Notebookcheck Logo

Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review - Can MediaTek's high-end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2?

A questionable upgrade to the X80 Pro. While the Pro+ model of the Vivo X90 series relies on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, the X90 Pro uses the new MediaTek Dimensity 9200. Our review will tell how well the chipset performs in everyday use and what shortcomings Vivo X90 Pro has.
Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review

After we already reviewed the actual flagship of the X90 series, the Vivo X90 Pro+, which is only available in China or as an import, we will take a closer look at the European top model. The Vivo X90 Pro also relies on a camera system with Zeiss branding and Sony's large IMX989 image sensor in a 1-inch format.

The Vivo X90 Pro's features are also impressive. The 6.78-inch, 120 Hz Samsung E6 AMOLED panel has a peak brightness of 1,300 nits, and the fast MediaTek Dimensity 9200 chipset, which is supported by 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage.


Update - 27.02.2023: Vivo Germany has informed us that our review sample is not the intended European version of the X90 Pro, but a version for the Asian region with Funtouch OS. The EU version will replace Vivo's own apps with Google services. The camera settings (including more natural skin tones) are also different and the gaming performance is supposed to be better. 

Vivo X90 Pro (X90 Series)
Processor
MediaTek Dimensity 9200 8 x 1.8 - 3.1 GHz, Cortex-X3 / A715 / A510
Graphics adapter
Memory
12 GB 
, LPDDR5x
Display
6.78 inch 20:9, 2800 x 1260 pixel 453 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 256 GB 
, 221 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 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, IR Blaster
Networking
Wi-Fi 6E (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.3, 5G: N1/N3/N5/N8/N28A/N38/N40/N41/N77 /N78/N79; 4G: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B26/B28A/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41; 3G: 850/1900/2100MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.3 x 164.1 x 74.5 ( = 0.37 x 6.46 x 2.93 in)
Battery
4870 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 13
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8, 23mm, 1.6µm) + 50MP (2x optical zoom, f/1.6, 50mm, 1/2.4", 0.7µm) + 12MP (f/2.0), camera2API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, case, USB cable, info material, Funtouch OS 13, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, NSS: GPS L1+L5, BeiDou, Glonass L1, Galileo E1+E5, SBAS, fanless, waterproof
Weight
214.9 g ( = 7.58 oz / 0.47 pounds), Power Supply: 243 g ( = 8.57 oz / 0.54 pounds)
Price
780 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
89.1 %
02/2023
Vivo X90 Pro
Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11
214.9 g256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.78"2800x1260
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
87 %
08/2022
OnePlus 10T
SD 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730
203.5 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"2412x1080
90 %
02/2023
Vivo X90 Pro+
SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740
221 g256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash6.78"3200x1440

Case - Vivo X90 Pro with Punch-Hole

Vivo X90 Pro only available in black
Vivo X90 Pro only available in black

The Vivo X90 Pro offers, like the Pro+ model, a kind of leather texture and a huge camera module on the back - the Chinese manufacturer calls this Golden Ratio Skyline design. Apart from that, the looks of both X90 smartphones are very similar and the value is also worth emphasizing. Analogous to the predecessor, the X90 Pro comes exclusively in the black color on the local market. A gray variant is also available as an import device.

Like the X80 Pro, the X90 Pro is both dust- and water-resistant according to IP68 standard. With 90.8 percent, the upper-class phone also has a very efficient ratio of the screen to the total surface on the front. Speaking of the display, the manufacturer does not specify which protective glass has been installed in the X90 Pro.

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Size comparison

164.35 mm / 6.47 inch 75.29 mm / 2.96 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs164.1 mm / 6.46 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 214.9 g0.4738 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 212 g0.4674 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.75 mm / 0.3445 inch 203.5 g0.4486 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 smartphone with UFS 4.0

In terms of equipment, the X90 Pro features a dual speaker system, Bluetooth 5.3, fast UFS 4.0 storage, and an NFC chip for contactless payment. In addition, Vivo relies on a USB 3.2 port (Gen. 1), which enables high data transfers and wired image output via HDMI or DisplayPort interfaces. In our copy test including a connected M2.SSD hard drive (Samsung 980 Pro), the USB port's transfer rate is 212 MB/s, which is clearly below the theoretical peak level.

