Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite Smartphone Review: Big Bang for the Buck

Mike Wobker, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Finn D. Boerne), 12/05/2019

In-screen fingerprint included. Xiaomi's Mi 9 Lite boasts a lot of technology and raises the bar for $250 smartphones dramatically. Find out in our review whether or not this smartphone from China performs adequately.

Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite

Xiaomi is very ambitious with its current generation smartphones. Their A3 was recently referred to as “price-performance king”, and our verdict for the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 was that overall it turned out to be a well-rounded solid device. Considering their low prices of just slightly north of $200 the company has managed to raise the budget smartphone bar quite dramatically by forcing the competition to up the ante and equip their budget phones with the latest technology in return as well.

The Mi 9 Lite is yet another Xiaomi smartphone priced around $250 fighting for the customer’s attention. It is equipped with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 SoC, an Adreno 616, GPU, 6 GB of RAM, and 128 GB of UFS 2.1 storage. Quite a challenge for its competitors, which we have listed below. Keep in mind that you can add additional devices to each table.

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

Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Mi 9 Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
, DDR4x, 2.133 MHz, dual-channel
Display
6.39 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, capacitive, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes, HDR
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, , 115 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm headphone jack, USB Type-C, Card Reader: microSD (FAT, FAT32, exFAT, up to 256GB), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5, 2G GSM (B2/B3/B5/B8), 3G WCDMA (B1/B2/B4/B5/B8), 4G LTE FDD/TDE (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B20/B28/B38/B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.67 x 156.8 x 74.5 ( = 0.34 x 6.17 x 2.93 in)
Battery
4030 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (f/1.8, 1/2", 0.8µm) + 8MP + 2MP
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.0, 0.8 µm)
Additional features
Speakers: 2 speakers, Keyboard: on-screen, Keyboard Light: yes, modular USB power supply, USB Type-C cable, SIM tool, protective case, MIUI Global 10.3.6 Stable, 12 Months Warranty, head SAR: 1,42 W/kg, body SAR: 1,4 W/kg, fanless
Weight
179 g ( = 6.31 oz / 0.39 pounds), Power Supply: 80 g ( = 2.82 oz / 0.18 pounds)
Price
250 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vergleichsgeräte

RatingDateModelWeightDriveSizeResolutionBest Price
80%12/2019Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
710, Adreno 616
179 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.39"2340x1080
80%04/2019Samsung Galaxy A50
Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3
166 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
79%11/2019Nokia 7.2
660, Adreno 512
180 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
77%10/2019HTC Desire 19+
Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320
170 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.2"1520x720
78%11/2019Motorola Moto G8 Plus
665, Adreno 610
188 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2280x1080

Case

The Mi 9 Lite contains a solid metal frame and a glass rear cover. The latter is playfully colorful and more or less wavy, depending on viewing angle. Overall, the build quality is very good and we were unable to find any flaws or frailties. Our review model was Aurora Blue. Other available colors include Onyx Gray and Pearl White.

In direct comparison with its competitors regarding weight and footprint the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite turned out to be average.

Size Comparison

159.92 mm / 6.3 inch 75.15 mm / 2.96 inch 8.25 mm / 0.3248 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs158.4 mm / 6.24 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 166 g0.366 lbs156.8 mm / 6.17 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 8.67 mm / 0.3413 inch 179 g0.3946 lbs156.2 mm / 6.15 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 170 g0.3748 lbs

Connectivity

Thanks to a Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 SoC, a Qualcomm Adreno 616 GPU, 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB of UFS 2.1 storage the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite performed very smoothly overall. Storage can be expanded via microSD cards of up to 256 GB, according to Xiaomi. However, by doing so you will lose the secondary SIM slot since it can take either a SIM or a memory card but not both. Speaking of SIM cards, both SIM slots support LTE yet we failed to locate VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling in the smartphone’s settings.

In addition to its notification LED, the Mi 9 Lite also features an infrared port. Its Camera2 API supports the “Full” mode, and video streaming services such as Prime or Netflix can be enjoyed in FHD thanks to support for DRM Widevine L1. Wired connectivity is brought to you via a USB-C port connected to a USB 2.0 bus. A 3.5-mm headphone jack allows for external analog headphones or speakers.

