Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) Smartphone Review: Not another Mi 9 with a pop-up camera

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Alex Alderson), 08/02/2019

No Xiaomi Mi 9 killer. The Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro, like its sister model Mi 9T, has a motorised pop-up front-facing camera to aid in the pursuit of the highest possible screen-to-body ratio. The device comes with a Snapdragon 855, 8 GB of RAM and 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage too, but Xiaomi has made cuts in some areas that hold it back from challenging the Mi 9. Read on to find out how the Mi 9T Pro, or should we say Redmi K20 Pro, performs in our tests and how it shapes up against the Mi 9.

Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro

Xiaomi is getting good mileage from the Mi 9 series, with us already having reviewed the Mi 9, Mi 9 SE and Mi 9T. Now we have got our hands on the Mi 9T Pro, which is where things start to get confusing. Xiaomi will sell the device as the Mi 9T Pro worldwide but sells it as the Redmi K20 Pro in select markets like China and India. The same applies to the Mi 9T, which also drops the Pro nomenclature for its Redmi-branded version.

It is unclear when Xiaomi will bring the Mi 9T Pro to market in Europe, but Xiaomi managers in Poland and Russia have confirmed that the company eventually plans to do so. Xiaomi’s in-house camera app contains hints that the device is on its way though, with community developers on XDA Developers finding the watermark "Shot on Mi 9T Pro" within its code. Likewise, entries at the WiFi Alliance and the Bluetooth SIG point towards an impending Mi 9T Pro release. Hence, while our review unit is branded as the Redmi K20 Pro, it will serve as our Mi 9T Pro review too. Hereafter, we shall refer to the device as the Mi 9T Pro to simplify matters.

The Mi 9T Pro comes with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SoC just like the regular Mi 9, which offers a sizable performance improvement over the Snapdragon 730 in the Mi 9T. The Mi 9T Pro also has a better main rear-facing camera than its non-Pro sibling, with Xiaomi opting for a Sony IMX586 sensor instead of the IMX582 that it used in the Mi 9T. The two devices are indistinguishable aside from the camera sensor and SoC, with them both having a 6.39-inch AMOLED Full HD+ display, an in-screen fingerprint scanner, a 4,000 mAh battery, 8 GB RAM and an optional 256 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage. Additionally, they both come with a motorised pop-up camera and in the same three striking colours.

The Mi 9T Pro currently starts at around 360 Euros (~US$400) for the 8 GB RAM and 64 GB of storage model, with the 128 GB version costing an additional 40 Euros (~US$44). If you want the 256 GB version, then you will need to fork out a further 20 Euros (~US$22). However, we suspect that the international version will start at 400 Euros (~US$444) if the Mi 9T pricing is anything to go by, meaning that the 256 GB version will probably retail for upwards of 460 Euros (~US$511).

We have chosen to compare the Mi 9T Pro against other comparably priced and equipped smartphones. Our comparison devices will include the ASUS ZenFone 6, Google Pixel 3a XL, OnePlus 7, LG G8S ThinQ, Samsung Galaxy A80, and Xiaomi Mi 9.

Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Mi Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.39 inch 19,5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Capacitive multi-touch screen, AMOLED, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 109 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm headphone jack, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, distance sensor, electronic compass, gyroscope, OTG, Miracast, Dual-VoLTE
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 4G/FDD/LTE: B1, B3, B5, B7, B8. 3G/WCDMA: 850, 1,900, 2,100 MHz. 2G/GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.8 x 156.7 x 74.3 ( = 0.35 x 6.17 x 2.93 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer, Qualcomm Quick Charge 4+ and 27 W turbo charge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix Sony IMX586, f/1.75. 8 MP telephoto lens, f/2.4. 13 MP wide-angle lens, f/2.4. Camera2 API Level: 3
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix pop-up cam, f/2.2, 0.8 μm
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the underside of the device, Keyboard: Onscreen, Charging cable, 18 W charger, silicone case, MIUI, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine Level L3, fanless
Weight
191 g ( = 6.74 oz / 0.42 pounds), Power Supply: 41 g ( = 1.45 oz / 0.09 pounds)
Price
410 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

Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) colour variants
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) colour variants

Xiaomi covers the back of the Mi 9T Pro in scratch-resistant 2.5D Corning Gorilla glass, which tapers seamlessly into its metal frame. Gorilla glass protects the display too, although this lies flat with the frame rather than blending into it as the back does. The former also has a glossy finish, making it a fingerprint magnet. This should not be an issue though if you plan to keep it protected in the silicone case that Xiaomi includes in the box.

The Mi 9T Pro has only an 86% screen-to-body ratio despite appearances, which is a few percent less than OnePlus managed with the OnePlus 7 Pro. Xiaomi currently sells the Mi 9T Pro in Carbon Black, Glacier Blue and Flame Red, with our review unit being the Carbon Black model.

The Mi 9T Pro is heavier than all but the Galaxy A80 of our comparison devices, with it also being noticeably thicker than the Mi 9, G8S ThinQ, Pixel 3a XL and OnePlus 7. Irrespective, our review unit is well-built, and its motorised pop-up camera only wobbles slightly if we apply pressure to it. Its physical buttons sit firmly in their housings too, while there are no unsightly or uneven gaps between materials. Disappointingly, the Mi 9T Pro has no IP rating, a move Xiaomi probably made to keep costs down.

Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)
Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro)

Size Comparison

165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 76.5 mm / 3.01 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 220 g0.485 lbs159.1 mm / 6.26 inch 75.44 mm / 2.97 inch 9.2 mm / 0.3622 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs160.1 mm / 6.3 inch 76.1 mm / 3 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 167 g0.3682 lbs157.7 mm / 6.21 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 182 g0.4012 lbs156.7 mm / 6.17 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 191 g0.4211 lbs157.5 mm / 6.2 inch 74.67 mm / 2.94 inch 7.61 mm / 0.2996 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs155.3 mm / 6.11 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 7.99 mm / 0.3146 inch 181 g0.399 lbs

Connectivity

We always like to see OEMs using USB Type-C rather than micro USB, although the one in the Mi 9T Pro only operates on the slower USB 2.0 standard. You can still connect external peripherals like USB sticks or keyboards and mice with the appropriate adapter, but large wired data transfers will take longer than they would if Xiaomi had included a USB 3.1 Type-C port instead. The Mi 9T Pro supports Miracast too should you have a suitable external monitor or TV to which to connect the device.

