Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi 8 Smartphone Review

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Finn D. Boerne), 03/12/2019

Mimimi? Xiaomi's 2018 Mi 8 flagship smartphone is far from outdated., and it still has a lot to offer at a very low price. Time to find out how well it compares to current premium smartphones.

Xiaomi Mi 8

A few months after reviewing the Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition, the imported version of the Mi 8, the official edition deemed for the West became available as well. It features a ‘western’ flavor of Android, a larger battery, but lacks the semi-transparent rear cover. And while the Mi 9 may be imminent, the Mi 8 is still Xiaomi’s current flagship smartphone. Time for an additional test of the ‘western’ version thereof.

On the surface, the Mi 8 looks and feels like a typical 2018 high-end smartphone. It is equipped with a Snapdragon 845 and features a notch at the front and a dual-camera at the rear. However, at just slightly over $400, it remains a very affordable flagship smartphone. The line-up of its main competitors reads like the crème de la crème of last year’s premium devices: the OnePlus 6T, the Sony Xperia XZ3, and the Samsung Galaxy S9. We have also decided to include the Mi 8 Explorer Edition to get an idea of how the two models differ.

Xiaomi Mi 8 (Mi Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.21 inch 18.75:9, 2248 x 1080 pixel 402 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, HDR10, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 115 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: Audio via USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, barometer, face detection scanner (infrared), USB-C (OTG)
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1,800/​1,900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8/​B34/​B39), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B17/​B20/​B34/​B38/​B39/​B40/​B41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.6 x 154.9 x 74.8 ( = 0.3 x 6.1 x 2.94 in)
Battery
12.9 Wh, 3400 mAh Lithium-Polymer, Quick Charge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/1.8, phase detection autofocus (dual pixel), OIS, dual LED flash, videos @2160p/30fps (camera 1); 12.0 MP, f/2.4, depth of field, tele lens (camera 2)
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix Videos @1080p/​30fps
Additional features
Speakers: bottom-facing mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, power supply, USB cable, SIM tool, silicone bumper, USB-C to 3.5-mm adapter, MIUI, Cleanup, Mi Drop, 24 Months Warranty, A-GPS (L1/​L5), GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo (E1/​E5a), QZSS (L1/​L5); SAR: 0.701W/​kg (head), 1.662W/​kg (body);notification LED; LTE-Cat 16 (1,015 Mbit/s Download, 100 Mbit/s Upload), fanless
Weight
175 g ( = 6.17 oz / 0.39 pounds), Power Supply: 65 g ( = 2.29 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
419 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case

The case is pretty standard for a modern high-end smartphone. It features Gorilla glass at both, front and the back, which makes for a classy look and a significantly better cellular reception when compared to a metal case. At the same time it renders the case slippery and incredibly susceptible to fingerprints and smudges. The Mi 8 is available in three colors: black, blue, and white. We should note though that the bezels around the display are always black regardless of the choice of color as it only impacts the rear cover and the metal frame surrounding the body.

While the case is very robust overall, we were able to warp it ever so slightly when applying torsional force to it. According to JerryRigEverything, who conducted a torture test on the Mi 8 Explorer Edition, the device does not bend permanently and cannot be broken in half even when subjected to enormous forces. We expect the regular Mi 8 to perform identically. Applying pressure to the front or the back of the device had absolutely no effect on it whatsoever.

At 175 g (~6.2 oz), the Xiaomi Mi 8’s weight is average.

Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8
Xiaomi Mi 8

Size Comparison

158 mm / 6.22 inch 73 mm / 2.87 inch 9.9 mm / 0.3898 inch 193 g0.4255 lbs157.5 mm / 6.2 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 185 g0.4079 lbs154.9 mm / 6.1 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 7.6 mm / 0.2992 inch 175 g0.3858 lbs154.9 mm / 6.1 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 7.6 mm / 0.2992 inch 175 g0.3858 lbs147.7 mm / 5.81 inch 68.7 mm / 2.7 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 163 g0.3594 lbs

Connectivity

The Mi 8 has less RAM than the Explorer Edition: 8 vs. 6 GB. This, however, should not be noticeable unless you are running either a very high number of apps simultaneously or highly demanding apps. Most users will not notice a difference.

For a high-end smartphone, 128 GB of storage space is still decent. We should note though that the Mi 8 does not have a card reader slot, and memory can thus not be upgraded.

