Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Smartphone Review – Gaming Power with LED Effects

Affordable gaming? The Xiaomi Black Shark 3 once again delivers an inexpensive gaming experience and an unusual exterior. While it lacks certain features compared to the Pro model, it is cheaper and more compact in return. Let us see whether Xiaomi has managed to create something that will be able to satisfy the gaming community.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Andrea Grüblinger (translated by Marius S.),
Xiaomi Black Shark 3

"Black Shark", it sounds wild, perhaps a little like a B-movie and definitely like something gamers would enjoy. As past generations have shown, Xiaomi's Black Shark series gaming smartphones tend to offer a lot of gaming-specific features.

With the Black Shark 3, the third generation of the powerful gaming smartphone has arrived. We have already tested the Pro model, which was only available as an import device from Asia at the time. While the non-Pro Black Shark 3, which we are reviewing here, is more compact and equipped with a lower-resolution display, a modem with fewer 5G frequencies, no NFC module and less storage, it is significantly cheaper at just below 600 Euros (~$685). Unfortunately, it lacks the dedicated trigger buttons on the side, which can be freely assigned to additional functions on the Black Shark 3 Pro.

Let us see, whether the Black Shark 3 is still a compelling enough smartphone for gamers.

Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Black Shark Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 8 x 2.4 - 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.67 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 395 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 90 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 128 GB UFS, 108 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo audio, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass
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 5.0, 2G, 3G, 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B17/​B18/​B19/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B34/​B38/​B39/​B40/​B41), 5G (n78) , Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 10.4 x 168.7 x 77.3 ( = 0.41 x 6.64 x 3.04 in)
Battery
4720 mAh Lithium-Polymer, Qualcomm Quick Charge 4+ at up to 65 watts
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix f/​1.8, phase detection AF, LED flash, videos @2160p/​60FPS (camera 1); 13.0MP, f/​2.25, wide-angle lens (camera 2); 5.0MP, f/​2.2, depth of field (camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/​2.2, Videos @1080p/​30FPS
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo speakers (hybrid), Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Quick charger, USB cable, SIM tool, silicone bumper, 24 Months Warranty, A-GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo, QZSS; notification LED (back/multi-colored); , fanless
Weight
222 g ( = 7.83 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 82 g ( = 2.89 oz / 0.18 pounds)
Price
599 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Competing Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
85 %
07/2020
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
SD 865, Adreno 650
222 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
87 %
05/2019
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
SD 855, Adreno 640
205 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.39"2340x1080
85 %
06/2020
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
253 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash7.1"3120x1440
88 %
06/2020
OnePlus 8
SD 865, Adreno 650
180 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.55"2400x1080
84 %
06/2020
Nubia RedMagic 5G
SD 865, Adreno 650
218 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.65"2340x1080
88 %
04/2020
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
188 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"3200x1440

Case – Polarizing Yet Convenient

Often times, the cases of gaming devices are polarizing and as it happens, the Xiaomi Black Shark 3 is a far cry from the clearly defined lines of an iPhone. A triangular module with cut-off corners houses the camera module, and the entire back is covered by an X that consists of a glossy material contrasted by two matte stripes. While the color variants black and gray are fairly conservative choices, the gray variant comes with light blue accents.

The back is not just supposed to look good but also be of use while gaming: The design is entirely symmetric and there is even a congruent counterpart to the camera module, although it of course does not actually contain a camera setup. Since both modules slightly protrude from the case, the Black Shark 3 is easy to handle and there is no threat of it slipping out of the hand during games.

As is common for a gaming smartphone nowadays, the Black Shark 3 comes with LED effects on the back that are very customizable. They also double as the notification LED and light up on new messages.

Although the phone itself is slightly heavier than its predecessor, it is significantly lighter and more compact than the Black Shark 3 Pro. That being said, fans of lightweight smartphones are bound to be disappointed by most gaming smartphones.

Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Xiaomi Black Shark 3

Size Comparison

177.8 mm / 7 inch 83.3 mm / 3.28 inch 10.1 mm / 0.3976 inch 253 g0.558 lbs168.7 mm / 6.64 inch 77.3 mm / 3.04 inch 10.4 mm / 0.4094 inch 222 g0.4894 lbs168.56 mm / 6.64 inch 78 mm / 3.07 inch 9.75 mm / 0.3839 inch 218 g0.4806 lbs163.61 mm / 6.44 inch 75.01 mm / 2.95 inch 8.77 mm / 0.3453 inch 205 g0.4519 lbs161.9 mm / 6.37 inch 73.7 mm / 2.9 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs160.2 mm / 6.31 inch 72.9 mm / 2.87 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs

Features – Many Features for Below 600 Euros/$700

Xiaomi offers two configurations of the smartphone:

  • 8 GB LPDDR4X RAM + 128 GB internal storage: 599 Euros (~$685)
  • 12 GB LPDDR5 RAM + 256 GB internal storage: 729 Euro (~$834)

However, the gray color variant is only available for the lower-end model. For the price, the features are more than decent, particularly when considering that the smartphone uses fast UFS 3.0 storage. Meanwhile, the faster LPDDR5 RAM is exclusive to the higher-capacity configuration.