Top: 3.5-mm headphone jack, microphone, infrared port
Top: 3.5-mm headphone jack, microphone, infrared port
Left side: NanoSIM / microSD slot
Left side: NanoSIM / microSD slot
Bottom: speaker, USB Type-C, microphone
Bottom: speaker, USB Type-C, microphone
Right side: volume rocker, power button
Right side: volume rocker, power button

Software

Out of the box the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite runs Xiaomi’s own MIUI Global 10.3.6 skin atop of Android 9 with security patches as of September 1, 2019. The user interface closely resembles stock Android, and its main modifications include new icons as well as a rearranged settings menu. Preloaded third party apps, such as AliExpress or Facebook, can be easily uninstalled. Offloading apps onto SD card is not supported.

Keep in mind that changing some settings requires an active internet connection as well as a Mi account. These include settings that can easily be changed offline and without a user account on competing smartphones.

Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Software Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite

Communication and GPS

Supported cellular services include 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE Cat 12 with upload and download speeds of up to 100 and 600 Mbps, respectively. Supported near-field wireless communications protocols include NFC, Bluetooth 5.0, and Wi-Fi 5 aka 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac.

When benchmarked while connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router the Wi-Fi modem managed great average transfer speeds of 347 and 296 MB/s downstream and upstream, respectively. Accordingly, the Mi 9 Lite gets to share first place with the Nokia 7.2.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Adreno 616, 710, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
347 (min: 338, max: 351) MBit/s ∼100%
Nokia 7.2
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
344 (min: 336, max: 352) MBit/s ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
294 (min: 278, max: 302) MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1014, n=479)
235 MBit/s ∼68% -32%
HTC Desire 19+
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
186 (min: 115, max: 228) MBit/s ∼54% -46%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Adreno 610, 665, 64 GB eMMC Flash
182 (min: 11, max: 259) MBit/s ∼52% -48%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Nokia 7.2
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
296 (min: 223, max: 308) MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Adreno 616, 710, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
296 (min: 228, max: 370) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
272 (min: 250, max: 285) MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 966, n=479)
222 MBit/s ∼75% -25%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Adreno 610, 665, 64 GB eMMC Flash
152 (min: 1, max: 254) MBit/s ∼51% -49%
HTC Desire 19+
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
84 (min: 22, max: 191) MBit/s ∼28% -72%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø347 (338-351)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø296 (228-370)
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

We use the GPS Test app to test a smartphone’s satnav capabilities. Supported location services include GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and Beidou. Outdoors, the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite managed a GPS accuracy of 4 m (~13 ft). Indoor accuracy was slightly reduced at 7 m (~23 ft).

On our usual bike tour around the block the Mi 9 Lite’s recorded track was very similar to the Garmin Edge 500’s. Corners are recorded fairly accurately and we only noticed minor deviations on long straights. Overall, the device is definitely well usable for everyday navigation.

GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500
GNSS - Garmin Edge 500

Telephony and Call Quality

Xiaomi opted for Google’s default telephony app, which offers quick access to a numpad for manual entry of phone numbers, favorites, and contacts. Volume is fairly high during phone calls, and thanks to a decent ambient noise filter we had no issues in noisy surroundings either.

Cameras

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

The Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite’s main camera offers three sensors with 48, 8, and 2 MP, respectively. The main half-inch large sensor with a 0.8µm pixel width is equipped with an f/1.8 lens. The front-facing camera features a 32 MP sensor with the same 0.8 µm pixel width and an aperture of f/2.0. It allows for decent portrait photos with slightly pale colors. Fine details and textures remain well distinguishable. The camera app is fairly limited in terms of quality settings. While various lighting scenarios can be simulated and filters and beauty filters can be applied retroactively, the front-facing camera does not support a professional mode with manual settings.

The main camera takes photos rich in detail with popping colors. Individual objects remain well distinguishable when zoomed-in and surface textures are even and homogenous. Nevertheless, a slight graininess is visible. At close range test subjects are crisp and not overexposed even in backlight. Fine details and textures remain recognizable and distinguishable. In low-light situations the camera was capable of capturing our test subject without creating too many dark underexposed areas in the shot. Unfortunately, the test subject turned out blurry and not particularly rich in detail. The camera app allows for taking photos with a 2x optical zoom or an ultra-wide angle, and in addition to a night mode, it also supports a professional mode allowing for manual adjustment of white balance, focus, exposure, and ISO.