At the bottom we find a single USB-C port connected to a USB 2.0 bus. It supports USB-OTG and is also the only audio-out port on the entire device. Supported wireless communication protocols include, among others, NFC and Bluetooth 5.0.

Left: SIM tray
Left: SIM tray
Right: power button, volume rocker
Right: power button, volume rocker
Top: microphone
Top: microphone
Bottom: microphone, USB-C port, speaker
Bottom: microphone, USB-C port, speaker

Software

Xiaomi’s custom Android skin is called MIUI, and the most recent version 10 is based on Android 9. The original Mi 8 shipped with Android 8.1. The translation was very good overall, and we failed to notice any English or even Chinese artifacts and leftovers forgotten by the developers. Security patches were as of December 2018 and should better be updated soon.

Xiaomi includes a number of apps, among others Facebook and a large number of in-house tools. Some apps copy what Google’s default apps do, such as the music app or the web browser. These preloaded apps cannot be uninstalled.

Software Xiaomi Mi 8
Software Xiaomi Mi 8
Software Xiaomi Mi 8
Software Xiaomi Mi 8

Communication and GPS

LTE Cat. 16 is still state of the art for a high-end smartphone, and it offers download speeds of up to 1 Gbps. Some high-end smartphones, such as the Galaxy S9, are even a bit faster. Cellular reception in an urban environment was decent both indoors and outdoors.

The Mi 8 supports all current Wi-Fi standards and achieved decent transfer rates when connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router. That said, it was still slower than all of its competitors in our test group, including the Explorer.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼100% +33%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
629 (min: 621, max: 638) MBit/s ∼96% +28%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
624 (min: 593, max: 636) MBit/s ∼96% +27%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼94% +25%
Xiaomi Mi 8
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 444, max: 499) MBit/s ∼75%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=434)
226 MBit/s ∼35% -54%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼100% +43%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼84% +21%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
484 (min: 382, max: 499) MBit/s ∼79% +13%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
474 (min: 241, max: 497) MBit/s ∼77% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 8
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
429 (min: 256, max: 448) MBit/s ∼70%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=434)
216 MBit/s ∼35% -50%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø490 (444-499)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø429 (256-448)

One of the Mi 8’s features is a dual-frequency GPS modem that is supposed to increase GPS accuracy. We failed to notice anything indoors and had trouble using location services even when standing at the window. Outdoors GPS lock was obtained very quickly, albeit accuracy remained comparatively poor.

We take every smartphone on a bike tour around the block to determine GPS accuracy in a real-world usage scenario. Overall, the results were neither here nor there. Compared to the professional Garmin Edge 520 satnav, the Xiaomi Mi 8 was fairly accurate overall when recording the track, however it also tended to cut corners and bends. In other words: if high accuracy is of importance to you the Mi 8 may not be the best choice. For those with more moderate requirements the device is definitely usable for occasional GPS navigation. The compass turned out to be fairly precise in terms of direction, although once again its positioning was not particularly accurate.

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – roundabout
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – roundabout
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overpass
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overpass
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – overview
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – overview
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – roundabout
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – roundabout
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – overpass
GPS Xiaomi Mi 8 – overpass

Telephony and Call Quality

At the time of writing, Xiaomi did not support VoWiFi. VoLTE, on the other hand, had to be manually activated by dialing *#*#86583#*# and requires support by your provider and plan. By default, the phone uses a Xiaomi dialer instead of Google’s default telephone app to make phone calls. Its home screen contains your contacts as well as a dialpad with which you can search your contacts T9-style. If you want to perform a regular search instead, you can use the search bar. The app supports favorites and a few additional settings, such as automatically answering incoming phone calls.

Call quality was decent, and the earphone remained very clear with just minor noise even on maximum volume. The microphone worked equally well regardless of sound level. On speakerphone, we were able to hear our conversational partner loud and clear. Unfortunately, our microphone was fairly quiet and we had to speak up in order to be heard.

Cameras

Front-facing camera sample photo
Front-facing camera sample photo

The high-resolution front-facing selfie camera features a 20 MP sensor. The camera software supports a portrait mode with blurry backgrounds and additional lighting effects, and it worked fairly well in good light and with unicolored backgrounds. Regular photos were colorful and sharp. However, we suggest limiting yourself to good lighting in order to retain sharpness as it deteriorated rather quickly with fading light.

