Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 Smartphone Review

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Katherine Bodner), 12/01/2018

From old to new. The Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 makes use of tried and tested technology, a sliding mechanism and an almost bezel-less and, more importantly, notch-free design. But the latest offspring of the Mi Mix series also has another surprise in store.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

The Mi Mix series manufactured by Xiaomi has entered its fourth season. The successor of the smartphone that "revolutionized" smartphone designs in 2016 still looks impressive. It boasts an almost bezel-less AMOLED display without a notch. This is made possible by using a sliding mechanism that contains the dual front camera and several sensors. The panel comes from Samsung, which is well-known for its very good OLED displays.

The organic display in the Mi Mix 3 has a native resolution of 2340x1080 pixels in 19.5:9 format. The Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 is powered by Qualcomm's current high-end chipset Snapdragon 845, 10 GB of RAM and an Adreno 630. The back of the Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 has an active fingerprint sensor, a dual main camera with a resolution of 12 MP each and support for Qi charging, the wireless charging system via electromagnetic induction.

The top model of the Mi Mix 3 costs 4000 RMB (~$575) and has 256 GB of internal storage and 8 GB of RAM available. Our test unit is equipped with 128 GB of storage and 8 GB of RAM (3600 RMB/~$520). The entry-level configuration has 128 GB of UFS storage and 6 GB of RAM and is available for 3300 RMB (~$475). Officially, the company is not currently planning on distributing the device directly to the European market. Therefore, the only option of getting your hands on a Mi Mix 3 is via import companies. Due to the limited availability of the smartphone, prices might be a little higher. However, it is probable that a European version of the bezel-less Xiaomi smartphone will be available in December or at the beginning of the next year. Xiaomi will probably announce the availability of the device in other regions sometime in the future.

There will also be a Special Design edition, created in collaboration with the Palace Museum in Beijing. This should be available towards the end of 2018 and will come with 10 GB of RAM and an inlay depicting Xie Zhi on the back. This exclusive Palace Museum edition costs the equivalent of $700.

We have chosen the following high-range devices as comparison devices for today's review: OnePlus 6T and Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition and the top-range devices Sony Xperia XZ3, Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus, HTC U12 Plus and Huawei Mate 20 Pro. The almost bezel-less Oppo Find X and the Vivo Nex Ultimate can also be considered interesting competitors. 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (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, Super AMOLED, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 110.3 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB Type C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: compass, gyroscope, proximity sensor, accelerometer, OTG, status LED, VoLTE, WiFi-Calling, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM 1800 / 1900 / 850 / 900MHz; UMTS 1900 / 2100 / 850 / 900MHz; FD-LTE 2100 (band 1) / 1800 (band 3) / 2600 (band 7) / 900(band 8) / 1900(band 2) / 1700(band 4) / 850(band 5) / 700(band 17) / 800(band 20); TD-LTE 2600(band 38) / 2300(band 40) / 2500(band, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.8 x 157.8 x 74.6 ( = 0.35 x 6.21 x 2.94 in)
Battery
3200 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual: 12MP + 12MP; Exmor-RS CMOS sensor; f/1.8; 3840x2160 @ 30 fps, 1920x1080 @ 60 fps, 1280x720 @ 120 fps
Secondary Camera: 24 MPix Dual: 24MP + 2MP
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual, Qi charging pad, modular CN power supply, 3.5-mm-audio-jack-to-USB-Type-C adapter, case, microUSB cable, MIUI, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
218 g ( = 7.69 oz / 0.48 pounds), Power Supply: 68 g ( = 2.4 oz / 0.15 pounds)
Price
470 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case - Mi Mix 3 with sliding mechanism

Color versions of the Mi Mix 3
Color versions of the Mi Mix 3

The materials used for the Mi Mix series represent the philosophy Xiaomi has chosen for this series. Instead of using glass, the back of the Mi Mix 3 is made of ceramics and has rounded edges. The device is about 8 mm (~0.3 in) thick and lies comfortably in your hand. It is available in jade, sapphire and onyx. The Mi Mix 3 feels surprisingly heavy, weighing 218 grams (~7.7 oz). However, the weight distribution is good.