Since the USB port is only connected to USB 2.0 internally, data transfers to and from a PC will be relatively slow. Thanks to the Widevine L1 certification of the European model of the Black Shark 3, users will be able to stream movies and TV shows at HD resolutions.

Right: Game mode slider, standby button, microphone
Right: Game mode slider, standby button, microphone
Left: SIM slot, volume rocker
Left: SIM slot, volume rocker
Top: 3.5-mm audio jack
Top: 3.5-mm audio jack
Right: USB-C port, microphone
Right: USB-C port, microphone

Software - JoyUI Specifically for Gamers

JoyUI 11, which has been developed specifically for Xiaomi's gaming smartphones, is based on Android 10. No criticism is warranted when it comes to the security patches, which were up to date at the time of writing.

A slider on the right edge of the device launches Shark Space 3.0, which is a special gaming environment that blocks interruptions while gaming and allows users to tweak certain settings. Furthermore, it can be used to control certain accessories such as the FunCooler.

The lighting on the back can be individually customized. Many screens come in the green-black Black Shark design, even with the dark mode disabled.

Software Black Shark 3
Software Black Shark 3
Software Black Shark 3

Communication and GPS – Onboard 5G

There is onboard 5G and thanks to the Qualcomm Snapdragon X55 modem, both mmWave and sub-6 GHz are supported to allow for either short range/high throughput or higher range/slightly smaller throughput networking.

Since the Black Shark 3 supports numerous 4G frequencies, users should not encounter any issues when trying to connect to mobile communications networks even when traveling to remote countries. Bluetooth 5.0 is supported as well. Unfortunately, Xiaomi has elected not to implement NFC and thus payments with the smartphone via mobile payment services are unavailable.

Relative to other devices in its price range, the smartphone performs well in conjunction with our reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12: Thanks to Wi-Fi 6 support, our test device achieves fairly high transfer rates that occasionally even rival those of more expensive smartphones.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
946 (min: 911, max: 960) MBit/s ∼100% +39%
OnePlus 8
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
894 (min: 864, max: 925) MBit/s ∼95% +32%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
835 (min: 808, max: 847) MBit/s ∼88% +23%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
817 (min: 785, max: 843) MBit/s ∼86% +20%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
679 (min: 601, max: 733) MBit/s ∼72%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
586 (min: 267, max: 693) MBit/s ∼62% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=562)
267 MBit/s ∼28% -61%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
OnePlus 8
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
937 (min: 466, max: 960) MBit/s ∼100% +2%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
926 (min: 463, max: 960) MBit/s ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
923 (min: 783, max: 956) MBit/s ∼99%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
876 (min: 785, max: 909) MBit/s ∼93% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
863 (min: 759, max: 898) MBit/s ∼92% -7%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
527 (min: 410, max: 577) MBit/s ∼56% -43%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=562)
253 MBit/s ∼27% -73%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920930940950960Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø678 (601-733)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø923 (783-956)
Overview of the available satellites in GPSTest
Overview of the available satellites in GPSTest
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

GPS, AGPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo and QZSS are used to determine the current position. Our short tests with the apps GPS Test and GPSTest show that the device benefits from its wide range of accessible satellites, which it is able to use to quickly locate us with an accuracy of within 3 meters (~10 feet).

Of course, the Xiaomi Black Shark 3 also has to prove itself on our bike ride, which we simultaneously record with the professional navi Garmin Edge 520 for comparison purposes. Here, the gaming smartphone produces very accurate results apart from a few small deviations. It is quite reliable and produces good results even in more difficult scenarios such as circling the roundabout twice. Overall, the phone is well suited to daily navigation tasks.

Locating Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Locating Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Locating Garmin Edge 520 - roundabout
Locating Garmin Edge 520 - roundabout
Locating Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Locating Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - overview
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - overview
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - roundabout
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - roundabout
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - bridge
Locating Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - bridge

Telephony and Call Quality – Solid Call Quality

Google's standard app is used as the telephony app. Both VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling are available and both SIM slots are 5G-compatible.

The volume of the integrated earpiece is very high, which allows users to clearly understand the person on the other end of the line, even in very noisy environments. While the quality is decent, there is noticeable static at times. Meanwhile, our voice is being transmitted very loudly and clearly. Although our conversational partner is slightly quieter in hands-free mode, voices still sound distinct. In this mode, our voice sounds somewhat distanced, but relatively clear. The speech quality can be described as good overall.