The main camera at the back features two 12 MP lenses with different focal lengths and thus an optical zoom. Photos taken with this camera were of high quality, although they failed to meet the high standards of other premium-class smartphones. For example, the iPhone XS Max showed a much higher dynamic range and more details. The LED flash does an acceptable job in poor light, however it, too, pales in comparison with other high-end smartphone cameras.

The rear-facing camera is capable of recording videos in 4K at 30 FPS, which is no longer state of the art for a premium smartphone, and neither is its slow-motion mode of just 120 FPS at 1080p. Nevertheless, the camera recorded decent enough videos with good sound quality.

More comparison photos can be found in our Mi 8 Explorer Edition review, which had the exact same camera.

Image Comparison

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

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

When taken into our lab and tested under controlled conditions the main camera turned out to capture colors slightly overexposed. Our test chart photo was acceptable with a light weakness for black texts on red backgrounds. The photos were not as crisp around the edges as they were in the center, and we noticed minor chromatic aberrations in the top-left corner.

Test chart
Test chart
Test chart (details)
Test chart (details)
ColorChecker colors; reference color in the bottom half of each square.
ColorChecker colors; reference color in the bottom half of each square.

Accessories and Warranty

Even though the Mi 8 already supports Quick Charge 4+, Xiaomi has opted to include a Quick Charge 3 power supply. We also found a silicone bumper and a USB-C to 3.5-mm headphone jack dongle.

Given that Xiaomi does not officially sell its devices in the US or Canada, you cannot expect any form of official manufacturer warranty and are thus limited to dealer warranties if available.

Input Devices and Handling

By default, the Mi 8 uses Google’s Gboard keyboard application, which allows for fast and reliable text input. Other keyboards can be easily installed retroactively. The touchscreen was very pleasant to use and accurate up to its edges.

At the rear we find a fast and reliable fingerprint reader instead of the Explorer’s in-display-sensor that albeit more modern, was at the same time less accurate.

Another way to unlock the Mi 8 is face detection. However, it seems to be limited to certain countries. For example, it was not available when we selected Germany in our region settings, but showed up when we switched to India. The infrared face detection camera is simpler than the 3D depth detection camera on the Explorer Edition. In return, it was slightly faster and seemingly also more accurate, and even worked in total darkness thanks to its infrared sensors.

Hardware buttons are limited to a volume rocker and a standby button. They were easy to use and very precise.

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

Display

Subpixel-Aufnahme
Subpixel-Aufnahme

The AMOLED display is identical to the Explorer Edition's with the same slightly-higher-than-FHD resolution and a maximum brightness of 434 nits. Its performance was good enough to secure a place somewhere in the middle surrounded by its competitors. The OnePlus 6T’s display was similarly bright with a resolution that was only higher because of its smaller notch. The Galaxy S9 and XZ3 feature higher-resolution displays. In return, the Mi 8’s display offers support for HDR-10 and a better and more uniform brightness distribution, even better than the Explorer Edition's.

432
cd/m²
435
cd/m²
449
cd/m²
422
cd/m²
430
cd/m²
447
cd/m²
424
cd/m²
426
cd/m²
443
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 449 cd/m² Average: 434.2 cd/m² Minimum: 3.08 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 430 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.09 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 3.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
140.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.257
Xiaomi Mi 8
AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.21
OnePlus 6T
Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Sony Xperia XZ3
OLED, 2880x1440, 6
Screen
24%
10%
37%
-10%
Brightness middle
430
437
2%
429
0%
529
23%
543
26%
Brightness
434
442
2%
432
0%
527
21%
542
25%
Brightness Distribution
94
95
1%
88
-6%
96
2%
92
-2%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.09
2.21
57%
3.39
33%
1.4
72%
6.6
-30%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.05
4.27
47%
5.25
35%
4
50%
11
-37%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.3
2.1
36%
3.3
-0%
1.6
52%
4.7
-42%
Gamma
2.257 97%
2.307 95%
2.238 98%
2.16 102%
1.835 120%
CCT
7026 93%
6353 102%
7135 91%
6358 102%
6817 95%

* ... 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 238 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 238 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 238 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9365 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Thanks to the underlying AMOLED technology black pixels are disabled individually and the resulting contrast ratio is infinite. Colors pop, and the display can be individually adjusted to your liking with either automatic or enhanced contrast and white balance settings available.

