Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi 4s Smartphone Review

High-end phone for a mainstream price. The Mi 4s makes a strong case for spending $300 USD on a new smartphone instead of $600 or $700 for a top-of-the-line model. Find out how the Xiaomi compares to both mainstream and flagship competitors.

Xiaomi has been slowly building up from offering inexpensive budget smartphones to more mid-range and high-end models that tend to sell at much higher margins. This jump in quality is apparent when taking a closer look at the Redmi 2 versus its much improved Redmi 3 successor.

The 5-inch Mi 4s is the updated version of the Mi 4 in the same manner as the iPhone 6s is to the iPhone 6. For Xiaomi, however, the Mi 4s is more than just an internal upgrade as the chassis is now thinner and with more features not previously available in the series.

Main competitors to the Mi 4s include the OnePlus X, Asus Zenfone 2, and Google Nexus 5X considering the $300 to $350 price range of the smartphone.

Xiaomi Mi 4s (Mi Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2804 MB 
Display
5 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel, 10-point capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm earphones, Card Reader: MicroSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Fingerprint, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1 A2DP, 2G bands: GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - SIM 1 & SIM 2, CDMA 800 / 1900, 3G bands: HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 TD-SCDMA, 4G bands: LTE band 1(2100), 3(1800), 7(2600), 38(2600), 39(1900), 40(2300), 41(2500) , Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.8 x 139.3 x 70.8 ( = 0.31 x 5.48 x 2.79 in)
Operating System
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/2.0, phase detection autofocus, dual-LED (dual tone) flash
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.0, 1080p
Additional features
Speakers: Monaural, Wall charger, USB Type-C cable, Quick Start guide
Weight
133 g ( = 4.69 oz / 0.29 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
350 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Mi 4s is available in Black, White, and Gold color options. Our Gold test unit gives off a luxurious luster with at least three different types of surfaces making up the chassis. The glass-covered front is completely flat with almost no rise around the edges and corners. The rounded aluminum sides of the phone are a slippery matte finish with striped chrome-cut edges and corners for glossy accents. Meanwhile, the back of the phone utilizes another smooth layer of glass similar to the recent Galaxy S6 series, but with a cross-diamond pattern underneath to avoid what would have otherwise been a plain plastic look. Even the camera and LED Flash modules are recessed onto the same plane as the glass for a completely flat surface. It's clear that Xiaomi had invested much more in the aesthetics of the design compared to its older generation of plastic smartphones.

Workmanship is nearly perfect around the edges and corners where the different materials meet. Unfortunately on our test unit, we are able to notice a small and depressible gap between the back cover and edge of the smartphone. While this may be more common on smartphones with removable back covers, designs with non-removable battery packs like the Mi 4s are expected to have a much more solid seal around its edges. The potential for gaps is a drawback from not using a unibody design.

Overall rigidity is above average with no creaking or cracks when attempting to twist from the sides or when applying pressure down its center. A bit of bending and warping is possible with a moderate amount of force, but nothing extensive enough to be a cause for concern.

When comparing its size to other 5-inch smartphones, the Mi 4s is thinner and smaller than the Honor 5X and even thinner than the Galaxy S7 by one-tenth of a millimeter. The OnePlus X comes in even thinner than the Mi 4s and with a faster Snapdragon 810 SoC at the cost of much higher surface temperatures. Xiaomi still has the edge in weight as its model is one of the lightest 5-inch smartphones available at 133 grams.

151.3 mm / 5.96 inch 76.3 mm / 3 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 158 g0.3483 lbs147 mm / 5.79 inch 72.6 mm / 2.86 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 136 g0.2998 lbs144 mm / 5.67 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 10.5 mm / 0.4134 inch 140 g0.3086 lbs146 mm / 5.75 inch 71 mm / 2.8 inch 7.3 mm / 0.2874 inch 143 g0.3153 lbs143.5 mm / 5.65 inch 70 mm / 2.76 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 140 g0.3086 lbs142.4 mm / 5.61 inch 69.6 mm / 2.74 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 152 g0.3351 lbs139.3 mm / 5.48 inch 70.8 mm / 2.79 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 133 g0.2932 lbs140 mm / 5.51 inch 69 mm / 2.72 inch 6.9 mm / 0.2717 inch 138 g0.3042 lbs131 mm / 5.16 inch 67 mm / 2.64 inch 10 mm / 0.3937 inch 141 g0.3109 lbs

Connectivity

Micro-USB is slowly but surely being phased out in favor of USB Type-C. In this case, the Type-C port is limited to standard USB 2.0 speeds like on the OnePlus 2, so the only benefit here is the hassle-free reversible end. Otherwise, the usual 3.5 mm earphone port is located next to the IR source on top.