Software - Vivo phone with Android 13

The Vivo X90 Pro comes with Google Android 13 and the in-house Funtouch OS 13 installed. If you are interested in importing the X90 Pro, you should consider that Vivo does not use the Funtouch interface in China, but the Chinese equivalent Origin OS.

Funtouch OS 13 has security patches from January 2023 at the time of the test. How long the Vivo smartphone will enjoy OS upgrades and security updates has not been officially communicated - the X80 Pro had updates for three years.

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Communication and GNSS - Vivo X90 Pro with WiFi 6E

The transfer rates in the home network are high with the Vivo phone since the WLAN module communicates with our reference router Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 in the 2.4 and 5 GHz range as well as via the 6 GHz frequency band. However, the low reception rates in both the 5- and 6-GHz ranges are noticeable. Access to the LTE network including many supported 4G frequencies is guaranteed, and switching to the fast 5G standard is also possible.

Networking
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1787 (min: 928) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
227 (min: 115) MBit/s ∼23%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
229 (min: 219) MBit/s ∼12%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1814 (min: 1250) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000
894 (min: 803) MBit/s ∼50%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
770 (min: 459) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1894 (min: 955) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1656 (min: 1620) MBit/s ∼91%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000
904 (min: 453) MBit/s ∼51%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
945 (min: 917) MBit/s ∼96%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1645 (min: 1586) MBit/s ∼87%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1743 (min: 1585) MBit/s ∼96%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000
934 (min: 768) MBit/s ∼52%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
933 (min: 865) MBit/s ∼95%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000
931 (min: 890) MBit/s ∼52%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
981 (min: 965) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
 
iperf3 receive AXE11000
651 (min: 34.8) MBit/s ∼36%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
686 (min: 40.5) MBit/s ∼70%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1532 (min: 229) MBit/s ∼81%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1362 (min: 598) MBit/s ∼75%
095190285380475570665760855950104511401235133014251520161517101805Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø229 (219-238)
Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1810 (1250-1867)
Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1752 (928-1850)
Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø223 (115-235)
Outdoor locating
Outdoor locating
Locating in the building
Locating in the building

We check the tracking accuracy with a practical test on a bicycle. During our short trip, we recorded the route with a Garmin Venu 2 for comparison purposes. From time to time, the determined curve profiles deviate from the actual route, but the deviations in the detailed view of the GPS recording can still be rated as very low overall.

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

Phone features and voice quality - Vivo phone with DualSIM

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

The dual-SIM smartphone supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the home WLAN (WiFi calling). In contrast to the predecessor Vivo flagship now supports an eSIM.

The voice quality of the X90 Pro is inconspicuous. Voices are reproduced cleanly and our interlocutor also characterized them as clear.

Camera - Vivo smartphone with 1-inch sensor

Photo mode of the Vivo X90 Pro
Photo mode of the Vivo X90 Pro
Portrait mode of the X90 Pro
Portrait mode of the X90 Pro

The 32 MP front-facing camera enables decent selfies, but the relatively dark pictures of the portrait mode are conspicuous.

The centerpiece of the camera group on the back with ZEISS branding is, as with the X90 Pro+, the large 1-inch Sony sensor, which delivers really good pictures during the day as well as at night. The photos sometimes look too brightened, but have a good basic sharpness - sometimes the autofocus does not always fit (see rabbit motifs). The photos tend to be a bit softer, which looks more natural compared to the over-sharpened photo of the Apple iPhone 14 Pro. The Vivo phone cannot completely convince in terms of color reproduction; green tones are displayed a bit too brightly. However, users who prefer natural colors can activate the Zeiss mode.

In contrast to the predecessor the X90 Pro has to do without a high-resolution ultra-wide-angle camera. The photos look a bit noisy even in good light conditions and lack details. In return, the Vivo phone has quite good zoom qualities, although it does not have a periscope camera and only a 2x lossless zoom. However, the X90 Pro retains many details up to a five-fold magnification. The dedicated Vivo V2 image processor and in-house software optimizations ensure solid image quality in this respect.