Cameras – Good Results

Picture front camera
Picture front camera

The camera setup matches that of the Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro: The main camera has a 64-megapixel sensor, which captures pictures at a resolution of 16 megapixels. Although this may sound strange at first, it is common practice on current smartphones: Four pixels are combined into one, which results in a higher light yield, since each pixels cover a larger part of the image. However, 64-megapixel pictures can be captured with the appropriate mode.

On top of that there is a wide-angle lens with a resolution of 13 megapixels, which can be used for macro shots. The third optics, which has a resolution of 5 megapixels, is only responsible for depth information and cannot take pictures by itself. Unfortunately, zooming between the main and the wide-angle camera is not available, and instead the two optics can only be switched between.

Red shades are often a challenge for cameras and both the Black Shark 3 and the OnePlus 8 Pro struggle to capture the red blossoms. In this scene, the iPhone 11 Pro Max offers a lot more details, as does our DSLR camera. Conversely, the landscape shot of our test device looks detailed and well balanced, whereas the iPhone manages to capture more light. While the Black Shark 3 still achieves a detailed representation of low-light situations with high contrasts, it then noticeably struggles in terms of sharpness in some areas and suffers from image noise.

Videos can be recorded at 4K and 60 FPS and the quality is rather good even in poor lighting. While the autofocus could be slightly more responsive, we were pleased with the quality of video recordings overall.

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3

In our lab, the main camera faces several predefined lighting scenarios. At one lux, the camera still manages to capture some parts of the scene, although the image then suffers from noticeable graininess and clarity issues. Although the picture looks somewhat pale at full lighting, particularly towards the edges, the representation is still decent overall.

ColorChecker
21.7 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
26.4 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
31 ∆E
35.5 ∆E
31.6 ∆E
23 ∆E
22.6 ∆E
23 ∆E
30.2 ∆E
38.8 ∆E
22.5 ∆E
28.4 ∆E
20.7 ∆E
28.8 ∆E
28.3 ∆E
27 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
29.3 ∆E
31.4 ∆E
25.3 ∆E
19.8 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Black Shark 3: 26.71 ∆E min: 12.23 - max: 38.84 ∆E
ColorChecker
16.2 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
15.2 ∆E
16.1 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
16.9 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
14 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
2 ∆E
12 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
6 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
11.3 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Black Shark 3: 10.16 ∆E min: 2 - max: 16.92 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty – Optional Cooler

The scope of delivery includes a hefty quick charger, a silicone bumper, a SIM tool and of course a charging cable. Plenty of additional accessories are available on the Black Shark web shop, such as the Fun Cooler for 39 Euros (~$45), which can be attached to the back of the smartphone to reduce the temperature of the back by up to 28 °C (82.4 °F). However, neither the surface temperature nor throttling were severe enough for this accessory to be worth it, in our opinion.

The GamePad costs just below 60 Euros (~$69) and offers four freely assignable buttons and a joystick that like its counterparts on modern consol controllers can also be pressed. The magnetic pins on the back of the Black Shark 3 can be used to connect magnetic cables. They can be purchased for 25 Euros (~$29) and provide a more conveniently located charging connector, where the cable does not get in the way while gaming. However, the cable and the magnet port only support charging at up to 18 watts.

The manufacturer offers buyers of the smartphone a 24-month warranty.

Black Shark Fun Cooler
Black Shark Fun Cooler
Black Shark magnetic cable
Black Shark magnetic cable
Black Shark GamePad
Black Shark GamePad

Input Devices & Handling – Very Responsive Thanks to 90 Hz

For most people who have tried a smartphone with a 90-Hz screen, it is hard to return to a phone with a 60-Hz display: The snappy response of a panel with a higher refresh rate is simply better. The same holds true for the Black Shark 3 which is smooth and stutter-free, which can certainly be partially attributed to the fast SoC.

Xiaomi uses Google's default GBoard as the keyboard app. It allows for fast and precise typing and other keyboards can be subsequently installed at any time.

An in-display fingerprint sensor has been placed in a convenient location, where it recognizes fingerprints quickly and accurately. The smartphone can also be unlocked via facial recognition, which works well even in poorly lit environments.

Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard landscape mode
Keyboard landscape mode

Display – Relatively Bright and without Blue Tint

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

Compared to the Pro model, the Black Shark 3 has a slightly smaller screen with a slightly lower resolution. In practice, the display still looks clear. The screen gets brighter than the one of the Pro model by a small margin for a decent maximum brightness overall. At 90%, the illumination is sufficiently even.