There is no integrated NFC available, so contact-less payment is beyond the reach of the Mi 4s.

Left: Micro-SIM + Nano-SIM/MicroSD slots
Left: Micro-SIM + Nano-SIM/MicroSD slots
Bottom: USB Type-C port
Bottom: USB Type-C port
Right: Power button, Volume rocker
Right: Power button, Volume rocker
Top: IR blaster, 3.5 mm audio
Top: IR blaster, 3.5 mm audio

Software

The MIUI 7.0 software is based on Android 6.0 Marshmallow and is low on extraneous features and background applications. Thus, the system feels swift with few interruptions and popup notifications and is overall closer to stock Android than other custom UIs.

In return, there are numerous pre-installed applications, many of which are geared towards users in Asia with news, apps, and music from the region. The Google Play Store must be installed by the user through means that aren't exactly intuitive.

Lock screen
Lock screen
Home screen
Home screen
Dropdown settings
Dropdown settings
Wide array of pre-installed apps
Wide array of pre-installed apps

Communication & GPS

The integrated dual-band (2.4/5 GHz) WLAN supports WiFi Direct and Hotspot for tethering purposes. We experienced no random drops or connectivity issues during our time with the test unit. Reception is better than the LG G3 under the same distances and conditions according to WiFi Analyzer.

GPS accuracy is reliable enough for road navigation. The smartphone is less accurate around turns and corners compared to the Garmin standard, so twists and turns on winding paths will accentuate the weaknesses of the Xiaomi phone when used for GPS tracking.

LG G3 (1 m from source)
LG G3 (1 m from source)
LG G3 (5 m)
LG G3 (5 m)
LG G3 (15 m)
LG G3 (15 m)
Mi 4s (1 m from source)
Mi 4s (1 m from source)
Mi 4s (5 m)
Mi 4s (5 m)
Mi 4s (~15 m)
Mi 4s (~15 m)
Garmin Edge 500 GPS
Garmin Edge 500 GPS
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s

Telephone & Voice Quality

Dual-SIM and MicroSD tray
Dual-SIM and MicroSD tray

Officially supported bands include GSM 850/900/1800/1900, HSDPA 850/1900/2100, and 4G LTE Cat 4 150/50 Mbps download/upload. See Xiaomi's specifications on the Mi 4s for a complete list of compatible networks. Access to the Micro-SIM and Nano-SIM tray on the edge of the device will require a sharp pin.

Call quality under the AT&T network is clear, but with a low maximum volume. Thus, voices become much more coherent when switching to speakerphone instead of using the earpiece. As for the LG G3 listener on the other end, the caller was sensitive to any background noises such as traffic or crowds. Our voice was otherwise loud and clear through the Xiaomi. We experienced no consistent static or dropped calls during our time with the test unit.

Cameras & Multimedia

Camera quality from the rear 13 MP sensor is very good with minimal grains and muddiness that tend to be much more common on cheaper smartphones. Images captured with the Mi 4s approach the sharpness of the LG G3 camera, albeit with some caveats that make the Xiaomi fall just short. In particular, brown colors have a tendency to be exhibit a Green tint, so colors are not as natural as they could have been.

Low-light and indoor performances, however, are merely average from the standard f/2.0 aperture lens with image noise becoming much more prevalent. The slow auto-focus is nothing special either as the phone lacks the faster laser auto-focus capabilities of some higher-end models.

Video recording is available up to 1080p30. Unfortunately, quality here is on the blurry side and with muted colors. The slow auto-focus is more of an issue here as well. Slow-motion recording is available only at the 720p setting or lower.