Ultra wide angle
Wide angle
2x zoom
10x zoom
40x zoom (max)
Wide angle at night
Wide angle at night
Ultra wide angle at night
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Main cameraMain cameraUltra wide-angleLow Light5x Zoom
click to load images
ColorChecker
11.6 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
17.9 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
3 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro: 7.36 ∆E min: 2.47 - max: 17.92 ∆E
ColorChecker
17.1 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
21.7 ∆E
26.7 ∆E
29.2 ∆E
28.2 ∆E
18.9 ∆E
20.1 ∆E
18.8 ∆E
27.2 ∆E
34.2 ∆E
17.1 ∆E
25.3 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
25 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
26.4 ∆E
26.6 ∆E
27.9 ∆E
31.4 ∆E
27.1 ∆E
20.6 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro: 23.77 ∆E min: 12.85 - max: 34.24 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - Vivo X90 Pro with power adapter

The Vivo phone comes with a modular 120-watt power supply, a USB cable, and a protective case. A protective film is also installed ex-factory.

The Warranty is 24 months after the purchase date.

Input devices & operation - Vivo Phone with Ultrasonic fingerprint sensor

A real feature of the predecessor X80 Pro is the huge 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, which we also saw in the X90 Pro+. However, the X90 Pro only has an optical fingerprint sensor, so the area is much smaller, only one finger can be scanned, and the recognition rate cannot keep up with the class leader of the predecessor. It is a pity that Vivo has skimped here. However, the X90 Pro still features biometric authentication via 2D facial recognition using the front-facing camera.

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Display - Vivo X90 Pro with OLED

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

At first glance, not much has changed in the display. Like the predecessor, the OLED panel of the X90 Pro measures 6.78 inches diagonally and has a refresh rate of up to 120 Hz. An adaptive adjustment of the frequency is still not possible, but an automatic switching between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is available. A big difference is seen in the pixel density. While the Vivo X80 Pro is equipped with a QHD+ resolution, the AMOLED display of the X90 Pro only works with Full HD+.

The Vivo smartphone uses PWM with a very low frequency of 60 Hz to control the luminance, which is typical for OLEDs, but the fluctuations are small. The maximum luminance of over 1000 cd/m² in the peak that we measured is very good, and the realistic APL18 test (Average Picture Level) also results in a satisfactory maximum brightness of 1225 cd/m² for this price range. A Xiaomi 13 is considerably brighter with 1,765 cd/m².

1002
cd/m²
1024
cd/m²
1054
cd/m²
1005
cd/m²
1018
cd/m²
1063
cd/m²
993
cd/m²
1017
cd/m²
1059
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 1063 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1026.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.15 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 1018 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.9 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26
Vivo X90 Pro
AMOLED, 2800x1260, 6.78
Xiaomi 13
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.36
Google Pixel 7 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.70
OnePlus 10T
Fluid AMOLED, 2412x1080, 6.70
Vivo X90 Pro+
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.78
Screen
-6%
9%
-54%
-5%
Brightness middle
1018
1209
19%
1022
0%
861
-15%
1109
9%
Brightness
1026
1208
18%
1025
0%
856
-17%
1124
10%
Brightness Distribution
93
98
5%
99
6%
97
4%
96
3%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.9
1.2
-33%
0.9
-0%
2.27
-152%
1.1
-22%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
2.2
3
-36%
2.1
5%
4.17
-90%
2.7
-23%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.9
2.1
-11%
1.1
42%
2.9
-53%
2
-5%
Gamma
2.26 97%
2.26 97%
2.22 99%
2.303 96%
2.25 98%
CCT
6473 100%
6504 100%
6650 98%
6141 106%
6605 98%

* ... 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 60 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 60 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 60 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

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

Our display color analysis is performed with the help of a photospectrometer and the Calman software. The deviations in the color (0.9) and grayscale (1.9) representation are very low in the ZEISS profile and the color temperature of the panel is almost optimally calibrated. The high coverage of the color spaces is also worth mentioning; even the DCI-P3 is covered almost completely.