583
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
648
cd/m²
582
cd/m²
619
cd/m²
648
cd/m²
583
cd/m²
609
cd/m²
650
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 650 cd/m² Average: 615.6 cd/m² Minimum: 3.34 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 619 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.74 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 1.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6
99.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.188
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 7.1
OnePlus 8
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
Nubia RedMagic 5G
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.65
Samsung Galaxy S20+
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.7
Screen
-49%
-37%
35%
-91%
22%
Brightness middle
619
409
-34%
570
-8%
778
26%
593
-4%
740
20%
Brightness
616
412
-33%
589
-4%
783
27%
601
-2%
747
21%
Brightness Distribution
90
95
6%
90
0%
95
6%
92
2%
94
4%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.74
5.2
-39%
4.65
-24%
0.9
76%
8.1
-117%
2.6
30%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.94
8.9
-12%
7.61
4%
2.2
72%
16.2
-104%
4.57
42%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.7
4.8
-182%
4.9
-188%
1.7
-0%
7.1
-318%
1.5
12%
Gamma
2.188 101%
2.21 100%
2.205 100%
2.25 98%
2.28 96%
2.269 97%
CCT
6662 98%
7430 87%
7500 87%
6481 100%
7566 86%
6284 103%

* ... 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 227.3 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 227.3 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 227.3 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17957 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Although the color accuracy of the display cannot match that of the OnePlus 8 even in the natural mode, the difference only becomes visible to the naked eye when viewing red or yellow colors. We were impressed by the accurate representation of the grayscale, which does not suffer from a noticeable blue tint.

We observed PWM, which is typical for AMOLED screens. However, the Black Shark 3 comes with a DC dimming mode, which can alleviate the issues sensitive people may experience with the perceived flickering of the brightness controlling technology. The response times of the screen are worthy of a gaming smartphone, meaning they are quite fast.

CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space AdobeRGB
CalMAN color space AdobeRGB
CalMAN color space DCI-P3
CalMAN color space DCI-P3
CalMAN saturation sweeps
CalMAN saturation sweeps

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
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 4 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.1 ms).

Outdoors, the Black Shark 3 fares well in bright sunlight, although smartphones with even brighter displays have an obvious advantage here. The viewing angles warrant no criticism: The screen is visible from all angles and there are no distortions.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

