro+ and shows a very accurate tracking overall.

Vivo X90 Pro+ vs. Garmin Venu 2
Vivo X90 Pro+ vs. Garmin Venu 2

Telephony and voice quality: Vivo smartphone with dual-SIM

X90 Pro+: Default dialer app
X90 Pro+: Default dialer app

The dual-SIM smartphone from Vivo supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the home Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi calling). Like the X80 Pro, the current flagship lacks eSIM support.

The voice quality does not pose any surprises, and the installed microphones transmit the voice intelligibly to the caller. Video calls via the built-in front-facing camera and the built-in speaker via the Skype app also worked without problems in the test.

Cameras: Vivo X90 Pro+ with Sony IMX989

Selfies with the Vivo X90 Pro+ are sharp with high-contrast
Selfies with the Vivo X90 Pro+ are sharp with high-contrast

The X90 Pro+, along with cooperation from Zeiss, combines a 50 MP main camera based on the Sony IMX989 sensor along with a 48 MP ultra-wide-angle lens, a 50 MP portrait camera, and a 64 MP periscope telephoto lens.

The heart of the camera unit, the large 1-inch Sony sensor, offers really good shots in daylight as well as at night. The photos have a wide dynamic range, but there are also weaknesses in sharpness levels from time to time. The Vivo phone can also convince in terms of color reproduction, but the X90 Pro+ often captures the subjects quite cool.

We also measured low DeltaE deviations in the ColorChecker under controlled lighting conditions, with the exception of green tones.

Besides the solid ultra-wide-angle camera, which is actually the weakest lens in the camera quartet, the Vivo X90 Pro+ also has excellent zoom qualities. Especially at 5x lossless magnification, the X90 Pro+ preserves a lot of details. Even the 100x zoom is quite usable.

2x zoom
2x zoom
5x zoom
5x zoom
10x zoom
10x zoom
100x zoom
100x zoom
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
Vivo X90 Pro+ camera UI
 

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.

HauptkameraHauptkameraLow LightUltraweitwinkelZoom 5x
ColorChecker
9 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
4 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
1.3 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro+: 5.49 ∆E min: 1.28 - max: 11.31 ∆E
ColorChecker
26.6 ∆E
37.6 ∆E
30.6 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
42.8 ∆E
35.5 ∆E
24.2 ∆E
26 ∆E
26.7 ∆E
42.9 ∆E
46.6 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
33.8 ∆E
21.9 ∆E
36.2 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
32.6 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro+: 31.42 ∆E min: 13.91 - max: 46.57 ∆E

Accessories and warranty: Vivo X90 Pro+ comes with a power adapter

The scope of delivery consists of a USB cable, a very high-quality protective case, and a modular 80 W CN power supply. TradingShenzhen also includes an EU adapter for the sockets used in this country, but this is not part of the standard scope of delivery and is a service of the lender.

The warranty is 12 months. Our review sample from TradingShenzhen also offers the option of sending the X90 Pro+ to a German shipping address in case of a warranty claim.

Input devices and operation: Vivo phone with huge fingerprint sensor

Thanks to the high refresh rate up to 120 Hz, even fast scrolling passages are displayed smoothly. The huge ultrasonic fingerprint sensor underneath the OLED panel is not only one of the fastest on the market but is also reliable for detecting two fingers in parallel.

The Qualcomm 3D Sonic Ultrasonic sensor is clearly a unique selling point for the flagship. A relatively insecure 2D FaceUnlock feature is also on board.

Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+

Display: Vivo X90 Pro Plus with OLED

Sub-pixel matrix
Sub-pixel matrix

The X90 Pro+ has a 6.78-inch LTPO AMOLED display with a high resolution of 3200 x 1440 pixels and supports an adaptive refresh rate of up to 120 Hz — we could read a minimum frequency of 5 Hz from the system in the test.

In terms of brightness, illumination and sharpness, the Vivo flagship can convince all along by achieving an average brightness of over 1,100 cd/m² in a full white display. In the APL18 measurement, we find the brightness to be 1,614 cd/m² in the center of the screen. Thus, the panel is very well suited for reproducing HDR content.