However, Xiaomi has certified the device for Widevine L3, restricting it to streaming content from DRM-protected services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix in only standard definition. This should only be an issue for the Redmi K20 Pro, with the Mi 9T Pro expected to receive Widevine L1 certification, enabling it to stream in HD.

The Mi 9T Pro has a quasi-notification LED, which is situated on the top of the front-facing camera housing. The LED lets you know when the device is charging or fully charged, but it is not a traditional notification LED. The device does have an OLED-typical ambient display that displays notifications without switching on the entire display. The device features a 7th generation in-screen optical fingerprint scanner too, along with 2D facial authentication.

Our review unit has 128 GB of UFS 2.1 flash storage, of which 109 GB was free to use when we first set-up the device. You must either use cloud storage or buy the 256 GB version instead if you think that you will need more than 109 GB as the Mi 9T Pro does not support microSD card expansion.

Top side: pop-up camera, 3.5 mm jack, microphone
Top side: pop-up camera, 3.5 mm jack, microphone
Right-hand side: power button, volume rocker
Right-hand side: power button, volume rocker
Left-hand side: no connections
Left-hand side: no connections
Underside: speaker, microphone, USB 2.0 Type-C, SIM card slot
Underside: speaker, microphone, USB 2.0 Type-C, SIM card slot

Software

The Mi 9T Pro ships with MIUI 10.3, a heavily customised version of Android 9.0 Pie. MIUI looks and feels more like stock Android than previous versions, but it still may take some acclimatisation, with the default launcher lacking an app drawer for example. Xiaomi includes different gesture controls and a redesigned Recents pane too, the latter of which we have included in the screenshots below. Our review unit also came with the June set of Android security patches, which were relatively up to date.

Our review unit arrived with the Chinese version of MIUI, which has no Google services or apps preinstalled. There are ways to install these, but they can be rather lengthy and not always guaranteed to work. The international version of the Mi 9T Pro should come with MIUI 10 Global so it should not have this issue.

Default home screen
Default home screen
Quick Settings
Quick Settings
Settings
Settings
MIUI Recents
MIUI Recents

Communication & GPS

The Mi 9T Pro supports all modern communication standards including Bluetooth 5.0, NFC and up to IEEE 802.11ac Wi-Fi, the latter of which allows it to connect to 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz Wi-Fi networks. Our review unit maintained good Wi-Fi reception in everyday use at an impressively low attenuation of -27 dBm when connected and next to our Telekom Speedport W921V router. The device did not always maintain a stable connection though, which our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests underline. We conducted these with our Linksys EA8500 reference router, and while the Mi 9 did not drop below 430 Mb/s in these tests, the Mi 9T Pro could only average around 380 Mb/s, with it dropping to a minimum of 242 Mb/s in iperf3 Client (receive).

The Mi 9T Pro is also a dual-SIM smartphone and utilises the Qualcomm X24 modem integrated within the Snapdragon 855. Theoretically, the modem can achieve up to 2 Gb/s download speeds (Cat.20) and 316 Mb/s upload speeds, although few carriers currently support LTE speeds this high. The Redmi K20 Pro can only access 10 LTE bands, which is not enough for it to be considered an intercontinental device. The increasingly popular bands 20 and 28 are missing too, but this should not be a problem for the international version.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
678 (min: 549, max: 725) MBit/s ∼100% +77%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
668 (min: 617, max: 692) MBit/s ∼99% +74%
LG G8s ThinQ
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
578 (min: 474, max: 617) MBit/s ∼85% +51%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
447 (min: 201, max: 659) MBit/s ∼66% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
428 (min: 360, max: 501) MBit/s ∼63% +12%
OnePlus 7
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
388 (min: 361, max: 421) MBit/s ∼57% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
383 (min: 242, max: 434) MBit/s ∼56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=434)
226 MBit/s ∼33% -41%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 3a XL
Adreno 616, 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
580 (min: 548, max: 602) MBit/s ∼100% +49%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
534 (min: 430, max: 578) MBit/s ∼92% +37%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 (min: 410, max: 563) MBit/s ∼90% +34%
LG G8s ThinQ
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
502 (min: 465, max: 517) MBit/s ∼87% +29%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
389 (min: 366, max: 444) MBit/s ∼67%
OnePlus 7
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
330 (min: 232, max: 365) MBit/s ∼57% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
282 (min: 249, max: 327) MBit/s ∼49% -28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=434)
216 MBit/s ∼37% -44%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø382 (242-434)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø389 (366-444)
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Inside
GPS Test: Inside

The Mi 9T Pro uses BeiDou, Galileo, GLONASS and GPS for location services. The device also supports dual GPS, specifically the L1 band and the professional-grade L5 band, which helps it achieve a satellite fix with up to 4 metres accuracy outdoors. Predictably, its location accuracy is weaker indoors, but it only drops to five metres.

We also took our review unit on a bike ride to compare its location accuracy against our reference bike computer, the Garmin Edge 520. The Mi 9T Pro deviated slightly from the route that the Garmin recorded as the photos below demonstrate, but not worryingly so. Overall, the device is accurate enough for general use as a substitute sat-nav or bike computer.

GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520: Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520: Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro – Loop
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro – Loop
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - Overview

Telephone Features & Call Quality

MIUI dialler
MIUI dialler

Like the Mi 9T, the Mi 9T Pro is a dual nano-SIM device that can connect to two 4G networks simultaneously. The device also supports dual voice over LTE (VoLTE) and Wi-Fi calling (VoWiFi), but your carrier must provision the device before either technology will work; the device cannot utilise VoLTE and VoWiFi on any network by right even if that network supports those technologies. Only China Mobile and China Telecom will allow the Redmi K20 Pro to use VoLTE and VoWiFi, according to Xiaomi.