Performance – Super-Fast Black Shark Phone

At the time of this writing, the Snapdragon 865 is one of the fastest SoCs available for mobile devices, making it an ideal choice for a gaming phone. Like the Pro version, the Black Shark 3, too, is able to compete with even the fastest Android smartphones, which the benchmark results further reinforce.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
OpenCL Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3310 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3158 - 3310, n=2)
3234 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (387 - 3310, n=9)
1830 Points ∼55% -45%
Vulkan Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3382 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3059 - 3382, n=2)
3221 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (453 - 3382, n=9)
1772 Points ∼52% -48%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3449 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3361 Points ∼97% -3%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3427 Points ∼99% -1%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3076 Points ∼89% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
2899 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3076 - 3449, n=10)
3312 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (445 - 3531, n=89)
1990 Points ∼58% -42%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
924 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
903 Points ∼96% -2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
919 Points ∼97% -1%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
909 Points ∼96% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
944 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (903 - 924, n=10)
913 Points ∼97% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=89)
567 Points ∼60% -39%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9822 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8342 Points ∼65% -15%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10945 Points ∼85% +11%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10800 Points ∼84% +10%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12879 Points ∼100% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10583 Points ∼82% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9822 - 13202, n=11)
11312 Points ∼88% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=490)
5834 Points ∼45% -41%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12612 Points ∼85%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10330 Points ∼70% -18%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11839 Points ∼80% -6%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13079 Points ∼89% +4%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13954 Points ∼95% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
14760 Points ∼100% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11839 - 19711, n=10)
13515 Points ∼92% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=648)
6373 Points ∼43% -49%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5780 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4535 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5401 Points ∼93% -7%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5532 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4495 Points ∼78% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5187 - 5780, n=9)
5429 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=496)
2175 Points ∼38% -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9157 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7108 Points ∼74% -22%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9542 Points ∼100% +4%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9467 Points ∼99% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9190 Points ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9157 - 9567, n=9)
9408 Points ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=496)
2075 Points ∼22% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8105 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6312 Points ∼77% -22%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8153 Points ∼100% +1%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8154 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7459 Points ∼91% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7957 - 8204, n=10)
8086 Points ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=497)
1926 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5765 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4462 Points ∼77% -23%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5406 Points ∼94% -6%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5532 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4455 Points ∼77% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3956 - 5765, n=9)
5009 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=526)
2085 Points ∼36% -64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12843 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10300 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12873 Points ∼100% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12750 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9471 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (12547 - 12895, n=9)
12716 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=526)
2762 Points ∼21% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10090 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7980 Points ∼79% -21%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9850 Points ∼98% -2%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9877 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7576 Points ∼75% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8499 - 10090, n=9)
9458 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=526)
2321 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5209 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4262 Points ∼82% -18%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4879 Points ∼94% -6%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5209 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4180 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4582 - 5209, n=9)
4956 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=576)
2062 Points ∼40% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8284 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6362 Points ∼75% -23%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8288 Points ∼98% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8432 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8469 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8045 - 8432, n=9)
8282 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=576)
1735 Points ∼20% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7323 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5734 Points ∼78% -22%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
Points ∼0% -100%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7174 Points ∼98% -2%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7305 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6896 Points ∼94% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7012 - 7323, n=10)
7198 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=577)
1658 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5274 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4240 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4819 Points ∼91% -9%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5049 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4124 Points ∼78% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3965 - 5274, n=9)
4783 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=618)
1924 Points ∼36% -64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11557 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9983 Points ∼80% -14%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11540 Points ∼92% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12494 Points ∼100% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6392 Points ∼51% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11371 - 12494, n=9)
11794 Points ∼94% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=617)
2277 Points ∼18% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9138 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7673 Points ∼81% -16%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
Points ∼0% -100%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8810 Points ∼93% -4%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9492 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5696 Points ∼60% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8215 - 9492, n=9)
8887 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=620)
1961 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
58293 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
45072 Points ∼77% -23%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
57583 Points ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
27026 Points ∼46% -54%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
26182 Points ∼45% -55%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
27431 Points ∼47% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (26182 - 58293, n=9)
36070 Points ∼62% -38%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=766)
15263 Points ∼26% -74%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
154375 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
110432 Points ∼72% -28%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
149468 Points ∼97% -3%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
144611 Points ∼94% -6%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
150654 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
48476 Points ∼31% -69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (144611 - 154375, n=9)
148492 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=764)
25897 Points ∼17% -83%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
112989 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
83518 Points ∼74% -26%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
110468 Points ∼98% -2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
72524 Points ∼64% -36%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
73143 Points ∼65% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
41415 Points ∼37% -63%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (72524 - 112989, n=9)
85586 Points ∼76% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=764)
20366 Points ∼18% -82%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
206 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
167 fps ∼81% -19%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
203 fps ∼98% -1%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
207 fps ∼100% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
206 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
199 fps ∼96% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (202 - 207, n=10)
204 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=772)
43.9 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
60 fps ∼67%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
90 fps ∼100% +50%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
90 fps ∼100% +50%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (60 - 90, n=10)
72 fps ∼80% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=781)
30.5 fps ∼34% -49%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
120 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
102 fps ∼81% -15%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
122 fps ∼97% +2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
125 fps ∼99% +4%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
126 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
126 fps ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (120 - 126, n=10)
124 fps ∼98% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=677)
25.8 fps ∼20% -78%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
60 fps ∼68%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
68 fps ∼77% +13%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼100% +47%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (58 - 88, n=10)
69 fps ∼78% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=685)
21.8 fps ∼25% -64%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
82 fps ∼93%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
71 fps ∼81% -13%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼98% +5%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼100% +7%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
74 fps ∼84% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
85 fps ∼97% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (74 - 88, n=11)
85.3 fps ∼97% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=540)
20.8 fps ∼24% -75%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
60 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
43 fps ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
59 fps ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (43 - 77, n=11)
58.1 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=542)
18.9 fps ∼32% -68%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
30 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
25 fps ∼76% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
27 fps ∼82% -10%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
31 fps ∼94% +3%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28 fps ∼85% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
33 fps ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (18 - 31, n=11)
27.5 fps ∼83% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=288)
11.2 fps ∼34% -63%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼77% -15%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼91% 0%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (20 - 20, n=11)
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=286)
8.07 fps ∼37% -60%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
45 fps ∼85%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
38 fps ∼72% -16%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼100% +18%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
48 fps ∼91% +7%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
44 fps ∼83% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
52 fps ∼98% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (28 - 53, n=11)
43.6 fps ∼82% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=292)
16.6 fps ∼31% -63%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
52 fps ∼90%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
43 fps ∼74% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
27 fps ∼47% -48%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼93% +4%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼93% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
58 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (27 - 54, n=11)
51 fps ∼88% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=291)
19.3 fps ∼33% -63%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
49 fps ∼94%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
42 fps ∼81% -14%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼98% +4%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
52 fps ∼100% +6%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼98% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
51 fps ∼98% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (49 - 52, n=11)
50.6 fps ∼97% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=465)
14 fps ∼27% -71%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
41 fps ∼89%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
36 fps ∼78% -12%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
25 fps ∼54% -39%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
46 fps ∼100% +12%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
42 fps ∼91% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
45 fps ∼98% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (25 - 46, n=11)
38.9 fps ∼85% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=469)
12.5 fps ∼27% -70%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
574589 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
572807 Points ∼94% 0%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
563466 Points ∼93% -2%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
607937 Points ∼100% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
296746 Points ∼49% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (557310 - 607937, n=11)
580619 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=94)
315184 Points ∼52% -45%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1395 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
1264 Points ∼84% -9%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1429 Points ∼95% +2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1498 Points ∼100% +7%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1505 Points ∼100% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
1378 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (1276 - 1576, n=10)
1450 Points ∼96% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=709)
807 Points ∼54% -42%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11747 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8125 Points ∼69% -31%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11445 Points ∼97% -3%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11654 Points ∼99% -1%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11648 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10803 Points ∼92% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11445 - 11842, n=10)
11655 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=709)
2428 Points ∼21% -79%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5564 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3560 Points ∼42% -36%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5688 Points ∼68% +2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6912 Points ∼82% +24%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8398 Points ∼100% +51%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3775 Points ∼45% -32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5564 - 8874, n=10)
7263 Points ∼86% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=709)
1805 Points ∼21% -68%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8421 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5993 Points ∼60% -29%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8622 Points ∼86% +2%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10021 Points ∼100% +19%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9723 Points ∼97% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9281 Points ∼93% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8421 - 10147, n=10)
9643 Points ∼96% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=709)
3374 Points ∼34% -60%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5264 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3847 Points ∼63% -27%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5302 Points ∼86% +1%
OnePlus 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5897 Points ∼96% +12%
Nubia RedMagic 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6149 Points ∼100% +17%
Samsung Galaxy S20+
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4779 Points ∼78% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5264 - 6273, n=10)
5845 Points ∼95% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=709)
1716 Points ∼28% -67%