LG G3
LG G3
LG G3
LG G3
LG G3
LG G3
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
LG G3
LG G3
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Canon EOS Rebel XSi
Canon EOS Rebel XSi

Input Devices

Touchscreen

Touch-typing on the Mi 4s is reliable and equally responsive around the edges and corners as it is towards the center. The output is displayed as fast as the user can type, so the software is able to keep up with fast typists without any issues. The surface is sensitive enough for even the lightest of taps to register consistently. The vibration feedback could have been stronger, but the experience is still excellent overall.

Meanwhile, the rear fingerprint reader works quickly (<1 second) without issues and can save scans of multiple fingers. Unlike the fingerprint readers on some budget devices like the Bluboo Xtouch, your finger does not need to be perfectly oriented the same way each time to unlock the phone. The reader will work just as swiftly if the finger happens to be upside down or sideways.

10-point capacitive touchscreen
10-point capacitive touchscreen
Google Pinyin stock keyboard
Google Pinyin stock keyboard

Display

The 5-inch 1080p screen offers a very sharp picture with colors that seem to pop due to the thin layer of glass on top. The backlight is powerful at almost 500 nits to put the Xiaomi ahead of mainstream models like the One A9 and OnePlus X, yet behind the flagship Galaxy S6 and Xperia Z5 Premium. Measured contrast is excellent at nearly 900:1.

Backlight bleeding isn't an issue around the edges or corners. Instead, the backlight is fairly uneven as the bottom half of the screen is brighter than the top half. The difference is fortunately not significant enough to notice during everyday use, though this is certainly an area to improve upon for future revisions.

Dimmer backlight on the left side of screen
Dimmer backlight on the left side of screen
RGB Subpixel array offers 441 PPI
RGB Subpixel array offers 441 PPI
440.2
cd/m²
488.3
cd/m²
471.6
cd/m²
445.2
cd/m²
488.2
cd/m²
482.7
cd/m²
431.5
cd/m²
498.7
cd/m²
490.7
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro Basic 2
Maximum: 498.7 cd/m² Average: 470.8 cd/m² Minimum: 0.763 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 488.2 cd/m²
Contrast: 869:1 (Black: 0.562 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.48 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 3.06 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
Gamma: 2.4
Xiaomi Mi 4s
5, 1920x1080
Google Nexus 5X
5.2, 1920x1080
Asus Zenfone 2 ZE500KL
5, 1280x720
HTC One A9
5, 1920x1080
OnePlus X
5, 1920x1080
Response Times
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
36.4 (12.8, 23.6)
Response Time Black / White *
21.6 (6, 15.6)
PWM Frequency
237 (25)
Screen
25%
25%
8%
-63%
Brightness middle
488.2
503
3%
467
-4%
346
-29%
312
-36%
Brightness
471
498
6%
460
-2%
349
-26%
314
-33%
Brightness Distribution
87
97
11%
95
9%
93
7%
91
5%
Black Level *
0.562
0.38
32%
0.3
47%
Contrast
869
1324
52%
1557
79%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.48
2.09
40%
3.28
6%
1.55
55%
6.28
-80%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.01
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.06
2.12
31%
1.89
38%
2.05
33%
8.24
-169%
Gamma
2.4 92%
2.27 97%
2.21 100%
2.15 102%
2.12 104%
CCT
6627 98%
6621 98%
6734 97%
6267 104%
8145 80%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
25% / 25%
25% / 25%
8% / 8%
-63% / -63%

* ... smaller is better

Further display measurements with an X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal good grayscale and color accuracy with no notable outliers. Nonetheless, models like the Nexus 5X and even the One A9 offer more accurate colors and a gamma closer to the 2.2 sRGB ideal. For everyday use, however, the minute differences are not significant.

Grayscale
Grayscale
Saturation Sweeps
Saturation Sweeps
ColorChecker
ColorChecker

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
21.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6 ms rise
↘ 15.6 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 24 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 12.8 ms rise
↘ 23.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 31 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (40.6 ms).

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 not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9603 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is good under shade and poor under direct sunlight. The backlight is not powerful enough to overcome both glare and sunlight, so onscreen content will appear washed out. Luckily, the wide viewing angles make avoiding glare much easier without sacrificing color quality or contrast. Apparent brightness will be a bit dimmer if viewing from too wide of an angle, which is common amongst IPS panels.

Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under direct sunlight
Outdoors under direct sunlight

Performance

The Snapdragon 808 is a relatively new high-end processor from Qualcomm that made its debut on last year's flagship LG G4 and is only now trickling down to mainstream devices like the Mi 4s. According to CPU-Z, the hexa-core SoC can run as slow as 384 MHz for power-saving purposes and up to 1.82 GHz when applications demand it. Coupled with the system's 3 GB RAM, the Mi 4s is carrying a hefty amount of power for its class.

Multi-core CPU benchmarks rank the Xiaomi phone alongside systems like the Nexus 6, Nexus 9, and LG G4 while being consistently behind the Galaxy S6 and the OnePlus 2 with the Exynos 7420 and Snapdragon 810 SoCs, respectively. Thus, raw performance sits comfortably between mainstream and pricier flagship smartphones.

Linpack Android / IOS
Multi Thread
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
839.138 MFLOPS ∼100% +51%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
818.77 MFLOPS ∼98% +47%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
556.656 MFLOPS ∼66%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
275 MFLOPS ∼33% -51%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
264.368 MFLOPS ∼32% -53%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
207.718 MFLOPS ∼25% -63%
Single Thread
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
630.326 MFLOPS ∼100% +49%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
625.622 MFLOPS ∼99% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
423.492 MFLOPS ∼67%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
134 MFLOPS ∼21% -68%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
117.086 MFLOPS ∼19% -72%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
114.214 MFLOPS ∼18% -73%
PCMark for Android
Computer Vision score
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1756 Points ∼100%
Storage score
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3900 Points ∼100%
Work 2.0 performance score
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3293 Points ∼100%
Work performance score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5050 Points ∼100% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4735 Points ∼94%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4282 Points ∼85% -10%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
3701 Points ∼73% -22%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3589 Points ∼71% -24%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3494 Points ∼69% -26%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
65936 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
63166 Points ∼96%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
36800 Points ∼56% -42%
Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
4843 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4154 Points ∼86%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
1563 Points ∼32%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1329 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1066 Points ∼80%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
528 Points ∼40%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5619 Points ∼100% +76%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4804 Points ∼85% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
3185 Points ∼57%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2824 Points ∼50% -11%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2558 Points ∼46% -20%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
1561 Points ∼28% -51%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1503 Points ∼100% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1253 Points ∼83%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1140 Points ∼76% -9%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
717 Points ∼48% -43%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
623 Points ∼41% -50%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
526 Points ∼35% -58%
Google V8 Ver. 7 - Google V8 Ver. 7 Score
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
10540 Points ∼100% +37%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
9334 Points ∼89% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
7700 Points ∼73%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
7650 Points ∼73% -1%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3917 Points ∼37% -49%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
3125 Points ∼30% -59%
Browsermark - 2.1
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2731 points ∼100% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2368 points ∼87%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2111 points ∼77% -11%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1471 points ∼54% -38%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1233 points ∼45% -48%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
1203 points ∼44% -49%
Sunspider
1.0 Total Score
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
1573.1 ms * ∼100% -144%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1518 ms * ∼96% -135%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1235 ms * ∼79% -91%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
739.6 ms * ∼47% -15%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
645.1 ms * ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
347.1 ms * ∼22% +46%
0.9.1 Total Score
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1395.9 ms * ∼100% -128%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
613 ms * ∼44%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
49.193 Points ∼100% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
44.391 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
44.286 Points ∼90% 0%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
24.51 Points ∼50% -45%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
20.832 Points ∼42% -53%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
20.131 Points ∼41% -55%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
13678.5 ms * ∼100% -197%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
11843 ms * ∼87% -157%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
11694 ms * ∼85% -154%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6585.3 ms * ∼48% -43%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4609 ms * ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
4037.4 ms * ∼30% +12%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
8650 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
8143 Points ∼94%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6955 Points ∼80% -15%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3764 Points ∼44% -54%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
3296 Points ∼38% -60%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3040 Points ∼35% -63%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
97 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
80 Points ∼82% -18%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
58 Points ∼60% -40%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
56 Points ∼58% -42%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52 Points ∼54% -46%
Vellamo 3.x
Metal
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2583 Points ∼100% +16%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2526 Points ∼98% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2224 Points ∼86%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1291 Points ∼50% -42%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
1219 Points ∼47% -45%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1128 Points ∼44% -49%
Multicore Beta
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
3425 Points ∼100% +50%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2287 Points ∼67%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
2272 Points ∼66% -1%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1519 Points ∼44% -34%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1025 Points ∼30% -55%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
966 Points ∼28% -58%
Browser
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5463 Points ∼100% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4665 Points ∼85%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4526 Points ∼83% -3%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2753 Points ∼50% -41%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
2043 (min: 1641) Points ∼37% -56%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1849 Points ∼34% -60%
Quadrant Standard Edition 2.0 - ---
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
36419 points ∼100% +72%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
31148 points ∼86% +47%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
21167 points ∼58%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
20276 points ∼56% -4%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
17712 points ∼49% -16%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
15455 points ∼42% -27%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
15455 points ∼42% -27%
Smartbench 2012
Gaming Index
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
4498 points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4399 points ∼98%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4325 points ∼96% -2%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
3234 points ∼72% -26%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2948 points ∼66% -33%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2523 points ∼56% -43%
Productivity Index
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
13558 points ∼100% +183%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
10472 points ∼77% +118%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
4962 points ∼37% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4793 points ∼35%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4194 points ∼31% -12%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3820 points ∼28% -20%
PassMark PerformanceTest Mobile V1
3D Graphics Tests
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2345 Points ∼100% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1935 Points ∼83%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1534 Points ∼65% -21%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1128 Points ∼48% -42%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1069 Points ∼46% -45%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
811 Points ∼35% -58%
2D Graphics Tests
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
5395 Points ∼100% +17%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5274 Points ∼98% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
4601 Points ∼85%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2835 Points ∼53% -38%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
2745 Points ∼51% -40%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1818 Points ∼34% -60%
Memory Tests
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
6924 Points ∼100% +18%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6632 Points ∼96% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
5859 Points ∼85%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4838 Points ∼70% -17%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
3154 Points ∼46% -46%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2457 Points ∼35% -58%
Disk Tests
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
68872 Points ∼100% +69%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
44133 Points ∼64% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
40846 Points ∼59%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
35176 Points ∼51% -14%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
23839 Points ∼35% -42%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
7518 Points ∼11% -82%
CPU Tests
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
176225 Points ∼100% +91%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
126720 Points ∼72% +38%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
120120 Points ∼68% +30%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
92136 Points ∼52%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
13288 Points ∼8% -86%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
10592 Points ∼6% -89%
System
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
8438 Points ∼100% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6958 Points ∼82%
OnePlus 2
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6462 Points ∼77% -7%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4454 Points ∼53% -36%
Motorola Moto X Play
Adreno 405, 615 MSM8939, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3050 Points ∼36% -56%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
2966 Points ∼35% -57%