Our review unit has decent call quality, with the earpiece reproducing our call partner’s voice clearly. We experienced no dropouts or issues during our call tests, while the microphones reproduced our voice without any disturbing background noise.

Xiaomi preinstalls its standard set of in-house telephony apps, which function and operate much like Google’s. Incidentally, we also found that the microphone picked out our voice nicely during video calls on Skype.

Cameras

Taking a selfie with the Mi 9T Pro
Taking a selfie with the Mi 9T Pro

As we alluded to earlier, the Mi 9T Pro comes with a slightly different set of cameras to the Mi 9T. Out goes the Sony IMX582 in favour of the IMX586, which Xiaomi also uses in the Mi 9. The 48 MP sensor has an f/1.75 aperture and is complemented by an 8 MP telephoto lens (f/2.4) and a 13 MP ultra-wide-angle lens (125°, f/2.4). As we covered extensively in our recent IMX586 shootout, the Quad-Bayer colour filter can combine 2x2 adjacent pixels into one large pixel, allowing the Mi 9T Pro to shoot photos in 12 MP too. This so-called 4-in-1 pixel binning allows the IMX586 to capture scenes with greater light sensitivity than if it were to use its full 48 MP capabilities.

As we have discussed in our recent Mi series and flagship smartphone camera comparison articles, camera sensors need well-optimized software to make the most of their pixel-binning capabilities. Xiaomi has done a relatively good job with its in-house camera app, although its dedicated night mode offers little more than its automatic mode manages. The Mi 9T Pro takes slightly blurrier and less impressive-looking photos than the current crop of flagship smartphones do, but it is still a competent shooter. The ultra-wide-angle sensor cannot capture scenes in as much detail or with the same dynamic range as the IMX586 can, but the Mi 9T Pro still has an exceptional main rear-facing camera for a sub-US$500 smartphone.

One of the highlights of the Mi 9T Pro is its motorised front-facing camera. The 20 MP sensor takes decent selfies in good light, with our test shots looking colour accurate, sharp and with good dynamic range. The sensor is practically useless in low light though.

Photographed with the Sony IMX586
Photographed with the Sony IMX586
2x zoom
2x zoom
Ultra-wide shot
Ultra-wide shot
Portrait mode
Portrait mode
Camera app settings
Camera app settings
Automatic mode settings
Automatic mode settings
Pro mode
Pro mode
Automatic mode
Automatic mode

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
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

We also subjected our review unit to further camera tests under controlled lighting conditions. The Mi 9T Pro captures colours vividly, and it only struggles to reproduce white of the ColorChecker Passport reference colours in the chart to the right. Our review unit captured our test chart nicely too, with colour gradients and fonts against dark surfaces looking clean. Even contrast levels do not drop off significantly in the lower corners of the photo, as is the case with many smartphone camera sensors.

A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
Our test chart in detail

Accessories & Warranty

Xiaomi includes an 18 W charger in the box
Xiaomi includes an 18 W charger in the box

Xiaomi includes an 18 W (5 V/3 A, 9 V/2 A, 12 V/1.5 A) charger in the box, a USB Type-C cable, a protective cover and a SIM tool. There is a quick-start guide and a warranty information leaflet too. Moreover, TradingShenzhen includes EU mains and USB OTG adapters in the box. These are courtesy of TradingShenzhen though and will not necessarily come with the Mi 9T Pro when bought from other retailers or directly from Xiaomi.

The Mi 9T comes with a 12-month limited manufacturer’s warranty, which Xiaomi reduces to just 6 months for the charger. However, Xiaomi may require that you return the device to China if you purchase the Redmi K20 Pro, which could become costly. Hence, we would recommend researching the risks of importing technology from China before you do so. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

The Mi 9T Pro uses onscreen navigation buttons as most modern Android smartphones do, but you can mirror their placement or switch to full-screen gestures if you prefer. MIUI includes a one-handed mode and a shortcut for activating the camera app among other added functionalities. You can launch Google Assistant by long pressing the power button too.

The device has a 10-point multitouch touchscreen, which reproduced our inputs precisely and quickly during our tests. The same applies to the in-screen fingerprint sensor, although we found it slower than the equivalent in the OnePlus 7. There is also a 2D facial unlocking system, the accuracy of which Xiaomi supplements by using the LEDs next to the front-facing camera. Authentication is done with the front-facing camera, which takes a moment to rise into view. In short, using a fingerprint, password, pattern or PIN is faster than using face unlock.

Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

The Mi 9T Pro has a 6.39-inch, 1080p, AMOLED display like its non-Pro sibling. Content looks sharp thanks to a pixel density of just over 400 PPI, although you may notice pixels when looking closely if you have used a device with a higher resolution display before.

Our review unit achieved an average maximum brightness of 607 cd/m² according to X-Rite i1Pro 2 and is 91% evenly lit. However, switching to manual brightness results in the average maximum dropping to 423 cd/m². Conversely, the more realistic APL50 test, which uniformly distributes light and dark areas across the display, returned an excellent 698 cd/m².

It is worth keeping in mind that organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) seldom radiate at their theoretical maximum brightness, making it difficult to give an accurate maximum brightness. OLED or AMOLED panels also generally use pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate screen brightness, which looks like flickering to the human eye. The display in our review unit flickers at between 122 and 241 Hz, which could cause health issues like headaches and eyestrain for those who are PWM sensitive.