Similarly, the Black Shark 3 reaches top web browsing speeds. During day-to-day use, this manifests as pages loading quickly and scrolling without any lags, provided the web page has been programmed properly.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83)
66.292 Points ∼100%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
61.492 Points ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50.9 - 69.5, n=10)
61.3 Points ∼92% -8%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro (Chrome 83)
53.053 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
51.341 Points ∼77% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
50.566 Points ∼76% -24%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2 (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
45.538 Points ∼69% -31%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=171)
40.2 Points ∼61% -39%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83)
117.37 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (79.1 - 120, n=9)
110 Points ∼94% -6%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
103.45 Points ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
89.329 Points ∼76% -24%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
79.083 Points ∼67% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=600)
46.3 Points ∼39% -61%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chome 83)
70.9 runs/min ∼100%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro (Chrome 83)
67.7 runs/min ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50.8 - 74.5, n=10)
65.4 runs/min ∼92% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chome 80)
62.8 runs/min ∼89% -11%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
59.6 runs/min ∼84% -16%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
50.8 runs/min ∼72% -28%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2 (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
46.7 runs/min ∼66% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=155)
43.1 runs/min ∼61% -39%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83)
104 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (99 - 118, n=10)
103 Points ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro (Chrome 83)
101 Points ∼97% -3%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
99 Points ∼95% -5%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
99 Points ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2 (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
94 Points ∼90% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
86 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=236)
69.8 Points ∼67% -33%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (15745 - 24369, n=10)
21331 Points ∼100% +34%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
21048 Points ∼99% +32%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro (Chrome 83)
20976 Points ∼98% +32%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
18094 Points ∼85% +14%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2 (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
17011 Points ∼80% +7%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83)
15901 Points ∼75%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
15745 Points ∼74% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=767)
7690 Points ∼36% -52%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=793)
9892 ms * ∼100% -310%
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83)
2538.1 ms * ∼26% -5%
Xiaomi Black Shark 2 (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
2528.6 ms * ∼26% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20+ (Chrome 80)
2488.3 ms * ∼25% -3%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83)
2410.7 ms * ∼24%
Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83)
2401.34 ms * ∼24% -0%
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro (Chrome 83)
2061.3 ms * ∼21% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2000 - 2538, n=11)
1956 ms * ∼20% +19%

* ... smaller is better

The extremely fast UFS 3.0 storage is a joy to use and offers significant performance advantages compared to the previous model Black Shark 2. Since competitors have been working on closing the gap, however, devices such as the OnePlus 8 are now able to match our Black Shark 3 in this category.