When analyzed under controlled conditions in our lab using a spectrophotometer in combination with CalMAN we discovered a minor blue tint. Xiaomi promises full DCI-P3 coverage, a claim we can definitely confirm.

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

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 5 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.7 ms).

On overcast days, the device remained usable outdoors, even on medium brightness. On sunny days the reflections quickly took over and it became much harder to use. We would definitely suggest finding a shady spot.

As expected of an AMOLED display the viewing angles were excellent with only minor color distortions.

Outdoors - brightness sensor
Outdoors - brightness sensor
Outdoors - maximum brightness
Outdoors - maximum brightness
Outdoors - medium brightness
Outdoors - medium brightness
Outdoors - minimum brightness
Outdoors - minimum brightness
Viewing angles
Viewing angles
 
 
 

Performance

The Snapdragon 845 is a very common SoC for 2018 high-end smartphones. Despite the fact that the Explorer Edition featured the same SoC with more RAM, the Mi 8 turned out to be faster in some benchmarks. The most likely reason for this is a different throttling behavior, as we were able to determine in our sustained load test. More on this issue later. Either way, the differences were minute and certainly not noticeable. Generally speaking, the Mi 8 performed as expected for its hardware and class, and was very smooth and fast in most situations.

The GPU is an Adreno 630 with support for all modern APIs. It should have more than enough power for all current games.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13371 Points ∼94%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13341 Points ∼93% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
14299 Points ∼100% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
6219 Points ∼43% -53%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
13194 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (10876 - 14489, n=25)
13578 Points ∼95% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=321)
4685 Points ∼33% -65%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8907 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8995 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8548 Points ∼95% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
8786 Points ∼98% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
7934 Points ∼88% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7754 - 9231, n=27)
8705 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=380)
4703 Points ∼52% -47%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2430 Points ∼66%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2384 Points ∼65% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2441 Points ∼66% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3688 Points ∼100% +52%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
2272 Points ∼62% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2272 - 2500, n=27)
2416 Points ∼66% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=380)
1420 Points ∼39% -42%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7983 Points ∼94%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8487 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7360 Points ∼87% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
5291 Points ∼62% -34%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7360 - 9868, n=27)
8368 Points ∼99% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=372)
5257 Points ∼62% -34%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
9689 Points ∼84%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
10590 Points ∼92% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8967 Points ∼78% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
5736 Points ∼50% -41%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
11474 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (7998 - 13211, n=26)
10123 Points ∼88% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14439, n=543)
5690 Points ∼50% -41%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2215 Points ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3681 Points ∼98% +66%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2227 Points ∼59% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
2590 Points ∼69% +17%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
3764 Points ∼100% +70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2185 - 3764, n=28)
3088 Points ∼82% +39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4635, n=380)
1959 Points ∼52% -12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4471 Points ∼76%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5877 Points ∼100% +31%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4209 Points ∼72% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3697 Points ∼63% -17%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
5810 Points ∼99% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4133 - 8206, n=28)
5439 Points ∼93% +22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=380)
1759 Points ∼30% -61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3646 Points ∼70%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5189 Points ∼100% +42%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3512 Points ∼68% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3376 Points ∼65% -7%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
5184 Points ∼100% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3512 - 5200, n=28)
4607 Points ∼89% +26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6875, n=381)
1633 Points ∼31% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2181 Points ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3374 Points ∼92% +55%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2145 Points ∼58% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
2650 Points ∼72% +22%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
3672 Points ∼100% +68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2110 - 3763, n=27)
3094 Points ∼84% +42%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=409)
1869 Points ∼51% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5328 Points ∼63%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8397 Points ∼100% +58%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5922 Points ∼71% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
4843 Points ∼58% -9%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
8369 Points ∼100% +57%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5228 - 8451, n=27)
7671 Points ∼91% +44%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=409)
2338 Points ∼28% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4034 Points ∼62%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6310 Points ∼97% +56%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4232 Points ∼65% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
4091 Points ∼63% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
6517 Points ∼100% +62%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4034 - 6568, n=27)
5761 Points ∼88% +43%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=409)
1966 Points ∼30% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2137 Points ∼58%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3537 Points ∼96% +66%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2118 Points ∼57% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
2486 Points ∼67% +16%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
3703 Points ∼100% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2118 - 3703, n=27)
3217 Points ∼87% +51%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4492, n=460)
1866 Points ∼50% -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4010 Points ∼77%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5241 Points ∼100% +31%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3742 Points ∼71% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3553 Points ∼68% -11%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
5092 Points ∼97% +27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3488 - 5246, n=27)
4919 Points ∼94% +23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=460)
1451 Points ∼28% -64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3356 Points ∼71%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4734 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3197 Points ∼68% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3244 Points ∼69% -3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
4700 Points ∼99% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3197 - 4734, n=27)
4388 Points ∼93% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=461)
1398 Points ∼30% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2124 Points ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3483 Points ∼97% +64%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2176 Points ∼60% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
2600 Points ∼72% +22%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
3603 Points ∼100% +70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2124 - 3668, n=27)
3115 Points ∼86% +47%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4454, n=501)
1730 Points ∼48% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6243 Points ∼75%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8272 Points ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6554 Points ∼79% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
4569 Points ∼55% -27%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
8014 Points ∼97% +28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5637 - 8312, n=27)
7763 Points ∼94% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=500)
1890 Points ∼23% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4363 Points ∼69%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6336 Points ∼100% +45%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4529 Points ∼71% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3911 Points ∼62% -10%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