589
cd/m²
604
cd/m²
639
cd/m²
584
cd/m²
594
cd/m²
617
cd/m²
605
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
620
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 639 cd/m² Average: 606.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.4 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 594 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.51 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 2.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
142.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.219
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Mi 9
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
OnePlus 7
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.4
Google Pixel 3a XL
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
Samsung Galaxy A80
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7
LG G8s ThinQ
P-OLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Screen
23%
-35%
-50%
7%
-44%
-36%
Brightness middle
594
593
0%
603
2%
569
-4%
409
-31%
478
-20%
539
-9%
Brightness
607
587
-3%
605
0%
537
-12%
410
-32%
486
-20%
556
-8%
Brightness Distribution
91
94
3%
94
3%
79
-13%
96
5%
96
5%
88
-3%
Black Level *
0.31
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.51
0.9
40%
3.5
-132%
3.5
-132%
1.3
14%
2.97
-97%
3.78
-150%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4.27
2
53%
7.7
-80%
6
-41%
2.3
46%
10.18
-138%
6.95
-63%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.6
1.5
42%
2.7
-4%
5.1
-96%
1.5
42%
2.5
4%
2.2
15%
Gamma
2.219 99%
2.27 97%
2.266 97%
2.36 93%
2.22 99%
2.031 108%
2.274 97%
CCT
6390 102%
6548 99%
6775 96%
6827 95%
6621 98%
6533 99%
6013 108%
Contrast
1835

* ... 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 223 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 223 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 223 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 9354 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 4 % 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
7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 5 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.7 ms).

We also subjected the display to further analysis with a photo spectrometer and CalMAN analysis software. Leaving the display on the standard contrast setting returns DeltaE deviations of 1.5 for colours and 2.6 for greys, both of which are better than ideal values. The display in our Mi 9 review unit achieved even lower deviations, but these differences are imperceptible to the human eye. The display in the Mi 9T Pro has a 6,390 K colour temperature, which is close to ideal. Again, the Mi 9 achieved a slightly better value here. These additional tests did not reveal any unsightly colour casts and determined that the Mi 9T Pro covers almost all of the sRGB colour space.

CalMAN: Colour Space - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Grayscale - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Grayscale - standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation – standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation – standard contrast, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Accuracy - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Grayscale - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Grayscale - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - factory settings, sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - factory settings, sRGB target colour space

The Mi 9T Pro is usable even under direct sunlight thanks to its bright AMOLED panel, but only with automatic brightness left on. The display has a highly reflective finish that catches the summer sun, but we had no issues with using our review unit outside during our tests. The screen looks darker under direct sunlight than some modern flagships like the Galaxy S10+ though.

Using the Mi 9T Pro outdoors
Using the Mi 9T Pro outdoors
Using the Mi 9T Pro outdoors
Using the Mi 9T Pro outdoors

The AMOLED panel has stable viewing angles too, as demonstrated by the montage below. We noticed no brightness, colour or image distortions even at acute viewing angles, meaning that the Mi 9T Pro should remain readable from practically any angle.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

The Mi 9T Pro comes with a Snapdragon 855, which currently remains one of the most powerful smartphone and tablet SoCs. The Snapdragon 855 incorporates one prime-core that can reach up to 2.84 GHz, three other Cortex-A76 performance cores that max out at 2.42 GHz, and four ARM Cortex-A55 cores, which Qualcomm limits to 1.8 GHz. The Snapdragon 855 integrates the powerful Qualcomm Adreno 640 GPU too.

The Mi 9T Pro generally performs as well as the Mi 9 or OnePlus 7 in synthetic benchmarks, although the ZenFone 6 often gets its nose in front of its Snapdragon 855-powered contemporaries. The gap in some benchmarks like PCMark is narrower, but the Mi 9T Pro still trails the ZenFone 6 by 5% despite having 2 GB more RAM.