Colors (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)
Colors (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)
Color space (color mode: ZEISS, color temperature: standard, target color space: P3)
Color space (color mode: ZEISS, color temperature: standard, target color space: P3)
Grayscale (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)
Grayscale (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)
Saturation (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)
Saturation (Color mode: ZEISS, Color temperature: Standard, Target color space: P3)

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
1.35 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.6915 ms rise
↘ 0.6615 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. » 4 % 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
1.56 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ ms rise
↘ 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. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

Outdoors, the X90 Pro makes a very good impression thanks to the high brightness in automatic mode. Even in midsummer sunlight, the display content should still be sufficiently visible. However, those who prefer to adjust the brightness manually will have to be content with 525 cd/m² and partly annoying reflections.

The viewing angles of the OLED panel are very good and the brightness drop is only noticeable from an extremely flat angle.

Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Performance - Vivo smartphone with MediaTek SoC

The X90 Pro features the latest flagship SoC from MediaTek, which is manufactured by TSMC in a second-generation 4 nm process. The chipset combines an ARM Cortex X3 core (3.05 GHz) with three ARM Cortex A715 performance cores (2.85 GHz) and four frugal Cortex A510 cores (1.8 GHz). For the graphics unit, MediaTek relies on the new ARM Immortalis G715 with eleven cores.

Compared to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in the Pro+ model the single-core performance of the MediaTek Dimensity 9200 is lower by 7% and the multi-thread performance by 12%. PCMark's system benchmark also turns out relatively low.

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1489 Points +8%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1478 Points +7%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
1384 Points
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
1277 Points -8%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (1107 - 1384, n=2)
1246 Points -10%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
1048 Points -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 2138, n=216, last 2 years)
915 Points -34%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
5090 Points +20%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
4786 Points +13%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
4232 Points
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
3987 Points -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (3494 - 4232, n=2)
3863 Points -9%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
3222 Points -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (473 - 6681, n=216, last 2 years)
3000 Points -29%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1273775 Points +8%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1262638 Points +7%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (1175789 - 1212168, n=2)
1193979 Points +2%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
1175789 Points
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
846323 Points -28%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
773857 Points -34%
Average of class Smartphone
  (102602 - 1650926, n=149, last 2 years)
746268 Points -37%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
15944 Points +63%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
14094 Points +44%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
12748 Points +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4761 - 21385, n=215, last 2 years)
11875 Points +22%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
11397 Points +17%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (9765 - 9920, n=2)
9843 Points +1%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
9765 Points
CrossMark - Overall
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1219 Points +31%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1038 Points +11%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
932 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  ()
932 Points 0%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
886 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (200 - 1474, n=164, last 2 years)
842 Points -10%
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
806 Points -14%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
8320 Points +23%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
8153 Points +21%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
7684 Points +14%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (6755 - 7488, n=2)
7122 Points +5%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
6755 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
6164 Points -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (411 - 11438, n=164, last 2 years)
5868 Points -13%
System
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
13646 Points +40%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
12847 Points +32%
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
12230 Points +25%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (9767 - 9997, n=2)
9882 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2376 - 16475, n=164, last 2 years)
9813 Points 0%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
9767 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
9294 Points -5%
Memory
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
9245 Points
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
8822 Points -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (7411 - 9245, n=2)
8328 Points -10%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
8179 Points -12%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
7330 Points -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 12716, n=164, last 2 years)
6373 Points -31%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
5456 Points -41%
Graphics
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
27698 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (26484 - 27698, n=2)
27091 Points -2%
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
24037 Points -13%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
23966 Points -13%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
22837 Points -18%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
16375 Points -41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 58651, n=164, last 2 years)
14657 Points -47%
Web
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
1833 Points +117%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
1739 Points +106%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
1652 Points +96%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
1564 Points +86%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2145, n=164, last 2 years)
1510 Points +79%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (843 - 1602, n=2)
1223 Points +45%
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
843 Points
UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI
Vivo X90 Pro
MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288
44483 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
42662 Points -4%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
  (40276 - 44483, n=2)
42380 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (207 - 84787, n=148, last 2 years)
21505 Points -52%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288
16465 Points -63%
Xiaomi 13
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192
15961 Points -64%
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
11648 Points -74%
AImark - Score v2.x
Average of class Smartphone
  (1043 - 139804, n=45, last 2 years)
21723 Points
OnePlus 10T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384
6955 Points
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288
5976 Points

