Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone Review: Xiaomi has joined the smartphone elite

Finally high-end, but at what cost? With the Mi 10 Pro, Xiaomi has first shown its true intentions for the Mi series - joining the smartphone elite, at any cost. The Mi 10 generation is the beginning of a new era for Xiaomi. In this review of the Mi smartphone, we will determine whether the ambitious concept has been executed successfully.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Marius S.),
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Similar to last year, Xiaomi is releasing two different models of the Mi 9 successor: The Mi 10 and the flagship model Mi 10 Pro - we have summarized the differences between the Mi 10 Pro and the "normal" variant here. The Pro version of the new Xiaomi flagship smartphone (8 GB RAM, 256 GB storage) can be purchased at an MSRP of 999 Euros (~$1,086). The Chinese version of the Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro has been available since February this year. Import retailers such as our lender TradingShenzhen currently demand about 730 Euros (~$794) for the device.

The Pro version of the current Mi generation features a quad camera setup with a 108-MP main camera supporting 8K video functionality and the Snapdragon 865. The high 90-Hz refresh rate of the Xiaomi phone's 6.67-inch edge-to-edge AMOLED display is almost a given in this price class.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Mi 10 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 8 x 2.4 - 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
, LPDDR5
Display
6.67 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 386 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, Super AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 90 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 256 GB 
, 226 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB Type-C port, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Proximity sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope, e-compass, hall effect sensor, barometer, Miracast, IR blaster, USB OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.1, 5G: Sub6G: n1/n3/n7/n28/n77/n78; 4G: FDD LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/20/28/32, TD LTE: 38/40; 3G: WCDMA: B1/B2/B4/B5/B8; 2G: GSM: B2/B3/B5/B8, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.96 x 162.6 x 74.8 ( = 0.35 x 6.4 x 2.94 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 108 MPix (f/1.7, 1/1.33", 0.8µm) + 8 MP (f/2.0, 1.0µm) + 12 MP f/2.0, 1/2.55", 1.4µm) + 20 MP (f/2.2, 13 mm); Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/2.0, 1/3", 0.9µm
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, 1216 super linear , Keyboard: Virtual, USB cable, modular charger, case, MiUI 11, 12 Months Warranty, Body SAR: 0.568 W/kg, head SAR: 0.428 W/kg (Chinese version), Widevine L1, fanless
Weight
208 g ( = 7.34 oz / 0.46 pounds), Power Supply: 81 g ( = 2.86 oz / 0.18 pounds)
Price
999 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
88 %
04/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
208 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2340x1080
89 %
03/2020
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
219 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.9"3200x1440
89 %
04/2020
Huawei P40 Pro
Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16
209 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.58"2640x1200
87 %
11/2019
OnePlus 7T Pro
SD 855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
86 %
03/2020
Oppo Find X2 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
202 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"3168x1440
86 %
04/2020
Google Pixel 4 XL
SD 855, Adreno 640
193 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.3"3040x1440
Mi 10 Pro in Solstice Gray and Alpine White
Mi 10 Pro in Solstice Gray and Alpine White

The waterfall display of the Mi 10 Pro curves into a metal frame. Even though with a 6.67-inch panel and a weight of 208 g (~7.34 oz) the Mi 10 Pro belongs to the phablet class, the high-end smartphone lies well in the hand. That being said, the transitions between the frame and the case are somewhat sharp. While the Mi 10 Pro does not have an IP certification, it comes with nano coating from P2i, which at least protects the Xiaomi phone against splash water.

The build quality and the actuation points of the physical buttons are excellent. The bezels around the display and the space taken up by the front camera punch hole are very small.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (r.) vs. Mi 9 (l.)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Size Comparison

166.9 mm / 6.57 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 219 g0.4828 lbs165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 74.4 mm / 2.93 inch 9.5 mm / 0.374 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.96 mm / 0.3528 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs160.4 mm / 6.31 inch 75.1 mm / 2.96 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 193 g0.4255 lbs158.2 mm / 6.23 inch 72.6 mm / 2.86 inch 8.95 mm / 0.3524 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs

Features - Mi 10 Pro with UFS 3.0 Storage

The Xiaomi smartphone comes with Miracast, an IR blaster and USB OTG. Even the Chinese version of the Mi 10 Pro supports HD quality video-streaming via video-streaming services thanks to Widevine DRM level 1. Although the USB port has the Type-C form factor, it still only adheres to the USB 2.0 standard.

After the initial setup, 226 GB of 256 GB from the internal UFS 3.0 storage's total capacity is available to users. While the 512-GB version offers even more storage space, this configuration is currently only available for the Chinese version of the Mi 10 Pro. Furthermore, the Xiaomi phone is not compatible with SD card storage expansion.