6300 Points ∼99% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4363 - 6454, n=27)
5811 Points ∼92% +33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8136, n=503)
1635 Points ∼26% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
27858 Points ∼76%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35022 Points ∼95% +26%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
30765 Points ∼84% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
26851 Points ∼73% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
36794 Points ∼100% +32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (15614 - 37475, n=27)
33322 Points ∼91% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=662)
14069 Points ∼38% -49%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
77203 Points ∼91%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
84998 Points ∼100% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
77003 Points ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
48433 Points ∼57% -37%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
83927 Points ∼99% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (53794 - 85487, n=27)
80548 Points ∼95% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=660)
21672 Points ∼25% -72%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
55397 Points ∼85%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
64534 Points ∼99% +16%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
57711 Points ∼88% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
41093 Points ∼63% -26%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
65330 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (34855 - 65330, n=27)
61139 Points ∼94% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=660)
17599 Points ∼27% -68%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
120 fps ∼79%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
152 fps ∼100% +27%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
102 fps ∼67% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
144 fps ∼95% +20%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
152 fps ∼100% +27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (98 - 152, n=28)
142 fps ∼93% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=683)
37.5 fps ∼25% -69%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼97%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (58 - 89, n=27)
62.1 fps ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=692)
27.9 fps ∼45% -53%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
67 fps ∼81%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
59 fps ∼71% -12%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
54 fps ∼65% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
73 fps ∼88% +9%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
83 fps ∼100% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (54 - 83, n=27)
73.1 fps ∼88% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=589)
21.6 fps ∼26% -68%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
56 fps ∼95%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
59 fps ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
51 fps ∼86% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
45 fps ∼76% -20%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
50 fps ∼85% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (33 - 75, n=27)
54.4 fps ∼92% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=598)
19.2 fps ∼33% -66%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
47 fps ∼80%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
59 fps ∼100% +26%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
32 fps ∼54% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
46 fps ∼78% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
57 fps ∼97% +21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (32 - 61, n=28)
53.9 fps ∼91% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=455)
17.7 fps ∼30% -62%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
45 fps ∼85%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
53 fps ∼100% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
29 fps ∼55% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
24 fps ∼45% -47%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
31 fps ∼58% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (21 - 59, n=27)
45.3 fps ∼85% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=457)
16.6 fps ∼31% -63%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
22 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
22 fps ∼100% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
14 fps ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (12 - 25, n=17)
18.6 fps ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=173)
10.2 fps ∼46% -54%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
14 fps ∼90%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
14 fps ∼90% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
14 fps ∼90% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (11 - 31, n=17)
15.6 fps ∼100% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=172)
7.03 fps ∼45% -50%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
21 fps ∼60% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (16 - 40, n=17)
29.1 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=177)
14.8 fps ∼42% -58%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
34 fps ∼92%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
37 fps ∼100% +9%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
37 fps ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (29 - 38, n=16)
35.2 fps ∼95% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=177)
16.5 fps ∼45% -51%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
26 fps ∼74%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35 fps ∼100% +35%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
25 fps ∼71% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
28 fps ∼80% +8%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
35 fps ∼100% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (25 - 35, n=27)
33.4 fps ∼95% +28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=380)
12.1 fps ∼35% -53%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
28 fps ∼90%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
31 fps ∼100% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
24 fps ∼77% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
14 fps ∼45% -50%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
19 fps ∼61% -32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (13 - 37, n=27)
27.7 fps ∼89% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=384)
10.8 fps ∼35% -61%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
294488 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
288062 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
243861 Points ∼83%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
292268 Points ∼99%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (246366 - 299878, n=27)
277434 Points ∼94%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=291)
141726 Points ∼48%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
234421 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
228939 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
232931 Points ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
217950 Points ∼93% -7%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
226853 Points ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (162183 - 242953, n=23)
225534 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5600 - 293444, n=490)
87858 Points ∼37% -63%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1292 Points ∼92%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1398 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1288 Points ∼92% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
1099 Points ∼79% -15%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
1390 Points ∼99% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (1009 - 1613, n=26)
1344 Points ∼96% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=627)
755 Points ∼54% -42%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7895 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7969 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7965 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
6373 Points ∼80% -19%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
7989 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (5846 - 8001, n=26)
7797 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=627)
2034 Points ∼25% -74%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3261 Points ∼75%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4344 Points ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3521 Points ∼81% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
2669 Points ∼61% -18%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
2317 Points ∼53% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (2193 - 5296, n=26)
3649 Points ∼84% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=627)
1505 Points ∼35% -54%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6620 Points ∼81%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8156 Points ∼100% +23%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6556 Points ∼80% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
6234 Points ∼76% -6%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
8135 Points ∼100% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (4417 - 8613, n=26)
7644 Points ∼94% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=627)
2953 Points ∼36% -55%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3852 Points ∼86%
OnePlus 6T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4458 Points ∼100% +16%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3923 Points ∼88% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 4096
3285 Points ∼74% -15%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 4096
3804 Points ∼85% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
  (3291 - 4693, n=26)
4111 Points ∼92% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=627)
1479 Points ∼33% -62%