The video quality is comparable to photo quality. Minor shake is eliminated thanks to optical image stabilization, and videos can be either H.264 or H.265-encoded. Quality presets include:

  • 4K at 30 FPS
  • 1080p at 60 FPS
  • 1080p at 30 FPS
  • 720p at 30 FPS

Other features include time lapse, slow motion, and capturing short videos of up to 15 seconds.

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

We use the ColorChecker Passport to test for a smartphone camera’s color accuracy. In the case of the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite colors are mostly brighter than expected, except for yellows and blacks, which are darker than they should be. The ColorChecker Passport was no longer visible when we reduced the illumination to one lux.

The test chart was captured very well under normalized lighting conditions. Fine details and textures remain recognizable, and a slight paleness can be noticed in the lower corners. With illumination reduced to one lux the chart was captured rather poorly.

ColorChecker Photo
29 ∆E
52.1 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
35 ∆E
43.1 ∆E
61.1 ∆E
52.3 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
37.9 ∆E
27 ∆E
62 ∆E
63 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
46.8 ∆E
32.9 ∆E
71.8 ∆E
39.4 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
82.3 ∆E
68.6 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
35.9 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite: 44.62 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 82.34 ∆E
ColorChecker Photo
12.6 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
17.1 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
4 ∆E
6.2 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
5 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite: 6.48 ∆E min: 1.91 - max: 17.11 ∆E
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite - test chart
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite - test chart (zoomed-in)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite - test chart (1 lux)

Accessories and Warranty

In addition to the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite itself, the box also includes a modular charger with matching USB-C cable, a SIM tool, and a protective case made of silicon. Xiaomi does not offer any other additional model-specific accessories. However, smart bracelets or Bluetooth headphones compatible with the Mi 9 Lite are available for purchase.

Xiaomi sells its smartphones with a 12-month limited warranty.

Input Devices & Handling

The keyboard application chosen by Xiaomi is Google’s default keyboard, which allows for fast text input and can be individually customized to your liking. The touchscreen was quick to react. Unfortunately, its drag resistance during drag and drop operations was slightly too high for comfortable input. The orientation sensor worked reliably and well.

The device features an in-screen fingerprint reader. It was a bit slow to react and took about a second to unlock the phone and present the users with the home screen.

Display

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite’s display features a 6.39-inch AMOLED panel running at a resolution of 2340x1080 pixels. Its maximum brightness of 626 nits on average is only slightly below the brightest device in our test group, the Samsung Galaxy A50. It managed an excellent 766 nits in the APL50 test, which dropped to just 411 nits with deactivated ambient light sensor. The lowest brightness setting possible will still shine at 2.51 nits.

As is very common for OLED panels the Mi 9 Lite’s display uses PWM for brightness regulation at levels of 99% and below at a frequency of between 125 and 240 Hz. Consequently, more sensitive users might suffer from eye strain and headaches when using this smartphone.

623
cd/m²
627
cd/m²
630
cd/m²
625
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
624
cd/m²
627
cd/m²
625
cd/m²
638
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 638 cd/m² Average: 626.3 cd/m² Minimum: 2.51 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 618 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
95.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Samsung Galaxy A50
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Nokia 7.2
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
HTC Desire 19+
IPS, 1520x720, 6.2
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
IPS, 2280x1080, 6.3
Screen
-85%
-175%
-134%
-172%
Brightness middle
618
644
4%
604
-2%
491
-21%
597
-3%
Brightness
626
628
0%
593
-5%
470
-25%
596
-5%
Brightness Distribution
97
91
-6%
92
-5%
84
-13%
93
-4%
Black Level *
0.4
0.33
0.52
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1
2.64
-164%
5.1
-410%
4.34
-334%
5.93
-493%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
2.4
9.23
-285%
10.3
-329%
8.17
-240%
9.42
-293%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.6
2.5
-56%
6.4
-300%
4.3
-169%
5.3
-231%
Gamma
2.24 98%
2.024 109%
2.23 99%
2.302 96%
2.232 99%
CCT
6389 102%
6649 98%
8149 80%
7214 90%
7632 85%
Contrast
1510
1488
1148

* ... 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 240.4 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 240.4 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 13560 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Other features typical for OLED panels are the practically no longer detectable black level and, as a direct consequence thereof, an excellent contrast ratio. In other words: colors pop and blacks are very deep.