Bottom edge
Top edge
Right edge
Left edge

Software - Xiaomi Smartphone with Android 10

The operating system of the Mi 10 Pro is based on Android 10 with security patches from March 2020. On top of the OS, the manufacturer has installed version 11 of its own MiUI. The MiUI is a heavily customized user interface that does not have much in common with stock Android anymore. In return, the system software not only offers visual tweaks but also numerous adjustments, while still being one of the fastest Android user interfaces.

The MiUI software of the Chinese version of the Mi 10 Pro does not support Google services such as the Play Store ex-factory. Instead, it relies on Chinese services and Xiaomi's own framework. Unlike Huawei's smartphones however, using Google services is still possible. Note: Since Google's frameworks have already been preinstalled on the Mi 10 Pro ex-factory, only the Play Store will have to be manually installed.

The international version of the Mi 10 Pro has access to the usual Google services and system localizations other than Chinese and English ex-factory.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Communication and GPS - Mi 10 Pro with Wi-Fi 6

In terms of the communications modules, Xiaomi uses the new 5G standard and Bluetooth version 5.1. For short-range networking, an NFC chip that supports Google Pay is also on board. The Mi 10 Pro supports a total of 14 LTE bands and covers almost all the relevant LTE frequencies for Europe - this includes LTE band 28, which will likely continue to become more relevant in the future. While the Chinese version lacks bands 20 and 28, the import model of the Xiaomi phone comes with a second nano-SIM slot. Furthermore, the European single-SIM version does not support eSIM.

Even when connected to a home Wi-Fi, the Mi 10 Pro does not disappoint. It supports the recent standard Wi-Fi 6 and 8x8 multi-user MIMO, which guarantees high and relatively consistent transfer speeds within home networks. In conjunction with our reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, the Xiaomi phone achieves transfer speeds of more than 800 Mb/s, which is excellent for a smartphone. Only the Huawei P40 Pro is equipped with an even faster Wi-Fi modem.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
883 (min: 834, max: 919) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
825 (min: 763, max: 855) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
821 (min: 388, max: 998) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
754 (min: 346, max: 881) MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
631 (min: 579, max: 653) MBit/s ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (min: 347, max: 505) MBit/s ∼53% -47%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=562)
267 MBit/s ∼30% -70%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P40 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
1544 (min: 797, max: 1619) MBit/s ∼100% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
818 (min: 425, max: 890) MBit/s ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
816 (min: 403, max: 832) MBit/s ∼53%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
509 (min: 264, max: 571) MBit/s ∼33% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (min: 311, max: 375) MBit/s ∼23% -57%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
317 (min: 159, max: 363) MBit/s ∼21% -61%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=562)
253 MBit/s ∼16% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø883 (834-919)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø803 (403-832)
GPS (indoors)
GPS (indoors)
GPS (outdoors)
GPS (outdoors)

Like with its predecessor, the Mi 10 Pro also supports the dual-GPS feature, which combines bands L1 and L5, the latter of which is primarily used in the professional sector, to give more accurate locating capabilities. With GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou, QZSS and the satellite support system SBAS, it uses the full range of satellite networks for geolocation.

In order to evaluate the accuracy of our test device in practice, we simultaneously recorded our route with the Garmin Edge 500 and the high-end smartphone for comparison. At the end of our test track with a total length of 12.5 kilometers (~7.67 miles), around 170 meters (~558 feet) separates the smartphone GPS module and the dedicated navigation device. Since the detailed view of the GPS only shows minor deviations from the route, there is no reason not to use the Mi 10 Pro for navigation purposes.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro

Telephony and Call Quality - Xiaomi Phone with VoLTE

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

The call quality within the German Vodafone network is nothing out of the ordinary. Voices can be clearly understood and our conversational partner also characterizes us as clearly audible. Furthermore, VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling are supported.

Video calls via Skype with the integrated front camera worked without any issues in our test. The call quality of the integrated speaker is good and voices captured by the integrated microphone offer a good level of volume and clarity.

Cameras - Mi 10 Pro with a 108-MP Camera

Front camera picture taken with the Mi 10 Pro
Front camera picture taken with the Mi 10 Pro

The punch hole on the front houses a 20-MP camera with a fixed-focus lens and HDR support. While the quality of the pictures is good, videos cannot be recorded at 4K resolution.

The 108-MP sensor ISOCELL Bright HMX serves as the main camera of the Mi 10 Pro and is able to capture videos at up to 8K and 30 frames per second, while up to 60 FPS is supported in UHD quality and a staggering 960 FPS at 1080p. Since unlike the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra the Xiaomi flagship only combines four pixels into one super pixel instead of nine, pictures taken with the Mi 10 Pro have a higher resolution (27 MP) - even when using pixel-binning. In well-lit scenes, the 1/1.33-inch sensor offers good sharpness, color accuracy and a wide dynamic range. However, compared to the Galaxy S20 Ultra, a few details get lost and the borders of objects appear somewhat soft-focused. Similarly, the sharpness at the edges of pictures is not within the optimal range.