The case has good workmanship. Despite the mechanics, the smartphone has a strong build and cannot be warped. The gap between the case and the movable area of the display is minimal and the gap dimensions in general are even and smooth. The device does not have an IP certification against water or dust.  

The front is made of scratch-resistant 2.5D Corning Gorilla glass that smoothly flows into the metal frame. The sides of the 6.39-inch OLED panel are very narrow. The same can be said for the area below the display. Unlike its predecessors, the cameras and sensors of the Mi Mix 3 are not positioned on the front. They disappear behind the display thanks to the slider mechanism, which means that the display covers a very large part of the front of the device (85%). The Oppo Find X has a screen-to-body ratio of 87%.

The dual camera module on the back is not flush with the device and the Mi Mix 3 wobbles when using it on a hard surface. The back of the device also features a fingerprint reader.  

The physical buttons are easy to distinguish from one another, are worked into the case nicely and positioned well - at least the power button is. The volume rocker is a little too high for our fingers. The special feature of the Mi Mix 3 is placed on the left side of the case: An AI button for the language assistant similar to the one Samsung devices feature. Users can also change the function of the button to open the camera app instead.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Size Comparison

Connectivity - Xiaomi smartphone with Qi standard

Typically for an OLED device, the Mi Mix 3 offers an Always On function for notifications. The device also has a status LED. The OTG adapter lets you connect external peripherals such as keyboards or USB sticks via the USB port. The device also supports the wireless transmission of display content to an external monitor via Miracast. 

The internal UFS 2.1 storage of our test unit has a capacity of 128 GB, although users only have 110 GB of storage available after purchase. The Dual SIM smartphone does not offer a microSD card for storage expansion.

The 3200-mAh battery is recharged via a USB Type C port using the 2.0 standard positioned at the bottom of the device. The wireless Qi quick charge functionality recharges the device with up to 10 watts. The scope of delivery includes a suitable 10W Qi charging pad. The Mi Mix 3 only supports Widevine level 3, which means that videos, for example on Amazon or Netflix, can only be streamed at 540p. 

 

 

bottom
bottom
right side
right side
left side
left side
top
top

Software - Android 9 with MiUI 10

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

As usual, Xiaomi has chosen to equip the Mi Mix 3 with Android and its own MiUI user interface. Our test unit has the Chinese ROM type (10.0.11.0 Stable) and Android security patches from October 2018. The operating system is based on the current Google Android version 9.0.

As Xiaomi is not yet selling the Mi Mix 3 outside of China, the MiUI does not support Google services such as the Play Store or Google apps such as Gmail. Instead, the device comes with Chinese services and Xiaomi's own apps. However, there are ways to install the PlayStore manually (luckily, the Mi Mix 3 already has Google Frameworks pre-installed, so that you only have to add the PlayStore itself) and (as is the case for almost every Xiaomi smartphone) we are expecting the announcement of a global version of the device  that supports not only Google services but also offers languages other than Chinese and English. 

The user interface of the Android operating system is very different to stock Android. The tenth version of the Mi user interface is still very colorful and offers a lot of customization options. Installed apps are not collected in an app drawer, but are distributed among the various home screens. The design can be changed using Xiaomi's own theme store.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Communication and GPS - fast Wi-Fi, precise GPS

Users can connect wireless peripherals such as headphones and smartwatches to the Xiaomi via Bluetooth 5.0. The device also supports near-field communication (NFC), which means it can be used for contactless payments.

The integrated Wi-Fi module supports the IEEE 802.11 standards a/b/g/n/ac. The Mi Mix 3 also has 2x2 MIMO technology for very high transfer rates. The rates measured with our test unit and our reference router Linksys EA 8500 are brilliant at over 600 MBit/s.

Reception is very good and the Wi-Fi signal is consistent during everyday use. We measured low attenuation of -38 dBm at close proximity to the router (Telekom Speedport, W921V). Users of the Xiaomi phone can insert up to two Nano-SIM cards simultaneously. The LTE smartphone downloads data at 1.2 GB/s on mobile internet (LTE cat 18, both slots).

The LTE module also has a MIMO antenna. The 4x4 MIMO technology doubles the Xiaomi smartphone's data transfer rate compared to 2x2 MIMO technology.

Like the Xiaomi Mi 8 (Explorer Edition), the Mi Mix 3 (only) supports 14 LTE bands. The frequency coverage is good for most carriers.  