* ... smaller is better

Storage Devices

Though our test unit is the 64 GB version, a 16 GB Mi 4s model is also available. Transfer rates according to AndroBench are consistently ahead of the competition in the mainstream price category. Its sequential write rates in particular are extremely fast and even edges out the Galaxy S6 Edge just slightly. Otherwise, the Samsung flagship outclasses the Xiaomi in sequential read speeds and random read and write speeds.

MicroSD is supported for even more storage. Note that the card slot uses the same slot as the Nano-SIM card, so both cannot be utilized simultaneously.

AndroBench 3-5
Random Write 4KB
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
20.95 MB/s ∼100% +37%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
15.27 MB/s ∼73%
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
14.22 MB/s ∼68% -7%
Google Nexus 5X
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
12.21 MB/s ∼58% -20%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML
PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash
8.48 MB/s ∼40% -44%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
3.61 MB/s ∼17% -76%
Random Read 4KB
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
89.91 MB/s ∼100% +178%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
32.3 MB/s ∼36%
Google Nexus 5X
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
24.8 MB/s ∼28% -23%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML
PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash
20.68 MB/s ∼23% -36%
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
16.31 MB/s ∼18% -50%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
10 MB/s ∼11% -69%
Sequential Write 256KB
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
159.27 MB/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
151.11 MB/s ∼95% -5%
Google Nexus 5X
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
98.64 MB/s ∼62% -38%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML
PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash
89.99 MB/s ∼57% -43%
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.31 MB/s ∼31% -69%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
39.61 MB/s ∼25% -75%
Sequential Read 256KB
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
382.97 MB/s ∼100% +55%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
246.82 MB/s ∼64%
Google Nexus 5X
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
245.19 MB/s ∼64% -1%
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
235.51 MB/s ∼61% -5%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
187.57 MB/s ∼49% -24%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML
PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash
144.47 MB/s ∼38% -41%