Unlike previous Mi smartphones, the Mi 10 Pro's camera performance in low-light situations is now competitive. The sensor is able to catch a lot of light from the environment and the autofocus works well in the dark.

The main camera is accompanied by a telephoto optics with 12 MP (1/2.6-inch sensor or 50 mm) and a secondary telephoto lens with 8 MP (1/4.4-inch sensor or 94 mm, OIS) for pictures at higher zoom levels. Their quality is very high. The Xiaomi cameras are able to capture an incredible amount of detail both at 5x and 10x zoom. Similarly, the dynamic range and sharpness of the photos are impressive. While low-light situations introduce image noise and reduce the sharpness, the Mi 10 Pro is still one of the best zoom smartphones in this discipline.

The ultra-wide-angle cam with a resolution of 20 MP (1/2.8-inch sensor with 16-mm optics) is the weakest part of the camera setup. The Mi 10 Pro's wide-angle shots lack sharpness and details compared to other flagships and particularly the P40 Pro has an advantage due to its RYYB sensor. The position of the sensor is impractical as well, since it is located below the other cameras, which can often cause it to be accidentally blocked with a finger.

Ultra-wide angle
Ultra-wide angle
Wide angle
Wide angle
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

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 3Scene 4

Under controlled lightning conditions, the Mi 10 Pro shows a natural color reproduction with only slightly overbrightened colors. Our test charts illustrate the camera's issues when trying to focus the 108-MP camera under synthetic lighting, although this will be less of an issue during day-to-day use - unlike the behavior we observed from the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra.

ColorChecker
19.2 ∆E
25.4 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
24.7 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
26.1 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
15.4 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
28 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
15.6 ∆E
24.3 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
19.3 ∆E
26.7 ∆E
25.9 ∆E
25.2 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
25.2 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 22.31 ∆E min: 9.21 - max: 31.86 ∆E
ColorChecker
18.9 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
19.2 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
1.4 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
5 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 9.63 ∆E min: 1.4 - max: 19.16 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - 65-W Charger Included with the Mi 10 Pro

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

The Mi 10 Pro's scope of delivery includes a modular 65-watt charger, a USB cable and a protective case. Additionally, our lender TradingShenzhen has extended the package contents of our Chinese version with an EU adapter and a USB OTG adapter.

The warranty period of the Xiaomi smartphone is 12 months. In the case of our import device from TradingShenzhen, EU buyers have the option to send the smartphone to a German address in a warranty case.

Input Devices & Handling - Xiaomi Phone Supports a 180-Hz Sampling Rate

The refresh rate of the display (90 Hz) is not the only frequency to exceed the 60-Hz mark: Thanks to the touchscreen's sampling rate of 180 Hz, the 6.67-inch OLED panel is particularly responsive all the way into the edges.

Below the Mi 10 Pro's display, there is an optical fingerprint sensor that responds very quickly as well. Similarly, the Xiaomi phone can be quickly and reliably unlocked via biometric authentication with the front camera's facial recognition, although this method is not particularly secure (2D).

The vibration system is an often overlooked but fairly noticeable feature during daily use. The vibration motor of the Mi 10 Pro produces a crisp haptic feedback and appears to be of a high quality, which results in a very comfortable typing experience on the Xiaomi phone.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Display - Mi 10 Pro with HDR10+ and 90 Hz

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

In our test, we measured a very high luminance of 762 cd/m² from the 6.67-inch Super AMOLED display with an even illumination. Furthermore, we measured the brightness level of an evenly distributed portion of black and white areas (APL50). At 948 cd/m², the brightness was very high in this test as well. Meanwhile, the OLED panel only achieves a maximum brightness of 490 cd/m² with the ambient light sensor disabled.

While digital content appears sharp on the display thanks to its resolution of 2340x1080 pixels, direct competitors are able to offer resolutions of up to 1440p and the refresh rate of the Mi 10 Pro is also exceeded by a few flagship smartphones such as the Oppo Find X2 Pro or OnePlus 8 Pro, both of which support 120 Hz.

The Xiaomi smartphone uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) at a relatively high frequency of 347.2-373.1 Hz to control the screen's brightness even at the maximum brightness setting. Additionally, there is a DC dimming mode.