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
685 (min: 657, max: 705) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
629 (min: 621, max: 638) MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 (min: 532, max: 642) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 100, max: 534) MBit/s ∼72% -28%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
579 MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
530 (min: 467, max: 568) MBit/s ∼77% -23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼76% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=306)
211 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
696 (min: 647, max: 714) MBit/s ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 289, max: 805) MBit/s ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 507, max: 704) MBit/s ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼88% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
573 MBit/s ∼82% -14%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼75% -22%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
474 (min: 241, max: 497) MBit/s ∼68% -29%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
450 (min: 167, max: 526) MBit/s ∼65% -32%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=306)
206 MBit/s ∼30% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø684 (657-705)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø663 (507-704)
GPS outdoors
GPS outdoors
GPS indoors
GPS indoors

The device can use GPS, Galileo, QZSS, GLONASS, Beidou and the satellite-based augmentation system SBAS for positioning. Like the Mi 8 (Explorer Edition), the Mi Mix 3 has a Dual GPS feature which uses two frequency bands - the usual band L1 and the band L5 that is usually used for professional use - in order to ensure faster and more precise localization.

The Xiaomi smartphone positions itself reliably outdoors within about 4 meters (~13 ft). The satellite signal is weaker indoors, but the device still managed to locate us.

In order to get a better idea of the precision of our test unit, we took it on a ride together with the Garmin Edge 500. There are very few differences between the results of the Mi Mix 3 and those of the professional navigation system.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Telephone and Voice Quality - Xiaomi smartphone with VoLTE

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

The voice quality of the Mi Mix 3 is good. We could hear our call partner clearly and they also confirmed that our voice was transmitted nicely. We did not encounter any dropouts or problems with reception. The device supports VoLTE in theory, but this is currently limited to China Mobile. We assume that this will be expanded when the EU model appears. We were not able to choose this function using a Telekom SIM card.

The telephone app is the standard MiUI app. It offers a speed dial function, direct access to contacts saved to the phone and supports call lists.

Cameras - good dual cameras

portrait mode front cam
portrait mode front cam

Compared to the Mi 8, not much about the back camera of the Mi Mix 3 has changed, at least not on the hardware side. The dual main camera still has a wide-angle lens with 12 MP (4032x3024 pixels), an aperture of f/1.8 and an optical image stabilizer as well as a 12-MP telephoto lens with f/2.4. The Sony IMX363 image sensor in the main camera has a pixel size of 1.4 μm. The telephoto lens with low luminosity uses a Samsung sensor (S5K3M3) with significantly smaller pixels (1 μm).

The Chinese manufacturer has massively improved the Mi Mix 3's software and image processing capabilities. Particularly in low-light situations, the phone seems to be managing details, exposure and focus a lot better. The latter cannot be compared to flagship levels, however, and is a little imprecise sometimes, particularly when fast movements are involved.

Compared to the elite, the photos taken with our Mi Mix 3, particularly in bad lighting, are too dark and visibly lack details and sharpness. Colors also appear weak and washed-out.

Videos can be recorded at up to 60 FPS in UHD quality with the dual camera on the back of the Mix 3. There is a super-slow-motion function that records 960 frames per second. However, this "only" supports 1080p. The 4-axis OIS manages to balance out shaky hands while recording.

The dual selfie camera on the front has 24 and 2 MP. The Sony IMX576 main sensor is supported by an OmniVision OV02A10 image sensor for selfies. This worked well in our test and offered good results. The picture quality of the 24-MP camera module is good to very good. The aperture of f/2.2 does not let in a lot of light. Therefore, the device uses pixel binning (also used in the Redmi Note 6 Pro). This process combines four pixels into a "super pixel" with a pixel size of 1.8 μm and means that pictures can be quite light even in dark surroundings. The front camera records videos in FHD resolution (1920x1080 pixels) at up to 30 frames per second. The quality of videos is good for a front cam.

photo mode
photo mode
double zoom
double zoom
portrait mode
portrait mode
portrait mode
portrait mode
photo mode
photo mode
night mode
night mode
photo mode
photo mode
double zoom
double zoom
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

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
X-Rite ColorChecker Passport
X-Rite ColorChecker Passport

We further test the main camera under controlled lighting. The ColorChecker passport is used to analyze the color display of the 12-MP lens with the reference colors, which are depicted in the bottom half of each box.