Users can adjust colors in the Mi 9 Lite’s settings. However, we found colors to be very accurate and well balanced already when set to “Standard” (target color space: sRGB). Keep in mind that Xiaomi uses DC Dimming in order to reduce PWM frequency fluctuations resulting in a noticeably higher color saturation.

CalMAN - color accuracy (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - color accuracy (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - color accuracy (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - color accuracy (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - color accuracy (P3)
CalMAN - color accuracy (P3)
CalMAN - color space (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - color space (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - color space (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - color space (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - color space (P3)
CalMAN - color space (P3)
CalMAN - grayscale (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - grayscale (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - grayscale (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - grayscale (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - grayscale (P3)
CalMAN - grayscale (P3)
CalMAN - saturation (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - saturation (Standard, sRGB)
CalMAN - saturation (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - saturation (sRGB, with DCD)
CalMAN - saturation (P3)
CalMAN - saturation (P3)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.6 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % 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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.5 ms).

The Mi 9 Lite was very well usable outdoors. Its brightness was high enough to ensure decent readability at all times. We noticed moderate reflections when viewed at an angle, and therefore advise you to look at the device head-on if possible.

Outdoors
Outdoors
Outdoors
Outdoors

As expected, the AMOLED panel’s viewing angles were superb and screen contents remained readable and undistorted regardless of angle. Only at very acute angles did we notice a minor green tint that is very common for OLED panels.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 is a mid-range SoC capable of running most everyday applications without any major issues. Combined with its 6 GB of RAM the Mi 9 Lite should be able to run most apps with ease.

In our system performance benchmark, the Mi 9 Lite managed to outperform the entire competition, including the Motorola Moto G8 Plus, and scored first place. Tests that relied heavily on the GPU showed some minor weaknesses here and there.