748
cd/m²
757
cd/m²
782
cd/m²
757
cd/m²
753
cd/m²
774
cd/m²
761
cd/m²
756
cd/m²
771
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 782 cd/m² Average: 762.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.01 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 753 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3200x1440, 6.9
Huawei P40 Pro
OLED, 2640x1200, 6.58
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Oppo Find X2 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.7
Google Pixel 4 XL
P-OLED, 3040x1440, 6.3
OnePlus 8 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78
Screen
-111%
-22%
-102%
-183%
-134%
10%
Brightness middle
753
734
-3%
584
-22%
606
-20%
778
3%
557
-26%
796
6%
Brightness
762
748
-2%
576
-24%
611
-20%
775
2%
555
-27%
779
2%
Brightness Distribution
96
95
-1%
95
-1%
95
-1%
99
3%
95
-1%
94
-2%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
0.9
3.2
-256%
1.1
-22%
3.46
-284%
4.4
-389%
3.9
-333%
0.68
24%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
1.6
6.8
-325%
2.3
-44%
5.64
-253%
8.7
-444%
6.1
-281%
1.55
3%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.5
2.7
-80%
1.8
-20%
2
-33%
5.6
-273%
3.5
-133%
1.1
27%
Gamma
2.24 98%
2.11 104%
2.16 102%
2.258 97%
2.26 97%
2.18 101%
2.237 98%
CCT
6415 101%
6299 103%
6355 102%
6779 96%
7250 90%
6127 106%
6310 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 373.1 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 373.1 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 373.1 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17886 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

The great contrast ratio aside, the Mi 10 Pro also supports HDR10+ and it offers a large color-space coverage. The panel is already calibrated very well ex-factory and is the reference for smartphones together with the OnePlus 8 Pro. The analysis from our spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software outputs very low DeltaE deviations of just 0.9 (colors) and 1.5 (grayscale) from the sRGB color space (profile: standard). That being said, the smaller color space will have to be used in order to achieve this level of precision.

Color accuracy (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color accuracy (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color space (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation sweeps (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation sweeps (profile: Standard, target color space: sRGB)
Color accuracy (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Color accuracy (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Color space (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Color space (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Grayscale (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Grayscale (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Saturation sweeps (profile: Standard, target color space: P3)
Saturation sweeps (profile: 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
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.2 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.2 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39 ms).

Owners of the Mi 10 Pro will not be limited in terms of outdoor use, assuming the ambient light sensor is enabled. The high luminosity and great contrast make for a pleasant outdoor experience even in direct sunlight.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

The viewing angles of the OLED panel are excellent. Even from very steep angles, the perceived colors on the screen still look vivid and undistorted.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Performance - Powerful Snapdragon 865 Inside the Mi 10 Pro

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 inside the Mi 10 Pro houses one fast "prime core" with a clock speed of up to 2.84 GHz and three additional performance cores based on the Cortex A77 microarchitecture with a clock rate of up to 2.42 GHz. Furthermore, there are four ARM Cortex A55 cores (1.8 GHz). Meanwhile, graphics calculations are handled by the Qualcomm SoC's potent Adreno 650 graphics unit.

The system performance of the Mi 10 Pro is superb. Navigating the OS is smooth and there are barely any stutters. Thanks to fast UFS storage and a responsive panel, applications start nearly without any delay.