The Mi Mix 3 does a good job at color reproduction - its only weakness seems to be black. Also, the white balance is a little too warm and shows a noticeable deviation compared to the reference colors.

The image sharpness of our test chart is decent. Color gradients are displayed nicely and text appears sharp on dark backgrounds. However, the image is less sharp and smooth at the edges.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Accessories and Warranty - wireless charging pad included

CN power supply
CN power supply

Apart from the Xiaomi smartphone itself, the scope of delivery includes a USB cable, a protective cover, a USB-Type-C-to-3.5-mm adapter and a modular CN power supply (2A, 9V). Xiaomi also includes a wireless charging pad ex-works.

TradingShenzhen has also included an EU adapter as well as a USB OTG adapter. Both of these items are not part of the standard scope of delivery.

The device comes with a 12-month warranty. 

Input Devices & Handling

The device can be controlled either via on-screen buttons for "back", "multitasking" and "home" or via gesture control. The latter remains the same with Android 9 and MiUI 10. A quick swipe upwards from the bottom edge of the screen brings you to the home screen. If you leave the finger on the display after swiping upwards, you can access recently used applications. If you want to go a step back, swipe towards the center from left or right.

Xiaomi has chosen the Sogou keyboard as the standard keyboard app for MiUI. Users who do not like this keyboard can also download Google's stock app GBoard. Some spirited users might not be happy with the gap between the display and the case as the Xiaomi smartphone can rattle a little when using a lot of pressure while typing.  

The capacitive touchscreen of the Mi Mix 3 is very sensitive and is still very precise in the corners. The surface has good gliding facilities. The fingerprint sensor is positioned on the back of the Xiaomi smartphone. It is one of the fastest sensors on the market and unlocks the high-end device reliably.  

Users can also use their face to unlock the phone via biometric identification. The Face Unlock function of the front cam unlocks the Xiaomi smartphone quickly and reliably even in bad lighting.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Display - a great OLED panel

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The 6.39-inch OLED display in the Mi Mix 3 has a resolution of 2340x1080 pixels which equates to a pixel density of 400 PPI. This positions the Xiaomi on par with most of our comparison with FHD resolution. The 1080p resolution is sufficiently sharp during everyday use. However, the high-end segment also includes phones such as the Huawei Mate 20 Pro, the HTC U12 Plus and the Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus that offer 1440p resolutions. Small writing appears even more sharp on these devices.

As organic light diodes hardly ever shine at their theoretical maximum brightness, the brightness of each diode is reduced accordingly. Xiaomi uses pulse-width modulation to control display brightness. This occurs even at maximum brightness. The frequency of this flickering is rather low, at 240 Hz. Subjectively, we did not notice this. However, PWM can affect sensitive users by giving them headaches or making them feel dizzy, particularly at very low frequencies.

The maximum brightness on an all-white screen is 421 cd/m². If the ambient light sensor is turned on to automatically adjust display brightness, the maximum is significantly higher at 599 cd/m². We also tested the luminosity of the panel with evenly distributed light and dark areas (APL50). This resulted in a maximum brightness of 799 cd/m².

587
cd/m²
586
cd/m²
576
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 599 cd/m² Average: 592.8 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 599 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Oppo Find X
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.42
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
OnePlus 6T
Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
HTC U12 Plus
Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3
Screen
-56%
-97%
-161%
-25%
-20%
-8%
1%
Brightness middle
599
429
-28%
427
-29%
356
-41%
437
-27%
565
-6%
395
-34%
576
-4%
Brightness
593
432
-27%
432
-27%
352
-41%
442
-25%
571
-4%
402
-32%
582
-2%
Brightness Distribution
96
88
-8%
87
-9%
95
-1%
95
-1%
96
0%
90
-6%
90
-6%
Black Level *
0.37
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
3.39
-142%
5.37
-284%
7.08
-406%
2.21
-58%
2.3
-64%
1.6
-14%
1.3
7%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.2
5.25
-64%
7.51
-135%
14.1
-341%
4.27
-33%
4.8
-50%
3.4
-6%
3.5
-9%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2
3.3
-65%
4
-100%
4.7
-135%
2.1
-5%
1.9
5%
1.1
45%
1.6
20%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.238 98%
2.243 98%
2.096 105%
2.307 95%
2.16 102%
2.14 103%
2.18 101%
CCT
6496 100%
7135 91%
6851 95%
7297 89%
6353 102%
6332 103%
6536 99%
6561 99%
Contrast
1068