Geekbench 5
Vulkan Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
680 Points ∼51%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
183 Points ∼14% -73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
680 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (143 - 3222, n=41)
1345 Points ∼100% +98%
OpenCL Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
830 Points ∼47%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
601 Points ∼34% -28%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
370 Points ∼21% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
830 Points ∼47% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (183 - 4593, n=48)
1757 Points ∼100% +112%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1515 Points ∼81%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1483 Points ∼80% -2%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1031 Points ∼55% -32%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1379 Points ∼74% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
1515 Points ∼81% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=60)
1865 Points ∼100% +23%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
394 Points ∼74%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
313 Points ∼59% -21%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
165 Points ∼31% -58%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
315 Points ∼59% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
394 Points ∼74% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=60)
531 Points ∼100% +35%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
6719 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5827 Points ∼87% -13%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5917 Points ∼88% -12%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
5703 Points ∼85% -15%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6534 Points ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (6453 - 6887, n=5)
6696 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=415)
5415 Points ∼81% -19%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
8093 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7029 Points ∼86% -13%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7753 Points ∼95% -4%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8186 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (7041 - 8414, n=5)
7895 Points ∼96% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=579)
5888 Points ∼72% -27%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2337 Points ∼88%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2207 Points ∼83% -6%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2268 Points ∼85% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2129 - 2337, n=2)
2233 Points ∼84% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=88)
2653 Points ∼100% +14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1630 Points ∼62%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1141 Points ∼43% -30%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
901 Points ∼34% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1579 - 1630, n=2)
1605 Points ∼61% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=88)
2630 Points ∼100% +61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1747 Points ∼72%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1278 Points ∼53% -27%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1040 Points ∼43% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1675 - 1747, n=2)
1711 Points ∼71% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=88)
2417 Points ∼100% +38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2462 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2266 Points ∼84% -8%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2693 Points ∼100% +9%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1221 Points ∼45% -50%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2341 Points ∼87% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1840 - 2534, n=5)
2252 Points ∼84% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=422)
2009 Points ∼75% -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1842 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1188 Points ∼64% -36%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1256 Points ∼68% -32%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
489 Points ∼26% -73%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼53% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1842 - 1875, n=5)
1859 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=422)
1805 Points ∼97% -2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1951 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1328 Points ∼68% -32%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1425 Points ∼73% -27%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
564 Points ∼29% -71%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1126 Points ∼58% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1867 - 1981, n=5)
1928 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=423)
1681 Points ∼86% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2447 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2241 Points ∼85% -8%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2640 Points ∼100% +8%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1213 Points ∼46% -50%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2393 Points ∼91% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1862 - 2526, n=5)
2307 Points ∼87% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=451)
1920 Points ∼73% -22%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2853 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1553 Points ∼54% -46%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2007 Points ∼70% -30%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
817 Points ∼29% -71%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1670 Points ∼58% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2841 - 2887, n=5)
2864 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=451)
2414 Points ∼84% -15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2752 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1667 Points ∼61% -39%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2120 Points ∼77% -23%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
881 Points ∼32% -68%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1790 Points ∼65% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2544 - 2798, n=5)
2711 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=451)
2036 Points ∼74% -26%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2435 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2351 Points ∼89% -3%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2649 Points ∼100% +9%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1183 Points ∼45% -51%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2424 Points ∼92% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2054 - 2514, n=5)
2379 Points ∼90% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4909, n=502)
1916 Points ∼72% -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1698 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1149 Points ∼67% -32%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1181 Points ∼69% -30%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
441 Points ∼26% -74%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
979 Points ∼57% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1698 - 1714, n=5)
1706 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=502)
1501 Points ∼88% -12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1820 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1296 Points ∼71% -29%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1347 Points ∼74% -26%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
512 Points ∼28% -72%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1128 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1774 - 1836, n=5)
1819 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=503)
1448 Points ∼80% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2441 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2432 Points ∼92% 0%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2632 Points ∼100% +8%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1177 Points ∼45% -52%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2452 Points ∼93% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1878 - 2495, n=5)
2336 Points ∼89% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=543)
1782 Points ∼68% -27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2730 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1279 Points ∼47% -53%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1913 Points ∼70% -30%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
733 Points ∼27% -73%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1634 Points ∼59% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2725 - 2767, n=5)
2748 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=542)
1977 Points ∼72% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2660 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1430 Points ∼54% -46%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2037 Points ∼77% -23%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
800 Points ∼30% -70%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼66% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2490 - 2694, n=5)
2636 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=545)
1712 Points ∼64% -36%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
13595 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14353 Points ∼77% +6%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
18094 Points ∼97% +33%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17468 Points ∼93% +28%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
18698 Points ∼100% +38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13595 - 14820, n=5)
14273 Points ∼76% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=702)
14391 Points ∼77% +6%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
39745 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16593 Points ∼42% -58%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
28898 Points ∼73% -27%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12205 Points ∼31% -69%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24992 Points ∼63% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (37157 - 39745, n=5)
38928 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=700)
22576 Points ∼57% -43%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
27843 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16037 Points ∼57% -42%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
25513 Points ∼91% -8%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
13081 Points ∼47% -53%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23253 Points ∼83% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (26967 - 28895, n=5)
28116 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=700)
18248 Points ∼65% -34%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
56 fps ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
39 fps ∼62% -30%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
50 fps ∼79% -11%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
36 fps ∼57% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (56 - 65, n=5)
63.2 fps ∼100% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=715)
38.7 fps ∼61% -31%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
65 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
36 fps ∼55% -45%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
46 fps ∼71% -29%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
34 fps ∼52% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (54 - 65, n=5)
57.4 fps ∼88% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=724)
28.5 fps ∼44% -56%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
32 fps ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23 fps ∼71% -28%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
23 fps ∼71% -28%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
20 fps ∼62% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (32 - 33, n=5)
32.4 fps ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=620)
22.4 fps ∼69% -30%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
20 fps ∼72%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
21 fps ∼76% +5%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
21 fps ∼76% +5%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
18 fps ∼65% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (20 - 31, n=5)
27.6 fps ∼100% +38%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=629)
19.7 fps ∼71% -1%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
23 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼61% -39%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼65% -35%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
13 fps ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (23 - 23, n=5)
23 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=485)
18.2 fps ∼79% -21%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
21 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
13 fps ∼62% -38%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
13 fps ∼62% -38%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
12 fps ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (19 - 22, n=5)
20.8 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=487)
17 fps ∼81% -19%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
7.8 fps ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4.9 fps ∼49% -37%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
4.9 fps ∼49% -37%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.7 fps ∼47% -40%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.5 fps ∼45% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (5.9 - 8.4, n=5)
7.44 fps ∼75% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=213)
9.92 fps ∼100% +27%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
5.1 fps ∼74%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.1 fps ∼45% -39%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
3.2 fps ∼47% -37%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼22% -71%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼41% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (4.9 - 7.8, n=5)
5.6 fps ∼82% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=212)
6.86 fps ∼100% +35%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
12 fps ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.2 fps ∼56% -32%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
7.7 fps ∼52% -36%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7.3 fps ∼50% -39%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.6 fps ∼52% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (11 - 13, n=5)
12.2 fps ∼83% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=217)
14.7 fps ∼100% +23%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
14 fps ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9 fps ∼55% -36%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
8.7 fps ∼53% -38%
HTC Desire 19+
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.9 fps ∼24% -72%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.2 fps ∼50% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13 - 14, n=5)
13.8 fps ∼85% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=217)
16.3 fps ∼100% +16%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
13 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.9 fps ∼68% -32%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9 fps ∼69% -31%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.2 fps ∼55% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (13 - 13, n=5)
13 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=410)
12.3 fps ∼95% -5%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
12 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.1 fps ∼68% -32%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
8.2 fps ∼68% -32%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.6 fps ∼55% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (11 - 13, n=5)
12 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=414)
11.1 fps ∼93% -7%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
172068 Points ∼65%
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
157877 Points ∼59% -8%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
169222 Points ∼64% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
172068 Points ∼65% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (84645 - 534558, n=36)
265388 Points ∼100% +54%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
1155 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
927 Points ∼80% -20%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
926 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (1070 - 1155, n=5)
1107 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=651)
767 Points ∼66% -34%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
3100 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1957 Points ∼63% -37%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1916 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2906 - 3102, n=5)
3050 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=651)
2124 Points ∼69% -31%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2872 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2492 Points ∼81% -13%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2835 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2872 - 3575, n=5)
3092 Points ∼100% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=651)
1571 Points ∼51% -45%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
5813 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5112 Points ∼88% -12%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
5000 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (5603 - 5813, n=5)
5702 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=651)
3061 Points ∼53% -47%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 710, Adreno 616, 6144
2780 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2193 Points ∼79% -21%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2240 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
  (2731 - 2855, n=5)
2775 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=651)
1535 Points ∼55% -45%