Combined with 8 GB of LPDDR5 memory, the Snapdragon 865 in our test device achieves a high level of performance. The results from our CPU benchmark measurements for the most part match those of the Oppo Find X2 Pro. When it comes to pure graphics workloads, the Mi 10 Pro tends to score much higher than the Oppo phone and while it achieves similar results as the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra with the Mali-G77 MP11, the lower resolution is of course a factor.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
2519 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3804 Points ∼96% +51%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3979 Points ∼100% +58%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
2641 Points ∼66% +5%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2411 Points ∼61% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (2487 - 3259, n=8)
2723 Points ∼68% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=66)
1633 Points ∼41% -35%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
2932 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4511 Points ∼100% +54%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
2960 Points ∼66% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (2829 - 3080, n=8)
2981 Points ∼66% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (272 - 4739, n=61)
1759 Points ∼39% -40%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3338 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
2815 Points ∼84% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3165 Points ∼94% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3360 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2164 Points ∼64% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3076 - 3449, n=10)
3312 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (445 - 3531, n=90)
1990 Points ∼59% -40%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
906 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
940 Points ∼100% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
779 Points ∼83% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
911 Points ∼97% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
552 Points ∼59% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (903 - 924, n=10)
913 Points ∼97% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=90)
568 Points ∼60% -37%
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9443 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8648 Points ∼75% -8%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
11557 Points ∼100% +22%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9491 Points ∼82% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9443 - 9739, n=5)
9559 Points ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=352)
4861 Points ∼42% -49%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13186 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
12557 Points ∼94% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12774 Points ∼95% -3%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13279 Points ∼99% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (13186 - 13589, n=5)
13396 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 13589, n=414)
4962 Points ∼37% -62%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4261 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4791 Points ∼100% +12%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3935 Points ∼82% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4278 Points ∼89% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4261 - 4304, n=5)
4281 Points ∼89% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=414)
1513 Points ∼32% -64%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10952 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
10255 Points ∼90% -6%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
11341 Points ∼100% +4%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼92% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11387 Points ∼100% +4%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10335 Points ∼91% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9822 - 13202, n=11)
11312 Points ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=492)
5837 Points ∼51% -47%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13142 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
14307 Points ∼100% +9%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
14352 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12645 Points ∼88% -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13360 Points ∼93% +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
12760 Points ∼89% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11839 - 19711, n=10)
13515 Points ∼94% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=650)
6377 Points ∼44% -51%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3830 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3201 Points ∼79% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4057 Points ∼100% +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3564 Points ∼88% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3843 Points ∼95% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3452 Points ∼85% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3193 - 3947, n=8)
3699 Points ∼91% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4057, n=151)
2634 Points ∼65% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8173 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8659 Points ∼100% +6%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6360 Points ∼73% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6527 Points ∼75% -20%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8076 Points ∼93% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5685 Points ∼66% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8076 - 8321, n=8)
8231 Points ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=151)
2899 Points ∼33% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6578 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
6280 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5648 Points ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5509 Points ∼84% -16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6444 Points ∼98% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4970 Points ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (6106 - 6644, n=9)
6479 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6644, n=151)
2613 Points ∼40% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5277 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4447 Points ∼78% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5728 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4683 Points ∼82% -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5187 Points ∼91% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5024 Points ∼88% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5187 - 5780, n=9)
5429 Points ∼95% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=498)
2175 Points ∼38% -59%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9356 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9157 Points ∼97% -2%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6771 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8006 Points ∼85% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9345 Points ∼99% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6950 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9157 - 9567, n=9)
9408 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=498)
2074 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7986 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
7412 Points ∼92% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6508 Points ∼80% -19%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼86% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7982 Points ∼99% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6404 Points ∼79% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7957 - 8204, n=10)
8086 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=499)
1926 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4283 Points ∼75%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4436 Points ∼78% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5718 Points ∼100% +34%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4604 Points ∼81% +7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5209 Points ∼91% +22%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4652 Points ∼81% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3956 - 5765, n=9)
5009 Points ∼88% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=528)
2085 Points ∼36% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12694 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9470 Points ∼74% -25%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7905 Points ∼62% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11448 Points ∼90% -10%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12573 Points ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9995 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (12547 - 12895, n=9)
12716 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=528)
2763 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8823 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
7563 Points ∼79% -14%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7286 Points ∼76% -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8605 Points ∼89% -2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9616 Points ∼100% +9%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7963 Points ∼83% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8499 - 10090, n=9)
9458 Points ∼98% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=528)
2322 Points ∼24% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4895 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4267 Points ∼86% -13%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4971 Points ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4519 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4582 Points ∼92% -6%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4612 Points ∼93% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4582 - 5209, n=9)
4956 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=578)
2062 Points ∼41% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8299 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8257 Points ∼99% -1%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6465 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7044 Points ∼85% -15%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8045 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6163 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8045 - 8432, n=9)
8282 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=578)
1734 Points ∼21% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7157 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
6836 Points ∼95% -4%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6060 Points ∼84% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼87% -12%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7012 Points ∼97% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5734 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7012 - 7323, n=10)
7198 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=579)
1658 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4729 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
3889 Points ∼77% -18%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4975 Points ∼98% +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4503 Points ∼89% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5054 Points ∼100% +7%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4618 Points ∼91% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3965 - 5274, n=9)
4783 Points ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=620)
1925 Points ∼38% -59%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12394 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
11488 Points ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7499 Points ∼61% -39%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10637 Points ∼86% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11458 Points ∼92% -8%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9141 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11371 - 12494, n=9)
11794 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=619)
2278 Points ∼18% -82%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9123 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
8010 Points ∼88% -12%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6739 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8165 Points ∼89% -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8866 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7507 Points ∼82% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8215 - 9492, n=9)
8887 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=622)
1963 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
32384 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
42135 Points ∼90% +30%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
46731 Points ∼100% +44%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
30561 Points ∼65% -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28147 Points ∼60% -13%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
43773 Points ∼94% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (26182 - 58293, n=9)
36070 Points ∼77% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=768)
15261 Points ∼33% -53%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
150281 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
79572 Points ∼53% -47%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
82652 Points ∼55% -45%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
118129 Points ∼79% -21%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
145567 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
105430 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (144611 - 154375, n=9)
148492 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=766)
25927 Points ∼17% -83%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
82937 Points ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
66452 Points ∼78% -20%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
70593 Points ∼82% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
72173 Points ∼84% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
75632 Points ∼88% -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
80296 Points ∼94% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (72524 - 112989, n=9)
85586 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=766)
20383 Points ∼24% -75%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
203 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
200 fps ∼98% -1%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
152 fps ∼75% -25%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
185 fps ∼91% -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
202 fps ∼99% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
136 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (202 - 207, n=10)
204 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=773)
43.9 fps ∼22% -78%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
90 fps ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
119 fps ∼100% +32%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼50% -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼50% -33%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼50% -33%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼50% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (60 - 90, n=10)
72 fps ∼61% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=782)
30.5 fps ∼26% -66%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
122 fps ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
100 fps ∼81% -18%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
118 fps ∼95% -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
111 fps ∼90% -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
123 fps ∼99% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
82 fps ∼66% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (120 - 126, n=10)
124 fps ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=678)
25.9 fps ∼21% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
88 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
59 fps ∼67% -33%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
59 fps ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼65% -35%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
58 fps ∼66% -34%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
46 fps ∼52% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (58 - 88, n=10)
69 fps ∼78% -22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=686)
21.8 fps ∼25% -75%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
72 fps ∼84% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75 fps ∼87% -13%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
79 fps ∼92% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
53 fps ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (74 - 88, n=11)
85.3 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=541)
20.8 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
77 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
58 fps ∼75% -25%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
52 fps ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
40 fps ∼52% -48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
27 fps ∼35% -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (43 - 77, n=11)
58.1 fps ∼75% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=543)
19 fps ∼25% -75%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
30 fps ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
33 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
23 fps ∼70% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼52% -43%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
18 fps ∼55% -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
11 fps ∼33% -63%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (18 - 31, n=11)
27.5 fps ∼83% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=290)
11.2 fps ∼34% -63%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
19 fps ∼86% -5%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
19 fps ∼86% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
12 fps ∼55% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (20 - 20, n=11)
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=288)
8.03 fps ∼37% -60%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
47 fps ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
51 fps ∼100% +9%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
36 fps ∼71% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼51% -45%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28 fps ∼55% -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
17 fps ∼33% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (28 - 53, n=11)
43.6 fps ∼85% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=294)
16.6 fps ∼33% -65%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
54 (min: 20) fps ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
56 fps ∼100% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
50 fps ∼89% -7%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼84% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼95% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33 fps ∼59% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (27 - 54, n=11)
51 fps ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=293)
19.3 fps ∼34% -64%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
50 fps ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
50 fps ∼98% 0%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
44 fps ∼86% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
48 fps ∼94% -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼100% +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
32 fps ∼63% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (49 - 52, n=11)
50.6 fps ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=466)
14 fps ∼27% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
45 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
44 fps ∼98% -2%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
31 fps ∼69% -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼53% -47%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
26 fps ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼36% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (25 - 46, n=11)
38.9 fps ∼86% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=470)
12.5 fps ∼28% -72%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
595466 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
498708 Points ∼83% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
496966 Points ∼83% -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
486654 Points ∼81% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
599843 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
426757 Points ∼71% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (557310 - 607937, n=11)
580619 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=95)
314806 Points ∼52% -47%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7156 Score ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4957 Score ∼69% -31%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5037 Score ∼70% -30%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4986 Score ∼70% -30%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4988 Score ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4988 - 7649, n=3)
6598 Score ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 7649, n=82)
2609 Score ∼36% -64%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1514 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
1270 Points ∼78% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1629 Points ∼100% +8%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1236 Points ∼76% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1351 Points ∼83% -11%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1502 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (1276 - 1576, n=10)
1450 Points ∼89% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=710)
808 Points ∼50% -47%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11567 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
10781 Points ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10138 Points ∼87% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10618 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11496 Points ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9356 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11445 - 11842, n=10)
11655 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=710)
2431 Points ∼21% -79%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7945 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4497 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6038 Points ∼76% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5091 Points ∼64% -36%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6350 Points ∼80% -20%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6387 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5564 - 8874, n=10)
7263 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=710)
1810 Points ∼23% -77%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10002 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9478 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9782 Points ∼98% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9294 Points ∼93% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9555 Points ∼96% -4%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8417 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8421 - 10147, n=10)
9643 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=710)
3379 Points ∼34% -66%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6072 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
4915 Points ∼81% -19%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5589 Points ∼92% -8%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4992 Points ∼82% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5540 Points ∼91% -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5243 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5264 - 6273, n=10)
5845 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=710)
1719 Points ∼28% -72%