* ... 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

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8931 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Due to their technology, OLED displays have a significant advantage over liquid crystal displays. Organic panels can display "absolute" black even in pitch-black rooms and at maximum brightness. Therefore, their contrast ratio is theoretically infinite. Even high-quality IPS displays illuminate black areas with about half a thousandth of the LED backlight diode.

An analysis of the screen using the spectrophotometer and CalMAN software results in very low average DeltaE deviations to the sRGB color space of 1.4 for colors and 2 for gray scales (profile: standard). The ideal range is below 3. The segment of bezel-less smartphones, which consists of the Oppo Find X and the Vivo Nex Ultimate, cannot keep up with these values. The Mi Mix 3 also does a very good job at color temperature with 6496 K, compared to an ideal of 6500 K.

The sRGB and P3 color space is covered almost entirely by the OLED panel. We did not notice a color cast.

Color accuracy (P3), profile: automatic
Color accuracy (P3), profile: automatic
Color space (P3), profile: automatic
Color space (P3), profile: automatic
Grayscales (P3), profile: automatic
Grayscales (P3), profile: automatic
Saturation (P3), profile: automatic
Saturation (P3), profile: automatic
Color accuracy (P3), profile: warm
Color accuracy (P3), profile: warm
Color space (P3), profile: warm
Color space (P3), profile: warm
Grayscales (P3), profile: warm
Grayscales (P3), profile: warm
Saturation (P3), profile: warm
Saturation (P3), profile: warm
Color accuracy (P3), profile: increased contrast
Color accuracy (P3), profile: increased contrast
Color space (P3), profile: increased contrast
Color space (P3), profile: increased contrast
Grayscales (P3), profile: increased contrast
Grayscales (P3), profile: increased contrast
Saturation (P3), profile: increased contrast
Saturation (P3), profile: increased contrast
Color accuracy (sRGB), profile: standard
Color accuracy (sRGB), profile: standard
Color space (sRGB), profile: standard
Color space (sRGB), profile: standard
Color space (sRGB), profile: standard
Grayscales (sRGB), profile: standard
Saturation (sRGB), profile: standard
Saturation (sRGB), profile: standard

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
12.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9.4 ms rise
↘ 2.8 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
7.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 4.8 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. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

The viewing angle stability of the organic display is very good. There are no color inversions and the loss in brightness when looking at the display from the side is also minimal.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Thanks to the good luminosity of the high-contrast OLED display, using the device outdoors is no problem. The display can even be used in direct sunlight thanks to its maximum brightness of around 600 cd/m².

Outdoor use ...
Outdoor use ...
... on overcast day
... on overcast day

Performance - Snapdragon 845 ensures good system performance

Our high-end Xiaomi smartphone is equipped with the Snapdragon 845, which supplies it with plenty of power. The 2018 Qualcomm chip has four ARM Cortex A75 performance cores with a clock rate of up to 2.8 GHz and four more energy-efficient cores. These are based on ARM Cortex A55 architecture and clock at up to 1.8 GHz. The graphics chip included in the Qualcomm SoC is the powerful Adreno 630.

Together with 8 GB of RAM this high-end processor ensures a very good system performance. The apps are very quick to load and animations are smooth. The Mi Mix 3 is on the top of the list in our benchmarks - particularly the PCMark system benchmarks make the slider phone look good.

Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
13374 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
14299 Points ∼100% +7%
Oppo Find X
13817 Points ∼97% +3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼96% +2%
OnePlus 6T
13341 Points ∼93% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -54%
HTC U12 Plus
12493 Points ∼87% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8938 Points ∼63% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼95% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼32% -66%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8634 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8548 Points ∼85% -1%
Oppo Find X
7983 Points ∼80% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼91% +6%
OnePlus 6T
8995 Points ∼90% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼89% +4%
HTC U12 Plus
8812 Points ∼88% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
10024 Points ∼100% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼43% -50%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2333 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2441 Points ∼65% +5%
Oppo Find X
2330 Points ∼62% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼65% +6%
OnePlus 6T
2384 Points ∼63% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +62%
HTC U12 Plus
2429 Points ∼64% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
3378 Points ∼89% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼34% -46%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8326 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7360 Points ∼75% -12%
Oppo Find X
9868 Points ∼100% +19%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼77% -9%
OnePlus 6T
8487 Points ∼86% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼54% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
8601 Points ∼87% +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
9225 Points ∼93% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼81% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼46% -45%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
10052 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8967 Points ∼68% -11%
Oppo Find X
13211 Points ∼100% +31%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼61% -20%
OnePlus 6T
10590 Points ∼80% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼44% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
10264 Points ∼78% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
12535 Points ∼95% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼77% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼38% -51%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2802 Points ∼64%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2227 Points ∼51% -21%
Oppo Find X
3089 Points ∼71% +10%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2577 Points ∼59% -8%
OnePlus 6T
3681 Points ∼84% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2546 Points ∼58% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
2947 Points ∼68% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4364 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼71% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼39% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4480 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4209 Points ∼72% -6%
Oppo Find X
5678 Points ∼97% +27%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5689 Points ∼97% +27%
OnePlus 6T
5877 Points ∼100% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3792 Points ∼65% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
4450 Points ∼76% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4250 Points ∼72% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼93% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼25% -67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3846 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3512 Points ∼68% -9%
Oppo Find X
4765 Points ∼92% +24%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4485 Points ∼86% +17%
OnePlus 6T
5189 Points ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3420 Points ∼66% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3997 Points ∼77% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4275 Points ∼82% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼90% +21%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼26% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3060 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2145 Points ∼49% -30%
Oppo Find X
3024 Points ∼69% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2110 Points ∼48% -31%
OnePlus 6T
3374 Points ∼77% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2561 Points ∼58% -16%
HTC U12 Plus
2656 Points ∼60% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4407 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼38% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8245 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
5922 Points ∼71% -28%
Oppo Find X
8357 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7823 Points ∼93% -5%
OnePlus 6T
8397 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4797 Points ∼57% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
6419 Points ∼76% -22%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5854 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6054 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4232 Points ∼67% -30%
Oppo Find X
6005 Points ∼95% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4884 Points ∼77% -19%
OnePlus 6T
6310 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4018 Points ∼64% -34%
HTC U12 Plus
4882 Points ∼77% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5456 Points ∼86% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼27% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2653 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2118 Points ∼51% -20%
Oppo Find X
3132 Points ∼75% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼78% +23%
OnePlus 6T
3537 Points ∼85% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼59% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
3197 Points ∼76% +21%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4183 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼78% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼39% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4223 Points ∼81%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3742 Points ∼71% -11%
Oppo Find X
5169 Points ∼99% +22%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼99% +22%
OnePlus 6T
5241 Points ∼100% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼68% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
3488 Points ∼67% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4206 Points ∼80% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼94% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼23% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3677 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3197 Points ∼68% -13%
Oppo Find X
4516 Points ∼95% +23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼97% +25%
OnePlus 6T
4734 Points ∼100% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼69% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3419 Points ∼72% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4201 Points ∼89% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼93% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼24% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3221 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2176 Points ∼52% -32%
Oppo Find X
3197 Points ∼77% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼68% -13%
OnePlus 6T
3483 Points ∼84% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼60% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
2774 Points ∼67% -14%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4150 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼75% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼37% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8236 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6554 Points ∼79% -20%
Oppo Find X
8193 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
8272 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
5637 Points ∼68% -32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5305 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6118 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4529 Points ∼71% -26%
Oppo Find X
6087 Points ∼96% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼91% -6%
OnePlus 6T
6336 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼61% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
4585 Points ∼72% -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4996 Points ∼79% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼22% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35987 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
30765 Points ∼84% -15%
Oppo Find X
35009 Points ∼95% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼95% -3%
OnePlus 6T
35022 Points ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼71% -27%
HTC U12 Plus
33810 Points ∼92% -6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
36755 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼91% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼35% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
83976 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
77003 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X
83168 Points ∼98% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼94% -5%
OnePlus 6T
84998 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼55% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