The MediaTek Dimensity 9200 performs well in GFXBench's graphics tests. However, even the onscreen rates are often lower than in the Pro+ model which has to cope with the significantly higher resolution. The browser benchmarks and the BaseMark OS II browser test are also conspicuously low.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3792 Points
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3707 Points -2%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3173 Points -16%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2876 Points -24%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1807 Points -52%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3783 Points
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3751 Points -1%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
3192 Points -16%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2824 Points -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1847 Points -51%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
14038 Points +4%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
14002 Points +4%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
13492 Points
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10989 Points -19%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
6721 Points -50%
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 0%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
OnePlus 10T
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 +9%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
451 fps
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
435 fps -4%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
395 fps -12%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
251 fps -44%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps 0%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
119 fps -1%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
84 fps -30%
OnePlus 10T
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 +13%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
265 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
257 fps -3%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
221 fps -17%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
139 fps -48%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
120 fps +15%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
106 fps +2%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
104 fps
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps -42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 fps -46%
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 +93%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
181 fps +60%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
171 fps +51%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
113 fps
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps -11%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
93 fps +15%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
81 fps
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
62 fps -23%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps -26%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
37 fps -54%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
127 fps +43%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
108 fps +21%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
105 fps +18%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
89 fps
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps -24%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
82 fps
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
66 fps -20%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
59 fps -28%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
50 fps -39%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
28 fps -66%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
61 fps +20%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
56 fps +10%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
51 fps
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps -14%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps -39%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
113 fps +8%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
105 fps
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
80 fps -24%
OnePlus 10T
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
38 fps -64%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
156 fps +41%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
142 fps +28%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
123 fps +11%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
111 fps
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
75 fps -32%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
143.264 Points +112%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
116.455 Points +72%
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=170, last 2 years)
107.8 Points +59%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
98.153 Points +45%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (67.6 - 125, n=2)
96.3 Points +42%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)
81.383 Points +20%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
67.646 Points
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
113 runs/min +88%
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=154, last 2 years)
109.8 runs/min +82%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
104 runs/min +73%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)
93.4 runs/min +55%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (60.2 - 103, n=2)
81.6 runs/min +36%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
60.2 runs/min
WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
139 Points +111%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
136 Points +106%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 202, n=160, last 2 years)
101 Points +53%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
90 Points +36%
OnePlus 10T
75 Points +14%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (22 - 134, n=3)
74 Points +12%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
66 Points
WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=118, last 2 years)
136 Points +66%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (82 - 142, n=2)
112 Points +37%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)
106 Points +29%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
98 Points +20%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
82 Points
Octane V2 - Total Score
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
44245 Points +104%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
43632 Points +102%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)
39982 Points +85%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (21648 - 45823, n=2)
33736 Points +56%
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=215, last 2 years)
33521 Points +55%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
27938 Points +29%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
21648 Points
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)
1847.5 ms *
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)
1773.4 ms * +4%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)
1627.3 ms * +12%
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=170, last 2 years)
1545 ms * +16%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200 (918 - 1848, n=2)
1383 ms * +25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)
1011.5 ms * +45%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)
870.7 ms * +53%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo X90 ProXiaomi 13Google Pixel 7 ProOnePlus 10TVivo X90 Pro+Average 256 GB UFS 4.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
1%
-56%
-60%
-3%
-8%
-49%
Sequential Read 256KB
3866.75
3454.01
-11%
1346.78
-65%
1568.37
-59%
3397.4
-12%
Sequential Write 256KB
2643.38
2722.77
3%
874.73
-67%
847.69
-68%
2834.4
7%
Random Read 4KB
367.89
393.81
7%
219.01
-40%
173.45
-53%
373.88
2%
Random Write 4KB
521.43
536.76
3%
253.18
-51%
211.24
-59%
484.29
-7%

Games - Vivo Phone only manages 60 fps

The graphics performance of the Immortalis G715 offers enough graphics performance for demanding games like PUBG mobile even at the highest details for smooth playback at a constant 40 fps. The shooter is played constantly at about 60 FPS with the HD graphics setting, the new 90-fps mode is not available due to a frame lock on Vivo's part - we use GameBench's app to determine our frame rates.