Compared to its competitors, the Xiaomi smartphone also places high in the web-based benchmarks. Subjectively, the Chrome browser feels very responsive and the loading times are short, even with complex page content.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
69.956 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
64.958 Points ∼93%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
64.567 Points ∼92% -1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
62.417 Points ∼89% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50.9 - 69.5, n=10)
61.3 Points ∼88% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
51.826 Points ∼74% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=172)
40.2 Points ∼57% -38%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
116.61 Points ∼100% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
115.44 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
115.43 Points ∼99%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.65 Points ∼98% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (79.1 - 120, n=9)
110 Points ∼94% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
89.62 Points ∼77% -22%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
84.388 Points ∼72% -27%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=601)
46.4 Points ∼40% -60%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
71.8 runs/min ∼100% +5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
71 runs/min ∼99% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
68.6 runs/min ∼96%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)
66.4 runs/min ∼92% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50.8 - 74.5, n=10)
65.4 runs/min ∼91% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
63.7 runs/min ∼89% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=156)
43.1 runs/min ∼60% -37%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (99 - 118, n=10)
103 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
101 Points ∼98%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼97% -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼97% -1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼90% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
86 Points ∼83% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=237)
69.9 Points ∼68% -31%
Huawei P40 Pro
Points ∼0% -100%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
24044 Points ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
23999 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
23690 Points ∼99% +4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
22976 Points ∼96% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
22834 Points ∼95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (15745 - 24369, n=10)
21331 Points ∼89% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
19122 Points ∼80% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=768)
7701 Points ∼32% -66%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=794)
9883 ms * ∼100% -389%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
2398.3 ms * ∼24% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
2344.7 ms * ∼24% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼22% -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
2043.6 ms * ∼21% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
2021.2 ms * ∼20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2000 - 2538, n=11)
1956 ms * ∼20% +3%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
1913.7 ms * ∼19% +5%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Mi 10 ProSamsung Galaxy S20 UltraHuawei P40 ProOnePlus 7T ProOppo Find X2 ProGoogle Pixel 4 XLAverage 256 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-13%
-14%
-47%
-14%
-52%
-23%
-83%
Random Write 4KB
258.54
221.37
-14%
271.83
5%
26
-90%
204.98
-21%
164.18
-36%
180 (24.8 - 272, n=17)
-30%
33.2 (0.14 - 319, n=858)
-87%
Random Read 4KB
264.9
202.43
-24%
228.06
-14%
169
-36%
202.63
-24%
142.24
-46%
205 (169 - 265, n=17)
-23%
57.2 (1.59 - 324, n=858)
-78%
Sequential Write 256KB
750.44
697.08
-7%
395.74
-47%
405
-46%
728.72
-3%
197.41
-74%
532 (387 - 756, n=17)
-29%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=858)
-84%
Sequential Read 256KB
1738.65
1632.02
-6%
1774.68
2%
1489
-14%
1605.6
-8%
870.91
-50%
1592 (1398 - 1789, n=17)
-8%
330 (12.1 - 1802, n=858)
-81%