Xiaomi Black Shark 3Xiaomi Black Shark 2Xiaomi Black Shark 3 ProOnePlus 8Nubia RedMagic 5GSamsung Galaxy S20+Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-63%
-3%
-3%
-19%
-5%
-16%
-81%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
57.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.3 (54.5 - 66.4, n=7)
50.7 (1.7 - 87.1, n=509)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
66.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
72 (66.3 - 81.6, n=7)
68.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=509)
Random Write 4KB
227.8
25
-89%
261.45
15%
203.85
-11%
193.57
-15%
229.8
1%
186 (29.9 - 230, n=10)
-18%
33.1 (0.14 - 319, n=856)
-85%
Random Read 4KB
238.3
145.18
-39%
218.2
-8%
215
-10%
201.64
-15%
199.6
-16%
199 (170 - 238, n=10)
-16%
57.1 (1.59 - 324, n=856)
-76%
Sequential Write 256KB
679.6
195.65
-71%
657.92
-3%
747.87
10%
388.38
-43%
694.3
2%
542 (213 - 697, n=10)
-20%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=856)
-82%
Sequential Read 256KB
1692.2
792.81
-53%
1398.36
-17%
1706.7
1%
1654.41
-2%
1603.1
-5%
1529 (1406 - 1692, n=10)
-10%
329 (12.1 - 1802, n=856)
-81%

Gaming – Made for Gamers

The Shark Space gaming mode of the Black Shark 3 promises to guard against all interruptions during gaming sessions: Here, incoming calls can be blocked, messages hidden and the screen can be set to ignore accidental touches. Furthermore, the RAM can be cleared to make space for game data.

Even though PUBG Mobile theoretically supports 90 FPS, the Black Shark 3 does not recognize this possibility. Although manufacturers often cite a higher battery drain, it would be nice to let users decide for themselves. At least 60 FPS are achievable even at very high quality settings. By contrast, the demanding racing game Asphalt 9 is limited to 30 FPS by default, which our test device maintains consistently. We use Gamebench to record the in-game frame rates.

The Black Shark 3 should be able to display even the latest games smoothly. The fact that the manufacturer has locked users out of taking advantage of higher frame rates with a display that is capable of doing so is incomprehensible.

PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
Shark Space
Shark Space
Gaming overlay
Gaming overlay
010203040506070Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 0.19.0: Ø59.9 (59-61)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 0.19.0: Ø60 (59-61)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 2.3.4a: Ø29.1 (25-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 2.3.4a: Ø29.5 (24-31)

Emissions – No Throttling Under Load

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

Although with a maximum temperature of 41.8 °C (107.28 °F), the heat development of the gaming smartphone is noticeable, it never becomes uncomfortably hot. When the device is not under heavy loads, it remains cool. According to Xiaomi, the smartphone uses a sandwich liquid cooling solution that is supposed to achieve a better efficiency due to a balanced distribution of the components that produce heat and long cooling strips that are filled with a liquid.

With GFXBench's battery test, we assess the stability of the frame rates under prolonged load. Here, we observe no significant frame rate dip even after running the benchmark in a loop 30 times.

Max. Load
 39.5 °C
103 F
40.6 °C
105 F
40.9 °C
106 F
 
 39.8 °C
104 F
41.8 °C
107 F
41.6 °C
107 F
 
 39.7 °C
103 F
40.2 °C
104 F
41.1 °C
106 F
 
Maximum: 41.8 °C = 107 F
Average: 40.6 °C = 105 F
37.2 °C
99 F
39.7 °C
103 F
37.4 °C
99 F
37.4 °C
99 F
40.6 °C
105 F
37.4 °C
99 F
39.1 °C
102 F
41.2 °C
106 F
38.7 °C
102 F
Maximum: 41.2 °C = 106 F
Average: 38.7 °C = 102 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.9 °C = 100 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 40.6 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.8 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.2 °C / 106 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Heatmap front
Heatmap front
Heatmap back
Heatmap back

Speakers

Speaker test pink noise
Speaker test pink noise

The speakers are front-facing and the top speaker also functions as the earpiece for calls.

While the audio quality is decent, the speakers do not get very loud. Lower mids could have been more pronounced, since the sound feels somewhat weak overall. Although the speakers are suitable for giving music or videos a quick listen, we recommend using a headset for a gaming-worthy sound stage. External audio devices can be connected via the 3.5-mm jack or Bluetooth for a clear, good audio experience.

Since the Black Shark 3 is certified for Hi-Res audio, it supports the playback of lossless audio formats.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.840.62539.940.53131.935.64038.938.75043.740.36329.8348025.924.710026.325.712524.92716021.634.92001940.925018.94631518.152.640016.660.250016.263.563014.967.68001568.6100015.668.4125014.968.9160014.970.9200015.669.4250014.668.3315014.273.2400014.170.3500014.467.3630014.659.7800014.961.31000015.261.91250015.462.71600015.754SPL68.76666.36470.627.580.8N22.418.319.715.825.3146.9median 15.4median 62.7Delta2.110.432.536.629.424.822.826.425.32730.23323.326.121.923.21921.419.625.21944.516.148.518.954.316.657.214.358.51560.715.262.914.364.314.366.814.269.714.871.914.874.514.475.114.374.314.674.114.770.114.968.414.965.714.666.714.863.515.447.726.883.40.953.4median 14.8median 64.31.49.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Black Shark 3Nubia RedMagic 5G
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Nubia RedMagic 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life – Black Shark Is No Long-distance Swimmer