In our browser benchmarks, the Mi 8 only scored well enough to land in second to last place. However, given that the overall level of performance was very high and the differences between the individual contestants were pretty small, it did not feel sluggish in everyday use at all. Quite the contrary - when scrolling, photos loaded instantaneously with only occasional short lags.

Complex HTML 5 websites such as Google’s Interland loaded quickly and were smooth when used.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70)
87.883 Points ∼100% +16%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
86.123 Points ∼98% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼92% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25)
80.3 Points ∼91% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72)
75.483 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼77% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=526)
41.4 Points ∼47% -45%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70)
16982 Points ∼100% +13%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
16824 Points ∼99% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼90% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28)
15153 Points ∼89% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72)
15086 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼86% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=685)
6706 Points ∼39% -56%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=710)
10594 ms * ∼100% -276%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28)
2905 ms * ∼27% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72)
2818 ms * ∼27%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼22% +18%
Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70)
2295 ms * ∼22% +19%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
2281.6 ms * ∼22% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼20% +26%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70)
98 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=17)
90.2 Points ∼92% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72)
83 Points ∼85%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=158)
66.8 Points ∼68% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼64% -24%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
251 Points ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23)
246 Points ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72)
245 Points ∼94%
Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70)
238 Points ∼92% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼63% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=328)
122 Points ∼47% -50%

* ... smaller is better

Thanks to its UFS 2.1 memory, the Mi 8 should offer decent transfer speeds. And while it failed to match the S9 in sequential write performance it was overall able to keep up with the pack.

MicroSD cards are not supported, and you are thus limited to the device’s 128 GB of internal storage.