It also bested its competitors in our browser benchmarks, and scored first place in every single one of our tests. In everyday use, websites scrolled smoothly and multimedia contents loaded very quickly.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
36.478 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=119)
36.1 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (29 - 36.5, n=2)
32.7 Points ∼90% -10%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
30.531 Points ∼84% -16%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
66.615 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (50.5 - 66.6, n=5)
62.9 Points ∼94% -6%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
49.754 Points ∼75% -25%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=548)
42.6 Points ∼64% -36%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=107)
39.8 runs/min ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
38.7 runs/min ∼97%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (36.7 - 38.7, n=2)
37.7 runs/min ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73)
33.07 runs/min ∼83% -15%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
30.5 runs/min ∼77% -21%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
69 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (58 - 72, n=5)
68 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=180)
67.2 Points ∼97% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼90% -10%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
51 Points ∼74% -26%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
12520 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (10885 - 12802, n=5)
12227 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
10322 Points ∼82% -18%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
9107 Points ∼73% -27%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=709)
6951 Points ∼56% -44%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=734)
10398 ms * ∼100% -189%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78)
4504 ms * ∼43% -25%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
3897 ms * ∼37% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite (Chrome 78)
3593.7 ms * ∼35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 (3035 - 3800, n=5)
3333 ms * ∼32% +7%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi equips its Mi 9 Lite with 128 GB of UFS 2.1 storage, of which roughly 115 GB were available for apps and user data after first launch. And while it once again outperformed the entire competition in our storage benchmarks the results are more akin to UFS 2.0 storage.

The internal memory can be expanded with memory cards of up to 256 GB, according to Xiaomi. When benchmarked with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card the Mi 9 Lite performed slightly faster than its competitors.