Due to the OLED technology, the Vivo phone is not spared from screen flickering. Below a display brightness of 43%, the PWM frequency fluctuates around the native refresh rate of 120 Hz (66 to 222 Hz). Above this brightness setting, the PWM increases up to 706 Hz. Using DC dimming (anti-fatigue mode), the flickering amounts to a constant 120 Hz.

1114
cd/m²
1117
cd/m²
1151
cd/m²
1106
cd/m²
1109
cd/m²
1134
cd/m²
1137
cd/m²
1118
cd/m²
1130
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 1151 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1124 cd/m² Minimum: 1.99 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 1109 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Vivo X90 Pro+
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.80
Xiaomi 13
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.36
Google Pixel 7 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.70
Vivo X80 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78
Screen
8%
-1%
12%
9%
Brightness middle
1109
1077
-3%
1209
9%
1022
-8%
938
-15%
Brightness
1124
1093
-3%
1208
7%
1025
-9%
947
-16%
Brightness Distribution
96
97
1%
98
2%
99
3%
97
1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
1.1
1.2
-9%
1.2
-9%
0.9
18%
0.9
18%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
2.7
2
26%
3
-11%
2.1
22%
1.9
30%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
2
1.3
35%
2.1
-5%
1.1
45%
1.3
35%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.37 93%
2.26 97%
2.22 99%
2.2 100%
CCT
6605 98%
6526 100%
6504 100%
6650 98%
6518 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 222 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 222 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 222 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17803 (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 %

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

We examine the OLED panel's color calibration using the Calman analysis software. The quite large DCI-P3 color space is controlled in the factory settings. Besides the Zeiss mode, three other modes are also available. Our measurement with the spectrophotometer results in very low average Delta-E deviations of 1.1 (colors) and 2.0 (grayscale) for the Zeiss profile.

Color accuracy (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Color accuracy (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Color space (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Color space (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Grayscale (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Grayscale (target color space: P3; profile: Zeiss)
Color saturation(Target color space: P3; Profile: Zeiss)
Color saturation(Target color space: P3; Profile: Zeiss)

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
0.93 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.5365 ms rise
↘ 0.3895 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.736 ms rise
↘ 0.7055 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 0.2 (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 (33.7 ms).

The X90 Pro+ can compensate bright ambient light very well with its high luminosity. Even the highly reflective surface should hardly lead to problems with readability in direct sunlight. The viewing angle stability of the OLED panel is very good.

Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+
Test Vivo X90 Pro+

Performance: X90 Pro Plus with Qualcomm SoC

As expected from a 2023 flagship, the X90 Pro+ relies on a powerful SoC, namely the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2. The Kryo CPU consists of four clusters with different architectures. A fast Cortex-X3 prime core (3.2 GHz) as well as two Cortex-A715 (2.8 GHz) and two Cortex-A710 cores provide very high results in our benchmarks, especially in Geekbench multi-core. However, the achieved scores are a bit below the Xiaomi 13.

Also in the graphics workloads, which are performed by the Adreno 740, the Vivo X90 Pro+ performs very well while the Xiaomi 13 performs about 10 to 15% better.

Thanks to the SoC's high performance and fast UFS 4.0 memory, there are no noticeable lags in everyday use and the system runs smoothly. The same is true for browsing in the Chrome browser, although the benchmarks are quite low.