Xiaomi Mi 8OnePlus 6TXiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionSamsung Galaxy S9Sony Xperia XZ3Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
3%
2%
6%
-1%
81%
-45%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
30.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.5 (27.8 - 72.4, n=17)
49.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=417)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
34.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77 (31.3 - 88.2, n=17)
67.3 (8.1 - 96.5, n=417)
Random Write 4KB
21
22
5%
22.65
8%
23.07
10%
22.22
6%
86.8 (18.2 - 250, n=39)
313%
21.5 (0.14 - 250, n=735)
2%
Random Read 4KB
136.3
138.5
2%
135.21
-1%
131
-4%
135.67
0%
139 (98.9 - 158, n=39)
2%
46.6 (1.59 - 196, n=735)
-66%
Sequential Write 256KB
207.8
204.4
-2%
205.23
-1%
206.94
0%
196.14
-6%
205 (182 - 503, n=39)
-1%
95.5 (2.99 - 590, n=735)
-54%
Sequential Read 256KB
693.2
735.3
6%
691.65
0%
815.43
18%
680.98
-2%
751 (427 - 912, n=39)
8%
269 (12.1 - 1504, n=735)
-61%

Gaming

Gaming on the Mi 8 is a mostly smooth and pleasant experience. "Arena of Valor" managed to run at a smooth 60 FPS pretty much throughout the entire game, and "Asphalt 9" ran at a fairly consistent 30 FPS. Subjectively, both games felt very smooth. "Temple Run 2" is a great way to test a smartphone’s orientation sensor and touchscreen, and both were very quick to react and precise.

Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2
Arena of Valor
0102030405060Tooltip
; min; 1.27.1.2: Ø59.8 (56-60)
; high HD; 1.27.1.2: Ø59.8 (57-60)
Asphalt 9
0102030Tooltip
; High Quality; 1.4.1a: Ø29.5 (28-30)
; Standard / low; 1.4.1a: Ø29.3 (27-30)

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

The Mi 8’s maximum temperature remained fairly high, albeit somewhat lower than the Explorer Edition's. At 42.5 °C (~109 °F) at the front, it can get quite toasty after a long gaming session in the summer.

We run GFXBench’s battery test to check for potential throttling issues under sustained load by running it in a loop 30 times in a row. We quickly noticed a roughly 20% dip in performance, although it was restored to its full potential regularly throughout the test. In other words: performance under sustained load fluctuated wildly.

Max. Load
 41.7 °C
107 F
38.4 °C
101 F
36.7 °C
98 F
 
 42.5 °C
109 F
38.9 °C
102 F
37.4 °C
99 F
 
 41.6 °C
107 F
38.4 °C
101 F
36.7 °C
98 F
 
Maximum: 42.5 °C = 109 F
Average: 39.1 °C = 102 F
32.6 °C
91 F
36 °C
97 F
38.9 °C
102 F
33.5 °C
92 F
37.4 °C
99 F
39.7 °C
103 F
34.1 °C
93 F
37.7 °C
100 F
39.3 °C
103 F
Maximum: 39.7 °C = 103 F
Average: 36.6 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.2 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.1 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.5 °C / 109 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 39.7 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap front
Heatmap front
Heatmap rear
Heatmap rear

Speakers

Pink Noise
Pink Noise

The single bottom-firing mono speaker is almost identical to the Explorer Edition’s. At 81.2 dB(A), maximum volume was not particularly loud but decent enough for a small room. Mids are well represented, and highs were not too overemphasized either. The speaker was good enough to listen to music or watch videos occasionally.

As always, a much higher audio quality can be achieved via USB-C or Bluetooth, particularly since the Mi 8 supports aptX HD over Bluetooth allowing for pristine wireless sound quality. Both, the USB-C to 3.5-mm adapter and Bluetooth, produced a rich and clear soundscape. Establishing a Bluetooth connection was quick and painless.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.737.72542.136.43130.529.14033.632.75038.134.86330.431.88025.224.810025.524.9125262916021.538.920020.144.625018.947.831517.85440018.35850019.162.663019.565.280017.366.5100015.767.2125014.369.6160015.871200014.874.9250015.470.7315014.766.8400014.361.3500014.768.4630014.870.7800014.267.5100001462.21250014.554.91600014.347.5SPL68.82881.2N22.2147.9median 15.7median 62.6Delta2.310.230.32938.131.328.52831.428.536.634.224.628.624.126.520.523.11927.316.939.919.151.416.652.413.9551559.514.659.112.357.411.858.611.863.811.968.611.469.511.27011.573.311.370.510.968.710.568.610.76610.665.210.566.410.655.710.638.964.357.22480.516.810.40.545.3median 11.8median 59.52.28.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi 8OnePlus 6T
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi 8 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 54% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

OnePlus 6T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 21% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