Xiaomi Mi 9 LiteSamsung Galaxy A50Nokia 7.2HTC Desire 19+Motorola Moto G8 PlusAverage 128 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-20%
-32%
-29%
-19%
-9%
-45%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
63.89 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
63.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
61.75 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
52.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-18%
57 (33.6 - 70.2, n=11)
-11%
49.8 (1.7 - 87.1, n=450)
-22%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
86.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
73.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
83.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
81.85 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
72.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-16%
74.4 (54 - 86, n=11)
-14%
68.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=450)
-21%
Random Write 4KB
116.6
18.2
-84%
13.38
-89%
20.4
-83%
124.9
7%
83.2 (13.5 - 180, n=15)
-29%
24 (0.14 - 259, n=778)
-79%
Random Read 4KB
113.5
98.9
-13%
79.64
-30%
76.5
-33%
59.9
-47%
119 (88.4 - 173, n=15)
5%
49.4 (1.59 - 226, n=778)
-56%
Sequential Write 256KB
252.1
192.1
-24%
161.4
-36%
210.8
-16%
217.4
-14%
193 (143 - 257, n=15)
-23%
101 (2.99 - 590, n=778)
-60%
Sequential Read 256KB
421.5
507.3
20%
290.83
-31%
288
-32%
302.5
-28%
490 (409 - 733, n=15)
16%
283 (12.1 - 1781, n=778)
-33%

Gaming

The Mi 9 Lite’s Adreno 616 GPU is capable of running current Android games smoothly, albeit more demanding games will be limited to medium details. The two games benchmarked with Gamebench, "Arena of Valor" and "Asphalt 9: Legends", ran perfectly fine and without any major issues although the latter showed occasional frame drops in high details which the former did not.

Touchscreen controls worked flawlessly even over prolonged periods of time. The gyroscope worked reliably and without any issues.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9: Legends
010203040Tooltip
; High Quality: Ø29.4 (21-31)
; Standard / low: Ø29.7 (23-31)
Arena of Valor
010203040506070Tooltip
; min: Ø60 (58-61)
; high HD: Ø60 (56-61)

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench -  Manhatten 3.1
GFXBench - Manhatten 3.1
GFXBench - ES 2.0
GFXBench - ES 2.0

According to our measurements, the Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite’s surface temperatures averaged at around 28 °C (~82 °F) when idle and 40.8 °C (~105 °F) under load. While the smartphone felt very warm to the touch, it never got uncomfortably hot. According to the two GFXBench tests Manhattan 3.1 and ES 2.0 it was also capable of maintaining its high level of performance over a long time, and showed no signs of thermal performance throttling.

Max. Load
 40.8 °C
105 F
37.2 °C
99 F
34 °C
93 F
 
 40.5 °C
105 F
37 °C
99 F
34 °C
93 F
 
 39.4 °C
103 F
36.9 °C
98 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
Maximum: 40.8 °C = 105 F
Average: 37.1 °C = 99 F
32.6 °C
91 F
35.7 °C
96 F
39.7 °C
103 F
32.9 °C
91 F
35.3 °C
96 F
39.3 °C
103 F
33.4 °C
92 F
35.8 °C
96 F
38.3 °C
101 F
Maximum: 39.7 °C = 103 F
Average: 35.9 °C = 97 F
Power Supply (max.)  39.9 °C = 104 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.1 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.8 °C / 105 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 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.9 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Heatmap top
Heatmap top
Heatmap bottom
Heatmap bottom