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1489 Points
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1478 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (1048 - 1574, n=18)
1452 Points -2%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1234 Points -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1154 Points -22%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
1048 Points -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 2138, n=216, last 2 years)
915 Points -39%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
5090 Points +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (4192 - 5243, n=18)
4945 Points +3%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
4786 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3685 Points -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3560 Points -26%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
3222 Points -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (473 - 6681, n=216, last 2 years)
3000 Points -37%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1273775 Points +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (1111522 - 1322448, n=15)
1263746 Points 0%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1262638 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
944782 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
773857 Points -39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (102602 - 1650926, n=149, last 2 years)
746268 Points -41%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
704479 Points -44%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (11562 - 19783, n=20)
15614 Points +22%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
14094 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
12748 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
12579 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4761 - 21385, n=215, last 2 years)
11875 Points -7%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
11397 Points -11%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10140 Points -20%
CrossMark - Overall
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1219 Points +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (778 - 1356, n=18)
1150 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1038 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
942 Points -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
886 Points -15%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
879 Points -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (200 - 1474, n=164, last 2 years)
842 Points -19%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (7354 - 9730, n=18)
8761 Points +14%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
8153 Points +6%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
7684 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7085 Points -8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6319 Points -18%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
6164 Points -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (411 - 11438, n=164, last 2 years)
5868 Points -24%
System
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
13646 Points +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (10786 - 15148, n=18)
13139 Points +2%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
12847 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10464 Points -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2376 - 16475, n=164, last 2 years)
9813 Points -24%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
9765 Points -24%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
9294 Points -28%
Memory
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (6601 - 10821, n=18)
9386 Points +28%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
8179 Points +12%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7492 Points +2%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
7330 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 12716, n=164, last 2 years)
6373 Points -13%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6212 Points -15%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
5456 Points -26%
Graphics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (22837 - 32334, n=18)
27570 Points +21%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
23966 Points +5%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
22837 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
20288 Points -11%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
17104 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
16375 Points -28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 58651, n=164, last 2 years)
14657 Points -36%
Web
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (1077 - 2044, n=18)
1763 Points +13%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
1739 Points +11%
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1698 Points +9%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1652 Points +6%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1564 Points
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2145, n=164, last 2 years)
1510 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1434 Points -8%
UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI
Vivo X80 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
74725 Points +354%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
42662 Points +159%
Average of class Smartphone
  (207 - 84787, n=148, last 2 years)
21505 Points +31%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
16465 Points
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
15961 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
  (11338 - 16880, n=17)
15297 Points -7%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10841 Points -34%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3707 Points +17%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3173 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2456 Points -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1916 Points -40%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1807 Points -43%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3751 Points +18%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3192 Points
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2567 Points -20%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2044 Points -36%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1847 Points -42%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
14038 Points
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
14002 Points 0%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10151 Points -28%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7288 Points -48%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
6721 Points -52%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
120 fps 0%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
118 fps -2%
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
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
490 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
395 fps -19%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
302 fps -38%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
267 fps -46%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
251 fps -49%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps +1%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
119 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
108 fps -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
84 fps -29%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps -50%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
299 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
257 fps -14%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
187 fps -37%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
147 fps -51%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
139 fps -54%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps +13%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
106 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps -33%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps -43%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 fps -47%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
218 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
181 fps -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
127 fps -42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps -54%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
99 fps -55%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
93 fps +50%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
62 fps
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
49 fps -21%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps -37%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
37 fps -40%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
127 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
105 fps -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps -46%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps -46%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
50 fps -61%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
66 fps +32%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
52 fps +4%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
50 fps
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps -38%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
28 fps -44%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
61 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
56 fps -8%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps -44%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps -49%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps -51%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
113 fps +41%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
80 fps
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps -25%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps -47%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
38 fps -52%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
156 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
142 fps -9%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps -44%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
75 fps -52%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps -56%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
143.264 Points +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (62.7 - 179.2, n=19)
129.5 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
116.455 Points
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=170, last 2 years)
107.8 Points -7%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
98.153 Points -16%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
96.8 Points -17%
Vivo X80 Pro
72.786 Points -37%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (62.9 - 199, n=15)
127.9 runs/min
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
113 runs/min
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=154, last 2 years)
109.8 runs/min
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
108 runs/min
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
104 runs/min
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
87.9 runs/min
WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
139 Points
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
136 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (28 - 183, n=18)
127.3 Points -8%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 202, n=160, last 2 years)
101 Points -27%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
90 Points -35%
WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (115 - 238, n=9)
199.8 Points
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=118, last 2 years)
136 Points
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
124 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
98 Points
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
79 Points
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (19870 - 65418, n=21)
45018 Points +61%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
44631 Points +60%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
44245 Points +58%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
43632 Points +56%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
34055 Points +22%
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=215, last 2 years)
33521 Points +20%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
27938 Points
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
1773.4 ms *
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=170, last 2 years)
1545 ms * +13%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
1259 ms * +29%
Vivo X80 Pro (Chrome 103)
1240.1 ms * +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (654 - 1837, n=18)
1035 ms * +42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
1011.5 ms * +43%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
870.7 ms * +51%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo X90 Pro+Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5GXiaomi 13Google Pixel 7 ProVivo X80 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 4.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-43%
4%
-55%
-34%
-6%
-48%
Sequential Read 256KB
3397.4
1653
-51%
3454.01
2%
1346.78
-60%
1856.39
-45%
Sequential Write 256KB
2834.4
1074
-62%
2722.77
-4%
874.73
-69%
1424.91
-50%
2443 ?(1014 - 3346, n=19)
-14%
Random Read 4KB
373.88
322.3
-14%
393.81
5%
219.01
-41%
303.72
-19%
Random Write 4KB
484.29
273.1
-44%
536.76
11%
253.18
-48%
382.17
-21%