According to our tests, the Mi 8 was slightly more efficient than the Mi 8 Explorer Edition save for the average load test. It is possible that the lower power consumption is courtesy of software tuning and optimization efforts by Xiaomi that came with the newer version of Android. Nevertheless, overall power consumption was still too high.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.5 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt
Load midlight 6.1 / 10.9 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi 8
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Sony Xperia XZ3
3300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
35%
-14%
52%
40%
24%
33%
Idle Minimum *
1.5
0.7
53%
1.8
-20%
0.65
57%
0.8
47%
0.862 (0.42 - 1.8, n=26)
43%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=769)
42%
Idle Average *
2.2
1.1
50%
2.9
-32%
0.81
63%
1.2
45%
1.728 (0.67 - 2.9, n=26)
21%
1.734 (0.6 - 6.2, n=768)
21%
Idle Maximum *
2.6
2.1
19%
3.5
-35%
0.92
65%
1.5
42%
2.07 (0.87 - 3.5, n=26)
20%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=769)
22%
Load Average *
6.1
4.2
31%
4.8
21%
4.76
22%
4.8
21%
4.87 (3.56 - 7.41, n=26)
20%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=763)
33%
Load Maximum *
10.9
8.3
24%
11.2
-3%
5.16
53%
6.2
43%
9.27 (6.2 - 12.3, n=26)
15%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=763)
46%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Thanks to its larger battery when compared to the Explorer Edition, the Mi 8 lasted for a decent 12:16 hours in our Wi-Fi test but failed to stand a chance against the OnePlus 6T. It outlasted the Explorer Edition by 42 minutes in the Wi-Fi test and lasted around 7% longer than its sibling on average.

Compared to its competitors the Mi 8 was certainly able to keep up, and it even managed to outrun Samsung’s and Sony’s contenders by significant margins.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
27h 14min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 16min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 57min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 35min
Xiaomi Mi 8
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Sony Xperia XZ3
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
15%
-7%
-30%
-31%
Reader / Idle
1634
1936
18%
1401
-14%
1182
-28%
1270
-22%
H.264
897
903
1%
921
3%
609
-32%
420
-53%
WiFi v1.3
736
865
18%
694
-6%
474
-36%
419
-43%
Load
215
261
21%
191
-11%
164
-24%
202
-6%

Pros

+ good looking and robust case
+ decent battery life
+ plenty of performance
+ low price
+ high-quality cameras
+ HDR display

Cons

- many apps cannot be uninstalled
- inaccurate GPS
- questionable warranty situation
- comparatively high power consumption

Verdict

In Review: Xiaomi Mi 8. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
In Review: Xiaomi Mi 8. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Back when we reviewed the Mi 8 Explorer Edition, we judged it to be the gold-standard of the sub-$400 range, and this is also true for the Mi 8. It is not as exceptional, features less bling (such as the translucent rear cover or the in-screen fingerprint reader) but still offers well-established mainstream components at a fair price. Even many months after the smartphone has been officially released in Western countries, it remains much cheaper than many of its competitors, including the self-proclaimed flagship killer OnePlus 6T.

It may not meet the highest standards and expectations - its GPS is not nearly accurate enough, its Wi-Fi modem is too slow, and its power consumption is too high. However, in everyday use it feels like a premium smartphone with a sturdy case, a powerful SoC, an HDR-capable AMOLED display, and decent input devices.

Thanks to its superb price-performance ratio the Xiaomi Mi 8 remains true to its word.

There are really only two downsides. First of all, manufacturer warranty (or rather lack thereof) and the fact that customers are limited to a potential dealer warranty only. And second, the fact that while the operating system and software have been translated very well this time around the amount of bloatware that cannot be uninstalled is still mind-blowing. Plus, once you delve deeper into the options and settings it quickly gets very… let’s say unique.

Overall, the Xiaomi Mi 8 still deserves our full endorsement, and not just because of its bang-for-the-buck factor. We cannot wait for the Xiaomi Mi 9, which is expected to show up on our doorsteps in just a few weeks.

Xiaomi Mi 8 - 03/11/2019 v6(old)
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
49 / 60 → 81%
Weight
90%
Battery
95%
Display
86%
Games Performance
61 / 63 → 97%
Application Performance
73 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
87%
Noise
100%
Audio
68 / 91 → 75%
Camera
80%
Average
80%
88%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Mi 8 Smartphone Review
Florian Schmitt, 2019-03-12 (Update: 2019-03-13)