The full 120 Hz of the OLED panel is generally not supported in our test games. We also measured 60 fps in Armajet, although the arena shooter theoretically allows 144 fps. The open-world action RPG Genshin Impact is even only rendered at 30 fps with the X90 Pro.

Armajet
Armajet
Genshin Impact
Genshin Impact
PUBG mobile
PUBG mobile
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro; Armajet: Ø59.8 (28-61)
Vivo X90 Pro; Genshin Impact: Ø30 (23-32)
Vivo X90 Pro; PUBG Mobile; Smooth: Ø60.1 (50-61)
Vivo X90 Pro; PUBG Mobile; Balanced: Ø59.7 (50-61)
Vivo X90 Pro; PUBG Mobile; HD: Ø59.6 (57-61)
Vivo X90 Pro; PUBG Mobile; Ultra HD: Ø39.9 (37-41)

Emissions - Vivo smartphone stays cool

Temperature

The surface temperatures are very low in our measurements. There is hardly any temperature development even under load. However, the X90 Pro shows a moderate performance loss of 20 to 25 percent in the 3DMark stress tests.

Max. Load
 26.3 °C
79 F
26.4 °C
80 F
27 °C
81 F
 
 26.5 °C
80 F
26.5 °C
80 F
27 °C
81 F
 
 26.6 °C
80 F
26.7 °C
80 F
26.8 °C
80 F
 
Maximum: 27 °C = 81 F
Average: 26.6 °C = 80 F
25.8 °C
78 F
25.9 °C
79 F
25.8 °C
78 F
25.8 °C
78 F
25.7 °C
78 F
25.8 °C
78 F
25.6 °C
78 F
25.9 °C
79 F
26 °C
79 F
Maximum: 26 °C = 79 F
Average: 25.8 °C = 78 F
Power Supply (max.)  23.8 °C = 75 F | Room Temperature 21.3 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 26.6 °C / 80 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 27 °C / 81 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 26 °C / 79 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92.7 % +25%
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
88.5 % +19%
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
78.9 % +6%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
74.1 %
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67.9 % -8%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X90 Pro+
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
87 % +6%
Vivo X90 Pro
Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
81.7 %
Xiaomi 13
Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
79.1 % -3%
Google Pixel 7 Pro
Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
75.6 % -7%
OnePlus 10T
Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
% -100%
05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø19.9 (18.5-22.6)
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 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)
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø64.4 (58.3-78.6)
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)
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø61.8 (59-63.6)
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)
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)
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone
Test Vivo X90 Pro smartphone

Speaker

The stereo speakers reach a high maximum volume of over 92 dB(A) in our test. The sound output is characterized by tones from medium frequencies that could have been a bit more linear. However, a slight bass note is also recognizable. Alternatively, headphones can be connected via the USB-C port or wirelessly via Bluetooth.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.836.22527.936.53124.338.14028.236.15036.736.86322.239.38025.440.41002142.812518.645.316015.455.920015.154.125013.155.53151255.340012.753.850011.866.563012.968.980010.472.3100013.372.9125013.279.1160012.179.4200012.281.6250012.983.7315014.883.7400015.881.6500016.182.7630014.478.9800013.678.21000013.574.51250014.469.4160001567SPL25.992.3N0.787.9median 13.5median 72.9Delta1.310.628.834.326.328.625.629.918.631.830.236.920.536.819.538.218.442.513.642.911.654.21254.91259.110.158.410.159.210.567.910.367.41070.99.876.211.377.411.277.211.478.511.979.613.985.914.782.51477.914.676.813.575.313.372.813.769.213.968.124.891.40.682.7median 12median 72.81.78.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseVivo X90 ProXiaomi 13
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo X90 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.5% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Xiaomi 13 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Battery life - Vivo X90 Pro with 120 watts

Power consumption

When it comes to fast charging, the Vivo smartphone offers wired 120 watts and wireless 50 watts. We cannot verify how long a complete charging process takes since we were provided with a UK version for testing. Interestingly, the battery of the X90 Pro is operated at a high voltage of 7.78 volts, resulting in an equivalent capacity of 4,870 mAh (3.89V).