Speakers

Speaker characteristics
Speaker characteristics

The speakers are fairly loud overall, and their spectrum is clearly geared towards mids and highs. In other words: the smartphone was very well usable for occasional playback of multimedia content and speech. However, it does require external speakers of headphones for more demanding audio playback. In addition to aforementioned 3.5-mm headphone jack the latter can also connect wirelessly via Bluetooth 5.0. The headphone jack was firm and tight, and had no detrimental impact on sound quality.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2034.935.12529.132.53125.426.94029.426.95039.441.56327.326.88021.626.61002424.512520.732.816019.945.52001848.625016.851.931516.256.240015.959.250013.564.763013.967.180012.973.810001476.6125014.775.6160014.174.4200014.274.2250014.575.8315015.475.1400014.979.2500014.879.163001575.5800015.373.41000015.363.21250015.661.41600015.568.7SPL2787.4N0.970.1median 15.3median 68.7Delta1.311.141.239.237.53630.528.43329.237.635.928.624.523.923.222.823.421.925.820.336.6204519.152.71754.316.555.916.863.316.270.315.571.114.87014.171.715.572.715.574.114.572.913.871.813.771.213.871.61468.31464.814.163.514.257.714.351.862.127.18314.70.954.1median 15.5median 64.81.911.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi 9 LiteMotorola Moto G8 Plus
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Motorola Moto G8 Plus audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 34% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

According to our tests, the Mi 9 Lite required at least 0.8 W when idle and peaked at 4.5 W under load. As such, it was the most energy efficient device in our test group.

The included USB power supply is rated at 18 W and thus amply dimensioned in order to provide the Mi 9 Lite with power.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.8 / 1.2 / 1.6 Watt
Load midlight 2.6 / 4.5 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
4030 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Nokia 7.2
3500 mAh
HTC Desire 19+
3850 mAh
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-48%
-61%
-52%
-94%
-19%
-34%
Idle Minimum *
0.8
0.8
-0%
0.77
4%
1.3
-63%
1.7
-113%
0.79 (0.76 - 0.8, n=4)
1%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=800)
-10%
Idle Average *
1.2
1.5
-25%
2.32
-93%
2
-67%
2.3
-92%
1.543 (1.2 - 2.07, n=4)
-29%
1.741 (0.6 - 6.2, n=799)
-45%
Idle Maximum *
1.6
1.7
-6%
2.41
-51%
2.9
-81%
3.5
-119%
1.903 (1.6 - 2.31, n=4)
-19%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=800)
-27%
Load Average *
2.6
5.9
-127%
4.44
-71%
3.6
-38%
4.7
-81%
3.37 (2.6 - 3.97, n=4)
-30%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=794)
-57%
Load Maximum *
4.5
8.3
-84%
8.79
-95%
5
-11%
7.5
-67%
5.21 (4.5 - 5.82, n=4)
-16%
5.94 (1.2 - 14.2, n=794)
-32%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite lasted for more than 12 hours in our real-world Wi-Fi test. While this is a somewhat decent result, its competitors such as the Motorola Moto G8 Plus, offered longer runtimes with similarly sized batteries.

Charging the device with the included fast charger takes slightly over 1.5 hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
49h 17min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 14min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 51min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 14min
Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite
4030 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Nokia 7.2
3500 mAh
HTC Desire 19+
3850 mAh
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-11%
-22%
8%
8%
Reader / Idle
2957
1587
-46%
2002
-32%
H.264
891
869
-2%
996
12%
WiFi v1.3
734
701
-4%
570
-22%
795
8%
980
34%
Load
254
275
8%
302
19%

Pros

+ Decent system performance
+ In-screen fingerprint reader
+ Good price-performance ratio

Cons

- Some settings can only be changed online after create a Mi account
- Poor low-light camera performance
- Fingerprint reader somewhat slow

Verdict

In review: Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger
In review: Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger

Xiaomi is out to prove once again that good connectivity and a decent performance do not necessarily have to be expensive. The Mi 9 Lite was able to outperform its competitors in many of our tests, and it introduces features such as the in-screen fingerprint reader and the 2x optical zoom into its class of affordable smartphones that were hitherto limited to more expensive higher-end devices.

Xiaomi managed to do almost everything right with the Mi 9 Lite. Our only major gripe is the fact that some settings require an active internet connection to be changed.

Battery life is okay, but could have been a bit better. The one major flaw lies in the software. While localization is impeccable the fact that some settings require an active internet connection as well as a Xiaomi account is not acceptable.

Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite - 12/02/2019 v7
Mike Wobker

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
48 / 70 → 68%
Weight
90%
Battery
89%
Display
90%
Games Performance
21 / 64 → 33%
Application Performance
62 / 86 → 72%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 90 → 80%
Camera
58%
Average
74%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 7 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite Smartphone Review: Big Bang for the Buck
Mike Wobker, 2019-12- 5 (Update: 2019-12- 5)