Our review unit performed admirably in daily use though, with no incongruous loading times or system jitters. In short, you should not notice the synthetic benchmark difference between the ZenFone 6 and Mi 9T Pro when gaming or just generally using the device.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7482 Points ∼95%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7372 Points ∼94%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7703 Points ∼98%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
6479 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
7881 Points ∼100%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7442 Points ∼94%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (7372 - 8024, n=10)
7597 Points ∼96%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=319)
4690 Points ∼60%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10976 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10999 Points ∼97% 0%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
11388 Points ∼100% +4%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10878 Points ∼96% -1%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5172 Points ∼45% -53%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6826 Points ∼60% -38%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10274 Points ∼90% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10187 - 11388, n=12)
10936 Points ∼96% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=378)
4703 Points ∼41% -57%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3429 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3523 Points ∼100% +3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3510 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3444 Points ∼98% 0%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1616 Points ∼46% -53%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2436 Points ∼69% -29%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3406 Points ∼97% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3406 - 3537, n=12)
3482 Points ∼99% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=378)
1421 Points ∼40% -59%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9296 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9035 Points ∼92% -3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9205 Points ∼94% -1%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9814 Points ∼100% +6%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7377 Points ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
7177 Points ∼73% -23%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9125 Points ∼93% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8342 - 11440, n=12)
9563 Points ∼97% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=370)
5253 Points ∼54% -43%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
11167 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10985 Points ∼84% -2%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
12095 Points ∼93% +8%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
13047 Points ∼100% +17%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
9397 Points ∼72% -16%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
8626 Points ∼66% -23%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
11890 Points ∼91% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10330 - 14439, n=12)
12030 Points ∼92% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14439, n=541)
5680 Points ∼44% -49%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
2657 Points ∼80%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3288 Points ∼99% +24%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3324 Points ∼100% +25%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2492 Points ∼75% -6%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2314 Points ∼70% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2708 Points ∼81% +2%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2794 Points ∼84% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2104 - 3365, n=12)
3000 Points ∼90% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=57)
2697 Points ∼81% +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5702 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5723 Points ∼98% 0%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5862 Points ∼100% +3%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5747 Points ∼98% +1%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1416 Points ∼24% -75%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2160 Points ∼37% -62%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4236 Points ∼72% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4236 - 5884, n=12)
5576 Points ∼95% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=57)
2792 Points ∼48% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4548 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4914 Points ∼98% +8%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5012 Points ∼100% +10%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4454 Points ∼89% -2%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1550 Points ∼31% -66%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2262 Points ∼45% -50%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3800 Points ∼76% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3800 - 5012, n=12)
4668 Points ∼93% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=57)
2534 Points ∼51% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3280 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3754 Points ∼85% +14%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4416 Points ∼100% +35%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2840 Points ∼64% -13%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2532 Points ∼57% -23%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3160 Points ∼72% -4%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3309 Points ∼75% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1934 - 4535, n=12)
3783 Points ∼86% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4635, n=378)
1959 Points ∼44% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6739 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7076 Points ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7089 Points ∼100% +5%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7069 Points ∼100% +5%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1612 Points ∼23% -76%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2438 Points ∼34% -64%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5184 Points ∼73% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5184 - 7115, n=12)
6776 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=378)
1765 Points ∼25% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5440 Points ∼87%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5913 Points ∼95% +9%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6249 Points ∼100% +15%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5311 Points ∼85% -2%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1754 Points ∼28% -68%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2568 Points ∼41% -53%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4604 Points ∼74% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3969 - 6312, n=12)
5721 Points ∼92% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6875, n=379)
1637 Points ∼26% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3288 Points ∼70%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3788 Points ∼81% +15%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4405 Points ∼94% +34%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4703 Points ∼100% +43%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2495 Points ∼53% -24%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3025 Points ∼64% -8%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3293 Points ∼70% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2345 - 4703, n=11)
3910 Points ∼83% +19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=407)
1868 Points ∼40% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6730 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10291 Points ∼100% +53%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10302 Points ∼100% +53%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10290 Points ∼100% +53%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2537 Points ∼25% -62%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3635 Points ∼35% -46%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6358 Points ∼62% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6358 - 10420, n=11)
9422 Points ∼91% +40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=407)
2344 Points ∼23% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5460 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7449 Points ∼91% +36%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7940 Points ∼98% +45%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8141 Points ∼100% +49%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2528 Points ∼31% -54%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3479 Points ∼43% -36%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5268 Points ∼65% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5268 - 8141, n=11)
7130 Points ∼88% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=407)
1969 Points ∼24% -64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3724 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3758 Points ∼87% +1%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4093 Points ∼95% +10%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4320 Points ∼100% +16%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2466 Points ∼57% -34%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3215 Points ∼74% -14%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3242 Points ∼75% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2705 - 4320, n=12)
3797 Points ∼88% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4492, n=458)
1866 Points ∼43% -50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6325 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6355 Points ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6336 Points ∼100% 0%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6336 Points ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1487 Points ∼23% -76%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2244 Points ∼35% -65%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6040 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5663 - 6362, n=12)
6245 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=458)
1455 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5475 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5509 Points ∼97% +1%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5648 Points ∼99% +3%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5705 Points ∼100% +4%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1631 Points ∼29% -70%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2405 Points ∼42% -56%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5068 Points ∼89% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4556 - 5734, n=12)
5443 Points ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=459)
1400 Points ∼25% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3726 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3614 Points ∼81% -3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4068 Points ∼91% +9%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4454 Points ∼100% +20%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2489 Points ∼56% -33%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3211 Points ∼72% -14%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3505 Points ∼79% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3505 - 4454, n=11)
3920 Points ∼88% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4454, n=499)
1729 Points ∼39% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6325 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9963 Points ∼100% +58%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10008 Points ∼100% +58%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9973 Points ∼100% +58%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2428 Points ∼24% -62%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3478 Points ∼35% -45%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6122 Points ∼61% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6122 - 10008, n=11)
9197 Points ∼92% +45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=498)
1894 Points ∼19% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5478 Points ∼70%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7166 Points ∼92% +31%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7556 Points ∼97% +38%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7820 Points ∼100% +43%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2441 Points ∼31% -55%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3415 Points ∼44% -38%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5251 Points ∼67% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5251 - 7820, n=11)
7067 Points ∼90% +29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8136, n=501)
1638 Points ∼21% -70%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
27278 Points ∼81%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
25339 Points ∼75% -7%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33697 Points ∼100% +24%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
14631 Points ∼43% -46%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
19389 Points ∼58% -29%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
30972 Points ∼92% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (23877 - 45072, n=11)
31364 Points ∼93% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=660)
14068 Points ∼42% -48%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
103955 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
106534 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
35596 Points ∼33% -66%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
51091 Points ∼48% -51%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
97354 Points ∼91% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (97354 - 110432, n=10)
105749 Points ∼99% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=658)
21690 Points ∼20% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
63969 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
62225 Points ∼91% -3%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
26999 Points ∼40% -58%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
37475 Points ∼55% -41%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
65945 Points ∼96% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (60279 - 83518, n=10)
68338 Points ∼100% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=658)
17606 Points ∼26% -72%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
167 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
167 fps ∼100% 0%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
167 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
58 fps ∼35% -65%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
84 fps ∼50% -50%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
85 fps ∼51% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (85 - 167, n=13)
156 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=681)
37.6 fps ∼23% -77%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
69 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼87% -13%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼87% -13%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼87% -13%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
53 fps ∼77% -23%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
59 fps ∼86% -14%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼87% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (59 - 91, n=13)
63.1 fps ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=690)
27.9 fps ∼40% -60%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
90 fps ∼90%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
100 fps ∼100% +11%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
100 fps ∼100% +11%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
97 fps ∼97% +8%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
29 fps ∼29% -68%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
42 fps ∼42% -53%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
50 fps ∼50% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (50 - 102, n=13)
94.6 fps ∼95% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=587)
21.6 fps ∼22% -76%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
59 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
28 fps ∼46% -53%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
36 fps ∼60% -39%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51 fps ∼85% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (51 - 85, n=13)
60.3 fps ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=596)
19.2 fps ∼32% -67%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
62 fps ∼90%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100% +11%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
67 fps ∼97% +8%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼100% +11%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
20 fps ∼29% -68%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
30 fps ∼43% -52%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
35 fps ∼51% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (35 - 71, n=13)
62.5 fps ∼91% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=453)
17.7 fps ∼26% -71%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
51 fps ∼88%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
58 fps ∼100% +14%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼98% +12%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
57 fps ∼98% +12%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
19 fps ∼33% -63%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
26 fps ∼45% -49%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼62% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (36 - 58, n=13)
48.9 fps ∼84% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=455)
16.6 fps ∼29% -67%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼65%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼92% +41%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼100% +53%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼92% +41%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7.2 fps ∼28% -58%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
10 fps ∼38% -41%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
14 fps ∼54% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (14 - 26, n=12)
21.4 fps ∼82% +26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=171)
10.2 fps ∼39% -40%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼71% -29%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼67% -33%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
4.5 fps ∼19% -81%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6.8 fps ∼28% -72%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8.5 fps ∼35% -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8.5 - 24, n=13)
16.9 fps ∼70% -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=170)
7.08 fps ∼30% -70%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
36 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼97% +3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
38 fps ∼100% +6%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼95% 0%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼29% -69%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼42% -56%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼58% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 38, n=12)
34 fps ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=175)
14.9 fps ∼39% -59%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
42 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
43 fps ∼100% +2%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼98% 0%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼28% -71%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼42% -57%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼51% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 43, n=13)
40.4 fps ∼94% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=175)
16.7 fps ∼39% -60%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
36 fps ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +17%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
42 fps ∼100% +17%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼100% +17%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼26% -69%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼40% -53%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼52% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 42, n=13)
39.9 fps ∼95% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=378)
12.1 fps ∼29% -66%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
38 fps ∼93% -7%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
37 fps ∼90% -10%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼88% -12%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼27% -73%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
15 fps ∼37% -63%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
21 fps ∼51% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (21 - 41, n=13)
32.8 fps ∼80% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=382)
10.9 fps ∼27% -73%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
372734 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
374820 Points ∼94% +1%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
370908 Points ∼93% 0%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
398720 Points ∼100% +7%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
158868 Points ∼40% -57%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
202586 Points ∼51% -46%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
321145 Points ∼81% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (217967 - 398720, n=13)
354658 Points ∼89% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=289)
141941 Points ∼36% -62%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
1076 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1378 Points ∼98% +28%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
1407 Points ∼100% +31%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1321 Points ∼94% +23%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1186 Points ∼84% +10%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
1117 Points ∼79% +4%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1171 Points ∼83% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1076 - 1431, n=12)
1321 Points ∼94% +23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=625)
755 Points ∼54% -30%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8700 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9270 Points ∼98% +7%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9477 Points ∼100% +9%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9416 Points ∼99% +8%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2815 Points ∼30% -68%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3855 Points ∼41% -56%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8414 Points ∼89% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8125 - 9510, n=12)
9142 Points ∼96% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=625)
2037 Points ∼21% -77%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3922 Points ∼52%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4031 Points ∼54% +3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5610 Points ∼75% +43%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7500 Points ∼100% +91%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
3316 Points ∼44% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3435 Points ∼46% -12%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4324 Points ∼58% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2661 - 7500, n=12)
4973 Points ∼66% +27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=625)
1504 Points ∼20% -62%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7423 Points ∼82%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8441 Points ∼93% +14%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8986 Points ∼99% +21%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9094 Points ∼100% +23%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5507 Points ∼61% -26%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6484 Points ∼71% -13%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8718 Points ∼96% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5993 - 9143, n=12)
8509 Points ∼94% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=625)
2952 Points ∼32% -60%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4045 Points ∼75%
Xiaomi Mi 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4595 Points ∼85% +14%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5089 Points ∼94% +26%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5397 Points ∼100% +33%
Google Pixel 3a XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2794 Points ∼52% -31%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3129 Points ∼58% -23%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4389 Points ∼81% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3847 - 5397, n=12)
4726 Points ∼88% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=625)
1480 Points ∼27% -63%