GPU Performance

The integrated Adreno 418 is significantly ahead of the older Adreno 405 according to 3DMark benchmarks, but is still much slower than the high-end Mali-T760 or Adreno 430 as found in the Galaxy S6 and Xperia Z5 Premium, respectively. All titles from the Play Store should still be more than playable and we experienced no major stuttering when running Asphalt 8 or NOVA 3.

Minor throttling will occur according to the GFXBench Battery Life test. Average frame times see a sharp increase roughly halfway into the half-hour long stress test. While the throttling isn't significant enough to affect everyday use, users playing games will notice the increase in surface temperatures much more dramatically than any potential performance dips during extended use.

3DMark
3DMark
Lightmark
Lightmark
GFXBench Battery Life performance
GFXBench Battery Life performance
GFXBench Battery Life frame times
GFXBench Battery Life frame times
3DMark
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Physics
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
9723 Points ∼100%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
9544 Points ∼98% -2%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
8761 Points ∼90% -10%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
6137 Points ∼63% -37%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
10381 Points ∼100%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
4969 Points ∼48% -52%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3783 Points ∼36% -64%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
2135 Points ∼21% -79%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Score
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
10227 Points ∼100%
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
5498 Points ∼54% -46%
Bluboo Xtouch
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash
4136 Points ∼40% -60%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
2580 Points ∼25% -75%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p
Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
14.52 fps ∼100% +127%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
11.18 fps ∼77% +75%
Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
6.39 fps ∼44%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
0.74 fps ∼5% -88%

Emissions

Temperature

Surface temperatures when idling are flat across the board with no significant hot spots. Medium workloads and browsing will warm the smartphone quite quickly and gaming can bring it to near uncomfortable levels. Playing games like Asphalt 8, for example, is difficult on the palms since the surfaces of the smartphone are much warmer on the sides than they are towards the center. The dedicated front Android keys also become quite warm.

Competing models like the OnePlus X and HTC One A9 also reach high surface temperatures averaging nearly 40 C under extreme conditions while the Nexus 5X and Zenfone 2 run comparatively cooler.

Maximum load (Front)
Maximum load (Front)
Maximum load (Back)
Maximum load (Back)
Max. Load
 43.2 °C
110 F
37.2 °C
99 F
42.4 °C
108 F
 
 42.4 °C
108 F
37.2 °C
99 F
43.6 °C
110 F
 
 38.8 °C
102 F
36.4 °C
98 F
38.8 °C
102 F
 
Maximum: 43.6 °C = 110 F
Average: 40 °C = 104 F
32.2 °C
90 F
35.2 °C
95 F
42.6 °C
109 F
32.6 °C
91 F
35.2 °C
95 F
43 °C
109 F
32.2 °C
90 F
35.2 °C
95 F
36.8 °C
98 F
Maximum: 43 °C = 109 F
Average: 36.1 °C = 97 F
Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 40 °C / 104 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 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.7 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

(Yellow: Background, Pink: Pink noise, Gray: White noise)
(Yellow: Background, Pink: Pink noise, Gray: White noise)

The single speaker lies to the right of the USB port behind the set of five holes. The symmetric design suggests stereo speakers, but the opposite set of grilles houses the microphone instead. It can be easy to cover up the speaker grilles when in Landscape mode due to their positioning on the bottom edge.

Sound quality is good for a smartphone in that sounds feel balanced with no degradation even on higher volume settings. Thus, it avoids the "tin can" quality common on cheaper models. Low frequencies are barely audible according to our measurements, which shouldn't be a surprise considering the size.

Energy Management

Power Consumption

The Mi 4s is certainly a power-hungry smartphone even when sitting idle on a full charge. Its power demands are higher than most competing 5-inch smartphones at every tested condition from idling at minimum brightness to benchmark stress testing at maximum brightness.