Emissions - Vivo X90 Pro Plus stays cool

Temperature

The casing of the X90 Pro+ hardly warms up under load in our stability test. Nevertheless, the Vivo phone reveals a reduction in performance in the 3DMark stress tests.

That being said, the system performance is more stable than in the X80 Pro with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 and offers significantly better performance at the same time.

Max. Load
 30.6 °C
87 F
30.3 °C
87 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
 30.3 °C
87 F
31.1 °C
88 F
29.7 °C
85 F
 
 30.7 °C
87 F
30.1 °C
86 F
29.9 °C
86 F
 
Maximum: 31.1 °C = 88 F
Average: 30.4 °C = 87 F
29.2 °C
85 F
29.2 °C
85 F
28.3 °C
83 F
29.2 °C
85 F
29.5 °C
85 F
30 °C
86 F
29 °C
84 F
30.3 °C
87 F
30.4 °C
87 F
Maximum: 30.4 °C = 87 F
Average: 29.5 °C = 85 F
Power Supply (max.)  25.2 °C = 77 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.4 °C / 87 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 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
88.5 %
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
78.9 % -11%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68.1 % -23%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67.9 % -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
58.5 % -34%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
87 %
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
79.1 % -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
75.6 % -13%
Vivo X80 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
73.3 % -16%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
61.8 % -29%
05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø21.4 (19.4-22.3)
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø9.2 (7.76-12.6)
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø20.6 (17.7-22.4)
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø9.93 (8.31-11)
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)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø76.6 (70.7-80)
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø32.2 (25.9-44.2)
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø68.6 (62.7-79.5)
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø32.8 (26.2-38.6)
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)
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø32.3 (26.8-43.4)
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø80 (76.5-84.2)
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø36.5 (30.7-39.8)
Vivo X90 Pro+ - Front
Vivo X90 Pro+ - Back

Loudspeaker

The Vivo flagship relies on two speakers with a high maximum volume of over 90 dB. Our measurement shows a fairly linear frequency response for the mids in the X90 Pro+, but the highs and especially the super high tones drop significantly. A wired or wireless headphone solution via USB-C and Bluetooth 5.3 is also available.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2028.842.92526.334.23125.630.84018.630.15030.233.36320.531.78019.529.610018.432.212513.638.616011.654.62001257.32501256.931510.157.540010.159.150010.567.963010.371.88001071.710009.873.9125011.376.3160011.278.8200011.479.5250011.978.8315013.982.5400014.781.650001479.6630014.678.4800013.574.81000013.371.51250013.764.31600013.956SPL24.890.4N0.681.4median 12median 71.8Delta1.710.53533.93030.921.926.822.832.334.842.524.331.623.23327.831.514.733.720.950.221.250.717.55513.46114.164.113.167.511.571.413.175.511.780.511.879.21380.212.180.612.180.812.380.412.577.41378.113.272.71367.213.768.813.569.314.266.425.190.20.779.8median 13.1median 71.41.511.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X90 Pro+Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X90 Pro+ audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Power consumption: Vivo phone with 80 W charging