Energy Consumption

While the energy consumption of the Xiaomi Black Shark 3 is not particularly low, it is slightly lower compared to the Pro model. However, the Black Shark 3 consumes slightly more energy during day-to-day use than other, similarly powerful smartphones.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.2 / 2.1 / 2.5 Watt
Load midlight 6.3 / 10.7 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
4720 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
5000 mAh
OnePlus 8
4300 mAh
Nubia RedMagic 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S20+
4500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
41%
-18%
19%
19%
8%
2%
28%
Idle Minimum *
1.2
0.73
39%
1.5
-25%
0.9
25%
1.1
8%
1
17%
1.251 (0.53 - 2.2, n=10)
-4%
0.887 (0.2 - 3.4, n=866)
26%
Idle Average *
2.1
1.01
52%
2.3
-10%
2.3
-10%
1.5
29%
1.7
19%
2.25 (1.19 - 3.43, n=10)
-7%
1.754 (0.6 - 6.2, n=865)
16%
Idle Maximum *
2.5
1.13
55%
3.1
-24%
2.33
7%
1.71
32%
2.3
8%
2.55 (1.23 - 4, n=10)
-2%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=866)
18%
Load Average *
6.3
3.64
42%
7.4
-17%
3.5
44%
4.84
23%
5.8
8%
5.28 (3.5 - 7.4, n=10)
16%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=860)
35%
Load Maximum *
10.7
8.86
17%
12.3
-15%
7.68
28%
10.42
3%
11.8
-10%
9.82 (7.68 - 12.3, n=10)
8%
6.04 (1.2 - 14.2, n=860)
44%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

While 11:43 hours in our Wi-Fi test is not a bad result per se, the runtime has decreased compared to the previous model. This is somewhat unexpected, since the battery capacity of the newer model is significantly larger at 4720 mAh. Similarly, the Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro does not exactly achieve record-breaking runtimes, either, and the OnePlus 8 for example does a far better job. Although with 3:26 hours, the Black Shark 3 reaches a decent runtime when gaming at full load, its predecessor was able to last significantly longer here as well.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
24h 47min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 43min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 59min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 26min
Xiaomi Black Shark 3
4720 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark 2
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
5000 mAh
OnePlus 8
4300 mAh
Nubia RedMagic 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S20+
4500 mAh
Battery Runtime
-2%
11%
11%
-21%
16%
Reader / Idle
1487
952
-36%
1589
7%
1374
-8%
2041
37%
H.264
899
666
-26%
972
8%
1096
22%
978
9%
WiFi v1.3
703
774
10%
767
9%
1045
49%
614
-13%
794
13%
Load
206
295
43%
247
20%
168
-18%
149
-28%
218
6%

Pros

+ good value
+ smooth 90-Hz display
+ fast performance
+ fancy lighting effects on the back
+ no throttling under prolonged load
+ wide range of accessories available
+ camera captures good pictures
+ reliable navigation
+ quick Wi-Fi

Cons

- no NFC
- no wireless charging
- no IP certification
- 90 Hz unavailable in many games
- fairly short battery life

Verdict – Lots of Performance...But Not for Long

In review: Xiaomi Black Shark 3
In review: Xiaomi Black Shark 3

The Xiaomi Black Shark 3 has many features gamers have come to expect: An extraordinary and yet well thought-out design, extremely fast performance, swift internal storage, a reliable cooling solution and a good screen.

However, the device is not without flaws and the battery life could have been higher for longer gaming sessions, the high refresh rate support of the display in games is not as far-reaching as we would have liked and the speakers have room for improvement as well. That being said, a few compromises are unavoidable, since the Black Shark 3 gives users access to the world of gaming for just 599 Euros (~$685). This also includes the lack of an IP certification, wireless charging and NFC. The latter is particularly astounding, since mobile payments are becoming more and more important.

Compared to the Pro model, there are no dedicated shoulder buttons, however there are many gaming accessories, some of which are incredibly convenient.

The Black Shark 3 is blazing fast, but its battery life is only average.

All in all, the Black Shark 3 is an inexpensive alternative for all those who are primarily looking for high gaming performance. For non-gamers who like the design, it is still a relatively affordable, yet powerful smartphone with a 90-Hz display. In any case, the battery life should not be a top priority.

Xiaomi Black Shark 3 - 07/20/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
68 / 75 → 90%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
50 / 70 → 71%
Weight
88%
Battery
89%
Display
86%
Games Performance
62 / 64 → 97%
Application Performance
80 / 86 → 93%
Temperature
88%
Noise
100%
Audio
68 / 90 → 76%
Camera
71%
Average
79%
85%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Smartphone Review – Gaming Power with LED Effects
Florian Schmitt, 2020-07-20 (Update: 2020-07-24)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.