The Mi 9T Pro scored comparatively well in browser benchmarks too, with it keeping pace with our Snapdragon 855 powered comparison devices. The only aberrations we noticed were in Speedometer 2.0 and Octane V2, where the Mi 9T Pro scored unexpectedly poorly. Browsing on Google Chrome also felt smooth though, with webpages loading quickly.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
63.057 Points ∼100% +7%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75)
59.651 Points ∼95% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
58.746 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73)
57.207 Points ∼91% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 63.1, n=11)
56.8 Points ∼90% -3%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
53.783 Points ∼85% -8%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
40.021 Points ∼63% -32%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=100)
35.5 Points ∼56% -40%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
32.083 Points ∼51% -45%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
OnePlus 7 (Chome 74)
67.9 runs/min ∼100% +60%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75)
66.7 runs/min ∼98% +57%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
65.7 runs/min ∼97% +55%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chome 75)
64.1 runs/min ∼94% +51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=10)
60.7 runs/min ∼89% +43%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
42.5 runs/min ∼63%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=89)
39.6 runs/min ∼58% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75)
38.9 runs/min ∼57% -8%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
32.5 runs/min ∼48% -24%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
110 Points ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
108 Points ∼98% +1%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75)
108 Points ∼98% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (94 - 129, n=13)
108 Points ∼98% +1%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
107 Points ∼97% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
107 Points ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
77 Points ∼70% -28%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=156)
67.2 Points ∼61% -37%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼56% -42%
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
25051 Points ∼100% +22%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
24534 Points ∼98% +19%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75)
24313 Points ∼97% +18%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
23830 Points ∼95% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 25640, n=13)
23006 Points ∼92% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
20598 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
16358 Points ∼65% -21%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
11056 Points ∼44% -46%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=683)
6705 Points ∼27% -67%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=708)
10599 ms * ∼100% -354%
Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73)
3360.7 ms * ∼32% -44%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
3027 ms * ∼29% -30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
2333.5 ms * ∼22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=12)
2130 ms * ∼20% +9%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
2036 ms * ∼19% +13%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75)
2029.5 ms * ∼19% +13%
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
1958 ms * ∼18% +16%
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75)
1873.2 ms * ∼18% +20%

* ... smaller is better

The UFS 2.1 storage with which Xiaomi has equipped the Mi 9T Pro is fast, but it is not as fast as the equivalent in the Mi 9. It averaged 12% faster transfer speeds in AndroBench than we expected though and leaves devices with eMMC flash storage like the Pixel 3a XL in its wake.