Energy consumption

The 4,700 mAh strong battery can be charged with 80 W wired or 50 W wireless charging. The power consumption of the X90 Pro+ is above the Xiaomi 13. Especially in idle mode, the Vivo phone consumes a lot of power at over 1.7 W.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.16 / 0.32 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.92 / 1.76 / 1.88 Watt
Load midlight 3.65 / 6.24 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 X90 Pro+
4700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
Xiaomi 13
4500 mAh
Google Pixel 7 Pro
5000 mAh
Vivo X80 Pro
4700 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-8%
21%
10%
-17%
-34%
-11%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
0.58
37%
0.76
17%
0.78
15%
0.92
-0%
1.054 ?(0.7 - 2.37, n=20)
-15%
Idle Average *
1.76
0.71
60%
1.1
37%
1.61
9%
2.04
-16%
1.781 ?(0.8 - 7.18, n=20)
-1%
Idle Maximum *
1.88
1.16
38%
1.13
40%
1.63
13%
2.05
-9%
1.965 ?(1.07 - 8.22, n=20)
-5%
Load Average *
3.65
7.07
-94%
2.99
18%
3.29
10%
4.29
-18%
7.13 ?(2.61 - 15.3, n=20)
-95%
Load Maximum *
6.24
11.32
-81%
6.63
-6%
6.01
4%
8.75
-40%
9.66 ?(4.57 - 17.8, n=20)
-55%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910111213Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø6.3 (1.574-11.4)
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø5.84 (0.888-13.8)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.833 (0.772-1.019)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.77 (9.38-10.2)
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø7.55 (6.97-8.54)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.833 (0.772-1.019)

Battery life

The Vivo X90 Pro+ offers 15 hours of battery run time that is mostly on par with the Galaxy S22 Ultra when tested with a display brightness of 150 cd/m² and 1440p resolution including adaptive refresh rate. The battery can be charged from 0 to 100% in about 35 minutes.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome Beta 110)
15h 05min
Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing
Xiaomi 13
4500 mAh
1021 min +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (424 - 2844, n=228, last 2 years)
919 min +2%
Vivo X90 Pro+
4700 mAh
905 min
Vivo X80 Pro
4700 mAh
852 min -6%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
844 min -7%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
5000 mAh
676 min -25%

Pros

+ bright LTPO panel
+ strong performance
+ excellent fingerprint sensor
+ valuable casing
+ good photo qualities

Cons

- no WiFi 6E
- no eSIM
- Ultra-wide-angle camera with weaknesses

Verdict

In review: Vivo X90 Pro+. Test device provided by TradingShenzhen
In review: Vivo X90 Pro+. Test device provided by TradingShenzhen

The Vivo X90 Pro+ paves the way and shows how flagships have to fare in 2023 to be competitive in the high-end segment. The Chinese manufacturer's flagship smartphone offers excellent imaging capabilities — with the exception of the ultra-wide-angle lens. You also get performance and features that are beyond doubt in everyday use including fast UFS 4.0 storage and a bright and energy-efficient LTPO-4 panel. Thanks to the energy-efficient components, the run times of the X90 Pro+ are just as appealing despite the high resolution and frame rate.

Vivo can improve its energy management and charging speed a bit — the latter is still on the level of the X80 Pro. Other Chinese smartphones like Xiaomi and OnePlus are clearly ahead in this case. Small deficiencies in terms of equipment such as Wi-Fi 6E/Wi-Fi 7 and eSIM support can be expected to be closed in the next generation.

Vivo creates a reference phone for 2023 with the X90 Pro+. Unfortunately, it will probably never make it officially to Europe and the USA.

Those who do not feel like importing the Vivo X90 Pro+ will find suitable alternatives with the Samsung Galaxy S23, Google Pixel 7 Pro or Xiaomi 13 Pro.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and availability

The Vivo X90 Pro+ with 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB of flash storage starts at about €1,050 (~US$1,050) at our partner Trading Shenzhen.

Vivo X90 Pro+ - 02/21/2023 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
92%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
67 / 70 → 96%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
94%
Games Performance
74 / 64 → 100%
Application Performance
93 / 86 → 100%
Temperature
95%
Noise
100%
Audio
79 / 90 → 87%
Camera
79%
Average
86%
90%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review.

Pricecompare

Read all 3 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Vivo X90 Pro+ Review: Vivo sets the bar very high with its flagship smartphone
Marcus Herbrich, 2023-02-15 (Update: 2023-02-15)