Gaming - Mi 10 Pro Is a 90-Hz Gaming Machine

As expected, we encountered no issues with the integrated gyroscope or the touchscreen of the Mi 10 Pro while gaming. The strong graphics unit Adreno 650 offers enough performance to display even demanding games from the Play Store smoothly - Asphalt 9 scratches the 30-FPS mark at high quality settings, while PUBG mobile runs at a frame rate of 40 FPS. Older games such as Dead Trigger 2 are playable at a fairly consistent frame rate of 90 FPS, which means they can take full advantage of the screen's high refresh rate. We used the app GameBench to measure the frame rates.

Dead Trigger 2
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9
PUBG Mobile
01020304050Tooltip
: Ø39.9 (37-41)
Asphalt 9 Legends
010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.9 (28-32)
Dead Trigger 2
0102030405060708090Tooltip
: Ø89.9 (89-90)

Emissions - Xiaomi Phone with Excellent Audio

Temperature

Even under continuous load, the case temperature of the high-end smartphone barely increases. Inside the Mi 10 Pro, the VC liquid cooling solution is supposed to keep temperatures at an acceptable level.

Apart from the vapor chamber (VC) cooling solution, which has a relatively large footprint for a smartphone solution at 30 cm², Xiaomi uses six layers of graphite, copper foil, and thermal conductive gel. In order to test the cooling solution of the Mi 10 Pro, we used GFXBench's battery test to analyze the heat development of the Qualcomm SoC under continuous stress. In the demanding Manhattan test (OpenGL ES 3.1), the Mi 10 Pro barely showed any throttling behavior. Thus, performance drops during daily use, for example while gaming, are very unlikely.