Xiaomi Mi 9T ProXiaomi Mi 9OnePlus 7Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KLGoogle Pixel 3a XLSamsung Galaxy A80LG G8s ThinQAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
24%
31%
5%
-37%
-36%
-23%
-12%
-68%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
46.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.5 (27.8 - 72.4, n=17)
49.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=417)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
87.04 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
67.53 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77 (31.3 - 88.2, n=17)
67.3 (8.1 - 96.5, n=417)
Random Write 4KB
148.51
165.32
11%
28.7
-81%
160.18
8%
86.96
-41%
21.6
-85%
29.6
-80%
86.8 (18.2 - 250, n=39)
-42%
21.5 (0.14 - 250, n=733)
-86%
Random Read 4KB
142.5
149.36
5%
175.3
23%
153.29
8%
92.12
-35%
117.5
-18%
138
-3%
139 (98.9 - 158, n=39)
-2%
46.5 (1.59 - 196, n=733)
-67%
Sequential Write 256KB
196.87
388.27
97%
392
99%
195.6
-1%
179.09
-9%
190.4
-3%
182.4
-7%
205 (182 - 503, n=39)
4%
95.4 (2.99 - 590, n=733)
-52%
Sequential Read 256KB
808.76
666.06
-18%
1463
81%
831.4
3%
315.6
-61%
501.5
-38%
791.1
-2%
751 (427 - 912, n=39)
-7%
269 (12.1 - 1504, n=733)
-67%

Games

The Adreno 640 can handle all modern triple-A mobile games. We would usually measure frame rates with the GameBench app, but the device lacks the necessary setting in the Developer Options that allows the app to run properly.

While we cannot show you a visual representation of frame rates in Asphalt 9: Legends and PUBG Mobile, the Mi 9T Pro averaged 29 FPS and 37 FPS, respectively during our tests. Incidentally, we noticed no dropped frames or stutters during our gaming tests.

The touchscreen and associated sensors also reacted quickly and worked without issue. On the topic of gaming, Xiaomi sells a minipad for 180 CNY (~US$26) that converts the Mi 9T Pro into a quasi-handheld games console. It has also introduced Game Turbo 2.0, a special game mode that improves audio quality and reduces Wi-Fi/4G latency for a better gaming experience. It supposedly generally improves performance and responsiveness too.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

Emissions

Temperature

The Mi 9T Pro always runs hot, even when idling. Surface temperatures on our review unit average around 32 °C at idle, with some areas exceeding 40 °C under sustained load. In short, the device will feel hot during prolonged gaming sessions and will never be cool to the touch.

More interesting, however, is its internal temperature management. We checked this by stress-testing the device with the GFXBench app during which we let the Manhattan 3.1 and T-Rex benchmarks run for 30 times each on a loop. Most modern smartphones struggle with the former benchmark, but the Mi 9T Pro throttled more than most do. Our review unit throttled to about two-thirds peak performance by the end of the Manhattan 3.1 loop, which is comparatively high. We noticed no loss in performance during our gaming tests, but your results may vary.

Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - GFXBench
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - GFXBench
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - GFXBench
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - GFXBench
Max. Load
 42.1 °C
108 F
38.1 °C
101 F
34.6 °C
94 F
 
 40.3 °C
105 F
37.9 °C
100 F
34.9 °C
95 F
 
 38.6 °C
101 F
37.1 °C
99 F
34.7 °C
94 F
 
Maximum: 42.1 °C = 108 F
Average: 37.6 °C = 100 F
33.6 °C
92 F
37.6 °C
100 F
41.7 °C
107 F
34 °C
93 F
37.1 °C
99 F
40.3 °C
105 F
33.7 °C
93 F
37.1 °C
99 F
37.3 °C
99 F
Maximum: 41.7 °C = 107 F
Average: 36.9 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  35.2 °C = 95 F | Room Temperature 21.9 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.6 °C / 100 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 42.1 °C / 108 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 41.7 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heat map of the back of the device under load
Heat map of the back of the device under load
Heat map of the front of the device under load
Heat map of the front of the device under load

Speakers

Pink noise speaker test
Pink noise speaker test

The Mi 9T Pro has a mono speaker on the underside of its frame next to its Type-C port like the Mi 9T does. It also reached 88 dB(A) during our tests, which is 1 dB(A) shy of the speaker in the Mi 9T. Overall, it appears that Xiaomi has equipped the two devices with the same speaker, as they both struggle to reproduce bass frequencies. Likewise, the speaker reproduces mid and high-pitched tones linearly, making it good enough for occasionally listening to music or watching videos.

We still recommend using external audio equipment like headphones and speakers where possible though, as smartphone speakers never deliver a great listening experience. The Mi 9T Pro supports audio output via its 3.5 mm jack or Bluetooth, with the latter supporting modern audio codecs including AAC, aptX, aptX HD and LDAC.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2043.947.32543.642.63138.339.74038.339.45041.242.46334.135802729.710028.631.812527.932.716026.145.820025.150.62502253.331520.55740020.561.150020.665.663018.668.580018.171.2100018.577.8125017.975.5160018.676.8200017.877.3250017.577.6315016.976.2400016.868.650001769.563001775.6800017.280.91000017.179.61250017.162.11600017.347.8SPL78.865.174.766.430.387.9N42.119.134.418.71.472.9median 18.1median 68.6Delta2.712.239.432.928.325.418.726.526.725.933.229.422.622.721.822.224.43123.839.218.550.417.149.117.853.815.556.114.162.51467.913.869.114.773.515.47715.276.614.376.514.574.913.971.714.675.914.178.114.374.314.574.614.875.714.87514.864.41558.226.887.10.871.4median 14.8median 71.71.510hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi 9T ProXiaomi Mi 9
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% 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 25%, 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%

Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The Snapdragon 855 is not known for being an economical SoC, but our review unit is rather efficient when idling. We recorded the device consuming a maximum of 1.3 W at idle, with it also averaging a mere 1 W. None of our comparison devices are as well-optimised as the Mi 9T Pro here, although it consumes up to 10 W under sustained load and averages 5.2 W when we push the system hard, which are both considerably higher than most of our comparison devices. It is worth noting that MIUI manages its apps comparatively aggressively to minimise power consumption, with the system also blocking some push notifications. You can adjust this on a per-app basis, but you then may experience higher power consumption than we did during our tests.