Xiaomi Mi 4s
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash
Google Nexus 5X
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Asus Zenfone 2 ZE500KL
Adreno 306, 410 APQ8016, 16 GB eMMC Flash
HTC One A9
Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Power Consumption
28%
57%
38%
56%
Idle Minimum *
1.4
0.55
61%
0.5
64%
0.9
36%
0.6
57%
Idle Average *
2.15
1.44
33%
0.9
58%
1.2
44%
0.91
58%
Idle Maximum *
2.33
1.9
18%
1.1
53%
1.4
40%
1.12
52%
Load Average *
6.41
3.36
48%
2.4
63%
3.8
41%
3.04
53%
Load Maximum *
8.11
9.76
-20%
4.3
47%
5.9
27%
3.2
61%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Fortunately, the Xiaomi carries a dense battery pack to compensate for the higher power draw. This also means that runtimes aren't necessarily any longer than competing models. We were able to clock in just over six hours of constant WLAN use at a 150 nit brightness setting, which is a low average for its size class. The Nexus 5X and OnePlus X can last for noticeably longer under similar testing conditions.

Charging via an outlet will take approximately two hours from near zero to full. Charging via a standard USB port will take much longer.

Xiaomi Mi 4s
3260 mAh
Google Nexus 5X
2700 mAh
Asus Zenfone 2 ZE500KL
2070 mAh
HTC One A9
2150 mAh
OnePlus X
2525 mAh
Battery Runtime
22%
-27%
-8%
35%
Reader / Idle
1499
1775
18%
1154
-23%
968
-35%
WiFi v1.3
367
412
12%
267
-27%
368
0%
549
50%
Load
179
245
37%
176
-2%
339
89%
Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
24h 59min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
6h 07min
Load (maximum brightness)
2h 59min

Pros

+ high quality display; accurate colors and grayscale
+ fast storage performance
+ USB Type-C (2.0 speeds)
+ thin profile; sleek design
+ high capacity battery
+ fingerprint reader
+ bright backlight
+ good camera
+ lightweight
+ IR remote
+ dual SIM

Cons

- MicroSD slot shared with secondary SIM slot
- slight throttling under extreme stress
- haptic feedback could be stronger
- backlight could be more uniform
- non-removable battery
- very warm under load
- average battery life
- no NFC or MHL
- slippery grip

Verdict

In review: Xiaomi Mi 4s. Test model provided by iBuyGou.com
In review: Xiaomi Mi 4s. Test model provided by iBuyGou.com

It's hard to find major faults with the Mi 4s. Performance is at the upper echelon of a mainstream smartphone and its design gives an impression that is costlier than its retail price would otherwise suggest. Display quality is excellent and with a strong backlight while the fingerprint reader, dual SIM capabilities, MicroSD reader, and very light weight only add to the list of advantages. The Mi 4s feels very balanced with no one characteristic falling short of expectations.

Instead, the Mi 4s features a fair number of smaller downsides that separate it from phones almost twice its retail price. Its display backlight is a bit uneven and our test model exhibited a small but noticeable gap between the edges of the chassis. Auxiliary features like NFC and wireless charging are missing and its USB Type-C port is limited to USB 2.0 specifications. Battery life and surface temperatures aren't horrible, but have a lot of room for improvement.

The $300 to $350 retail price, however, pits the Mi 4s directly against the Nexus 5X. The slightly larger and brighter screen of the Nexus, longer battery life, lower temperatures, NFC, and pure Android experience are all valid reasons to choose the Google phone over the Xiaomi. If the design, dual SIM, and MicroSD capabilities of the Xiaomi phone are more appealing, then the Mi 4s has the slight edge.

Attractively designed smartphone with better-than-average stats from bottom to top. A few aspects are less than stellar where other similarly priced mainstream smartphones are able to leapfrog over the Xiaomi.

Xiaomi Mi 4s - 04/21/2016 v5.1
Allen Ngo

Chassis
79%
Keyboard
84 / 75 → 100%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
33 / 60 → 55%
Weight
94%
Battery
88%
Display
85%
Games Performance
25 / 63 → 40%
Application Performance
48 / 70 → 68%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
40 / 91 → 44%
Camera
56%
Average
70%
82%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 5 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Mi 4s Smartphone Review
Allen Ngo, 2016-03-20 (Update: 2017-05-23)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.