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Max. Load
 30.8 °C
87 F
32.1 °C
90 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
 30 °C
86 F
31.7 °C
89 F
33.1 °C
92 F
 
 29.5 °C
85 F
31 °C
88 F
32.5 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 33.1 °C = 92 F
Average: 31.5 °C = 89 F
29.6 °C
85 F
30.7 °C
87 F
30.7 °C
87 F
29.8 °C
86 F
30.3 °C
87 F
29.7 °C
85 F
29.1 °C
84 F
30.3 °C
87 F
30.1 °C
86 F
Maximum: 30.7 °C = 87 F
Average: 30 °C = 86 F
Power Supply (max.)  25 °C = 77 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 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 33.1 °C / 92 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 30.7 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Smartphone review

Speakers

Speaker test: Pink noise
Speaker test: Pink noise

The Mi 10 Pro has an integrated, symmetrically positioned dual-speaker system on the top and bottom edge of the case. The symmetrical arrangement of the speakers allows the Mi 10 Pro to produce true stereo sound. The setup consists of two 1216 super-linear speakers with seven magnetic units each and a 1.2 cc-equivalent speaker chamber that amplify the sound.

All in all, the Mi 10 Pro produces an impressive sound for a smartphone. While it comes as no surprise that the sound lacks bass, the audio experience is very linear overall. As our pink noise graph shows, the falloff at extremely high frequencies is also very minor.

Although Xiaomi has omitted the headphone jack on its Mi 10 Pro, music playback via the USB port has a good level of volume and clarity. Users who wish to use wireless headphones or Bluetooth speakers benefit from aptX HD and AAC as well as LDAC support.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2030.538.72522.429.23121.426.34024.328.35028.238.16321.6258022.325.610020.43712518.647.416017.256.320017.55225015.15631515.260.44001564.150014.267.663013.169.480013.969.110001370.412501370.6160013.772.3200014.273.925001477.5315014.475.2400014.374.8500014.470.7630014.669.3800014.964.91000014.962.81250015.262.91600015.656.5SPL26.484.5N0.859.2median 14.6median 67.6Delta0.86.733.431.529.629.329.828.525.526.133.232.126.824.925.523.323.724.319.13318.953.317.250.917.552.81757.515.159.7156414.764.315.565.715.567.314.771.514.575.114.675.714.574.313.775.714.772.314.572.314.569.814.570.614.869.514.962.715.55626.984.40.958.1median 14.9median 65.71.38.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi 10 ProSamsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 12% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Energy Management - Mi 10 Pro with 30-W Wireless Charging

Energy Consumption

Xiaomi has equipped its flagship smartphone with a 4,500 mAh battery that supports wired (50 W) and wireless (30 W) quick charging. Reverse wireless charging with up to 10 watts is possible as well. While a charging time of 50 minutes means that the Mi 10 Pro does not charge quite as quickly as the Oppo Find X2 Pro, the charging times of the Xiaomi phone relative to its high battery capacity are very short. The energy consumption is very low, particularly while idling.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.23 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.61 / 1.19 / 1.23 Watt
Load midlight 4.18 / 8.53 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
5000 mAh
Huawei P40 Pro
4200 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Google Pixel 4 XL
3700 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-35%
-9%
-121%
-118%
-14%
-68%
-25%
Idle Minimum *
0.61
0.76
-25%
0.92
-51%
2.1
-244%
1.47
-141%
0.83
-36%
1.251 (0.53 - 2.2, n=10)
-105%
0.887 (0.2 - 3.4, n=866)
-45%
Idle Average *
1.19
1.91
-61%
1.41
-18%
3
-152%
3.43
-188%
1.24
-4%
2.25 (1.19 - 3.43, n=10)
-89%
1.754 (0.6 - 6.2, n=865)
-47%
Idle Maximum *
1.23
1.96
-59%
1.47
-20%
3.5
-185%
3.52
-186%
1.25
-2%
2.55 (1.23 - 4, n=10)
-107%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=866)
-66%
Load Average *
4.18
4.72
-13%
3.35
20%
5.3
-27%
6.2
-48%
4.98
-19%
5.28 (3.5 - 7.4, n=10)
-26%
4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=860)
2%
Load Maximum *
8.53
10.15
-19%
6.37
25%
8.3
3%
10.63
-25%
9.09
-7%
9.82 (7.68 - 12.3, n=10)
-15%
6.04 (1.2 - 14.2, n=860)
29%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The results of our Wi-Fi test suggest excellent web-browsing runtimes for the Mi 10 Pro despite its 90-Hz screen, and even with intensive use, hardcore users should be able to easily make it through a day on one battery charge.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
35h 33min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 25min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 13min
Load (maximum brightness)