Xiaomi Mi 4s Smartphone Review

Name: Xiaomi Mi 4s
Brand: Xiaomi

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.

Allen Ngo, Published 03/20/2016 🇩🇪 🇨🇳 ...

Android Touchscreen Smartphone Chinese Tech

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.

Test device courtesy of ibuygou.com

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Xiaomi Mi 4s (Mi Series)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 MSM8992 6 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A53/A57

Graphics adapter

Qualcomm Adreno 418

Memory

2.7 GB

Display

5.00 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 = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), 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)

Battery

3210 mAh

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.

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

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.

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

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.

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.

Telephone & Voice Quality

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.

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.

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


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 (Nits) 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 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 3.06 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
Gamma: 2.4

	Xiaomi Mi 4s 5.00, 1920x1080	Google Nexus 5X 5.20, 1920x1080	Asus Zenfone 2 ZE500KL 5.00, 1280x720	HTC One A9 5.00, 1920x1080	OnePlus X 5.00, 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 dE 2000 *	3.48	2.09 40%	3.28 6%	1.55 55%	6.28 -80%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	7.01
Greyscale dE 2000 *	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.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
21.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 38 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 12.8 ms rise
36.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 43 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (35.2 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18889 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) 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.

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, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	839 MFLOPS ∼100% +51%
OnePlus 2 Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash	819 MFLOPS ∼98% +47%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	557 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	264.4 MFLOPS ∼32% -53%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541 Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash	207.7 MFLOPS ∼25% -63%
Single Thread
OnePlus 2 Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash	630 MFLOPS ∼100% +49%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	626 MFLOPS ∼99% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	423.5 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	117.1 MFLOPS ∼19% -72%
Bluboo Xtouch Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash	114.2 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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 ms * ∼100% -144%
Bluboo Xtouch Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash	1518 ms * ∼97% -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	740 ms * ∼47% -15%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	645 ms * ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 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	1396 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, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	49.19 Points ∼100% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	44.39 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 2 Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 64 GB eMMC Flash	44.29 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	20.83 Points ∼42% -53%
Bluboo Xtouch Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash	20.13 Points ∼41% -55%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Bluboo Xtouch Mali-T720 MP2, MT6753, 32 GB eMMC Flash	13679 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 ms * ∼48% -43%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	4609 ms * ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	4037 ms * ∼30% +12%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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 (1641^min) 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 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, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	89.9 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	159.3 MB/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge+ Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	151.1 MB/s ∼95% -5%
Google Nexus 5X Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash	98.6 MB/s ∼62% -38%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash	90 MB/s ∼56% -44%
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, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	383 MB/s ∼100% +55%
Xiaomi Mi 4s Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 64 GB eMMC Flash	246.8 MB/s ∼64%
Google Nexus 5X Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash	245.2 MB/s ∼64% -1%
OnePlus X Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash	235.5 MB/s ∼61% -5%
HTC One A9 Adreno 405, 617 MSM8952, 16 GB eMMC Flash	187.6 MB/s ∼49% -24%
Asus Zenfone 2 Deluxe ZE551ML PowerVR G6430, Z3580, 128 GB eMMC Flash	144.5 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 | Lightmark

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, Exynos 7420, 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.

Max. Load

Idle


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 32.6 °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 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °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 32.6 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

(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
WiFi Websurfing		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

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 - 2016-04-21 04/21/2016 v5.1^(old)
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 6 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Allen Ngo - Lead Editor U.S. - 5074 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2011

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.

contact me via: @AllenNgoNBC

Please share our article, every link counts!

.170

> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Mi 4s Smartphone Review

Allen Ngo, 2016-03-20 (Update: 2017-05-23)