The Vivo X90 Pro reveals an increased power consumption in idle mode in our measurements.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.12 / 0.12 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 2.32 / 2.39 Watt
Load midlight 3.64 / 6.53 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
4870 mAh
Xiaomi 13
4500 mAh
Google Pixel 7 Pro
5000 mAh
OnePlus 10T
4800 mAh
Vivo X90 Pro+
4700 mAh
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
28%
19%
24%
9%
-13%
-3%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.76
16%
0.78
13%
0.8
11%
0.92
-2%
0.835 ?(0.77 - 0.9, n=2)
7%
Idle Average *
2.32
1.1
53%
1.61
31%
1.2
48%
1.76
24%
Idle Maximum *
2.39
1.13
53%
1.63
32%
1.3
46%
1.88
21%
Load Average *
3.64
2.99
18%
3.29
10%
3.5
4%
3.65
-0%
6.05 ?(3.64 - 8.45, n=2)
-66%
Load Maximum *
6.53
6.63
-2%
6.01
8%
5.9
10%
6.24
4%
8.79 ?(6.53 - 11.1, n=2)
-35%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

0123456789101112131415Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø8.29 (3.35-15.7)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø6.3 (1.574-11.4)
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910111213141516Tooltip
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø14.8 (12.7-16.8)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.77 (9.38-10.2)
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

Battery life

The X90 Pro lasted a good 15 hours in our WLAN test with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m2. This is a good rate, which is only surpassed by the Xiaomi 13 in our comparison.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
15h 9min
Battery Runtime - WiFi v1.3
Vivo X90 Pro
4870 mAh
909 min
Xiaomi 13
4500 mAh
1021 min
Google Pixel 7 Pro
5000 mAh
676 min
OnePlus 10T
4800 mAh
856 min
Vivo X90 Pro+
4700 mAh
905 min

Pros

+ bright OLED panel
+ fast SoC
+ good workmanship
+ appealing main camera
+ fast charging

Cons

- no frugal LTPO panel
- deteriorations compared to the predecessor
- ultra wide-angle camera is solid at best
- high power consumption

Verdict

In review: VivoX90 Pro.
In review: VivoX90 Pro.

Without the official pricing for Europe, a conclusive assessment of the X90 Pro is difficult. If the Chinese manufacturer's flagship phone in Europe matches the X80 Pro's RRP of 1299 Euros, we see a few reasons to buy the predecessor rather than the X90 Pro - especially since a Xiaomi 13 that is better in many areas is much cheaper.

Whether the X90 Pro can hold its own as a flagship for Europe against a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra or Xiaomi 13 Pro is highly doubtful.

Overall, the X90 Pro is a really good smartphone, but the technical deteriorations compared with the predecessor make it a bit of a relegation. Why the successor of the X80 Pro has to accept a downgrade in the ultra-wide-angle camera and zoom lenses, the fingerprint sensor, and the display resolution is incomprehensible. Especially in view of the fact that the X90 Pro is the manufacturer's European flagship and already has to accept compromises in terms of the SoC compared with the Pro+ model.

If you really want the best of the best from Vivo, you will have to import the actual high-end smartphone X90 Pro+. Besides the Xiaomi 13, we also see the Google Pixel 7 Pro as a suitable and cheaper alternative to the Vivo X90 Pro.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and availability

Vivo has announced the international launch of the Vivo X90 Pro, but no concrete details about the price and availability are known at the moment. However, the predecessor had a slightly lower MSRP in China, so we assume that it will be available for less than 1,300 Euros in this country as well. The X90 Pro can already be purchased via import, for example at Trading Shenzhen, starting at around 780 Euros.

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

Chassis
91%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
67 / 70 → 95%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
94%
Games Performance
69 / 64 → 100%
Application Performance
90 / 86 → 100%
Temperature
96%
Noise
100%
Audio
74 / 90 → 83%
Camera
75%
Average
84%
89%
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 smartphone review - Can MediaTek's high-end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2?
Marcus Herbrich, 2023-02-26 (Update: 2023-02-28)