The 4,000 mAh battery can be charged at up to 27 W. However, Xiaomi only includes an 18 W adapter in the box. The former currently costs 49 CNY (~US$7) and will reportedly charge the device up to 58% in 30 minutes, with it reaching full charge in 74 minutes. The Mi 9T Pro does not support Qi wireless charging, but it does support Qualcomm Quick Charge 4+.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.7 / 1 / 1.3 Watt
Load midlight 5.2 / 10 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
OnePlus 7
3700 mAh
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
5000 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A80
3700 mAh
LG G8s ThinQ
3550 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
3%
-1%
-44%
2%
4%
-36%
-23%
-18%
Idle Minimum *
0.7
0.67
4%
0.6
14%
0.81
-16%
0.7
-0%
0.6
14%
1.2
-71%
0.956 (0.6 - 1.96, n=13)
-37%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=769)
-25%
Idle Average *
1
1.26
-26%
1.1
-10%
2.35
-135%
1.63
-63%
1.2
-20%
1.6
-60%
1.554 (0.85 - 2.8, n=13)
-55%
1.734 (0.6 - 6.2, n=768)
-73%
Idle Maximum *
1.3
1.29
1%
2
-54%
2.37
-82%
1.67
-28%
1.4
-8%
2
-54%
1.881 (1 - 2.9, n=13)
-45%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=769)
-55%
Load Average *
5.2
3.71
29%
4
23%
5.33
-3%
2.64
49%
5
4%
5
4%
4.65 (3.64 - 5.8, n=13)
11%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=763)
22%
Load Maximum *
10
9.3
7%
8
20%
8.55
14%
4.62
54%
7.1
29%
10
-0%
9.12 (7.49 - 11.9, n=13)
9%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=763)
41%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Lower power consumption and a large battery generally result in good battery life, but that is not the case with the Mi 9T Pro. The device averaged 14% longer runtimes than the Mi 9, but we expected as much considering that it has around a 20% larger battery than its namesake.

The Mi 9T Pro by no means has lousy battery life, with it lasting for an impressive 12:42 hours in our Wi-Fi test, during which we set the display to approximately 150 cd/m². However, it falls short of the OnePlus 7 and Pixel 3a XL despite them having 300-mAh smaller batteries. Moreover, while the ZenFone 6 has a 1,000-mAh larger battery than our review unit, it blows it away in all but our Wi-Fi test, with it lasting over 19 hours longer in our H.264 looped video test.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
29h 28min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
12h 42min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 27min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 9min
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9
3300 mAh
OnePlus 7
3700 mAh
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
5000 mAh
Google Pixel 3a XL
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A80
3700 mAh
LG G8s ThinQ
3550 mAh
Battery Runtime
-14%
10%
52%
2%
-8%
-14%
Reader / Idle
1768
1650
-7%
1989
13%
2114
20%
1822
3%
1796
2%
1689
-4%
H.264
987
1008
2%
933
-5%
2138
117%
960
-3%
902
-9%
753
-24%
WiFi v1.3
762
546
-28%
901
18%
801
5%
709
-7%
713
-6%
693
-9%
Load
249
194
-22%
278
12%
409
64%
289
16%
200
-20%
203
-18%

Pros

+ borderless design
+ accurate GPS
+ decent OLED panel
+ 3.5 mm jack
+ good cameras
+ good system performance
+ fast in-display fingerprint sensor

Cons

- only Widevine L3-certified (Redmi K20 Pro)
- slow Wi-Fi
- poor LTE coverage (Redmi K20 Pro)
- low maximum manual brightness
- 27 W charger not included in the box

Verdict

The Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.
The Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) smartphone review. Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen.

The Mi 9T Pro, or the Redmi K20 Pro depending on where you live, is another powerful yet affordable smartphone by Xiaomi. Should the company soon launch the Mi 9T Pro worldwide for around 400 Euros (~US$444) like third-party retailers are charging for the Redmi K20 Pro, then we would recommend that you consider if it if you are looking for a sub-US$500 smartphone.

One of the biggest highlights of the device is its beautiful AMOLED panel, which has hardly any bezels thanks to its retractable front-facing camera. The Snapdragon 855 and 8 GB RAM are on-hand to deliver excellent performance too, while the 128 GB of storage is some of the fastest UFS 2.1 on the market. We also like that Xiaomi has stuck with an in-screen optical fingerprint scanner too, as it makes the device feel more future-proofed than many of its contemporaries.

However, the Mi 9T Pro has its downsides, although a worldwide model would rectify some of the qualms that we have with the device. The limited LTE coverage and Widevine L3 certification should not affect the worldwide model, but the mono speaker, lack of expandable storage, no wireless charging, and no IP certification irk us. Likewise, we doubt that the worldwide model will address SoC throttling either, while MIUI is a matter of taste.

The Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro, better known as the Redmi K20 Pro in some regions, is a great all-rounder but lacks the polish of the Mi 9.

Certainly, the motorised pop-up selfie camera and notchless design help distinguish the Mi 9T Pro from its competitors, but it seems short-sighted of Xiaomi to market the device under the Mi 9 series. While the Mi 9T Pro costs about as much as the Mi 9, its slower Wi-Fi module, mono speaker, slower flash storage, poorer display calibration and worse temperature management make it a tougher sell than its namesake. The former does have a larger battery, better battery life and a 3.5 mm headphone jack though, which could tip the balance in favour of the Mi 9T Pro for some people.

Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro - 07/30/2019 v6(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
85%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
47 / 60 → 78%
Weight
89%
Battery
96%
Display
95%
Games Performance
70 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
80 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
88%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 91 → 79%
Camera
79%
Average
81%
89%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 8 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 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro) Smartphone Review: Not another Mi 9 with a pop-up camera
Marcus Herbrich, 2019-08- 2 (Update: 2019-08- 5)
Alex Alderson
Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj
Prior to writing and translating for Notebookcheck, I worked for various companies including Apple and Neowin. I have a BA in International History and Politics from the University of Leeds, which I have since converted to a Law Degree. Happy to chat on Twitter or Notebookchat.