81726 Points ∼96% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
67730 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
64627 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
57711 Points ∼89% -11%
Oppo Find X
63695 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼96% -4%
OnePlus 6T
64534 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼61% -39%
HTC U12 Plus
62152 Points ∼96% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
57047 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼23% -77%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
152 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
102 fps ∼67% -33%
Oppo Find X
146 fps ∼96% -4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 6T
152 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
98 fps ∼64% -36%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
120 fps ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
60 fps ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Oppo Find X
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼96% 0%
OnePlus 6T
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼96% 0%
HTC U12 Plus
59 fps ∼94% -2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
61 fps ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼40% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
81 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
54 fps ∼65% -33%
Oppo Find X
79 fps ∼95% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼71% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼89% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
72 fps ∼87% -11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼20% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
56 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
51 fps ∼86% -9%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼98% +4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼59% -37%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
42 fps ∼71% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼27% -71%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
59 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
32 fps ∼53% -46%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼97% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼98% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
39 fps ∼65% -34%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
29 fps ∼48% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
50 fps ∼85%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
29 fps ∼49% -42%
Oppo Find X
59 fps ∼100% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼93% +10%
OnePlus 6T
53 fps ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼41% -52%
HTC U12 Plus
31 fps ∼53% -38%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
26 fps ∼44% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼24% -72%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼91%
OnePlus 6T
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
19 fps ∼86% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼46% -49%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
31 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
14 fps ∼45% -55%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
13 fps ∼42% -58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼50% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼21% -79%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
34 fps ∼100% +70%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
18 fps ∼53% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼84% +43%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼42% -28%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼81%
OnePlus 6T
37 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
33 fps ∼89% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼95% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼42% -48%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Oppo Find X
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6T
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
31 fps ∼89% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
24 fps ∼73% -20%
Oppo Find X
29 fps ∼88% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼100% +10%
OnePlus 6T
31 fps ∼94% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼42% -53%
HTC U12 Plus
20 fps ∼61% -33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
16 fps ∼48% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼27% -70%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
292798 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
288062 Points ∼96% -2%
Oppo Find X
283346 Points ∼94% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 6T
294488 Points ∼98% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼83% -14%
HTC U12 Plus
255739 Points ∼85% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
300617 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼39% -60%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
228173 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
232931 Points ∼93% +2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
229991 Points ∼92% +1%
OnePlus 6T
228939 Points ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼89% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
221971 Points ∼88% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
250848 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼89% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=389)
76442 Points ∼30% -66%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
1386 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
1288 Points ∼90% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
1009 Points ∼70% -27%
OnePlus 6T
1398 Points ∼97% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼77% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
1437 Points ∼100% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
1424 Points ∼99% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼49% -50%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
7891 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7965 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7887 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
7969 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% -19%
HTC U12 Plus
7945 Points ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6273 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼22% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3791 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3521 Points ∼56% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4798 Points ∼76% +27%
OnePlus 6T
4344 Points ∼69% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼42% -31%
HTC U12 Plus
3641 Points ∼58% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6283 Points ∼100% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼57% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼20% -67%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8146 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6556 Points ∼76% -20%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8252 Points ∼96% +1%
OnePlus 6T
8156 Points ∼95% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼75% -21%
HTC U12 Plus
7862 Points ∼91% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8604 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼29% -69%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4287 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3923 Points ∼84% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4213 Points ∼90% -2%
OnePlus 6T
4458 Points ∼95% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼70% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
4252 Points ∼91% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4687 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼87% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼27% -71%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Oppo Find X Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6T Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
HTC U12 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, ARM Mali-G76 MP10, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

The Xiaomi also does a good job in our web-based benchmarks. Subjectively, we were very happy with the browser performance using Chrome with pages loading very quickly.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
109.18 Points ∼100% +27%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
87.036 Points ∼80% +1%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
86.123 Points ∼79% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
85.976 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼74% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼70% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼64% -19%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
64.809 Points ∼59% -25%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼34% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼21% -74%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
23285 Points ∼100% +41%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
16824 Points ∼72% +2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
16489 Points ∼71%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
16285 Points ∼70% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼66% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼63% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼63% -11%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
13276 Points ∼57% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=558)
5562 Points ∼24% -66%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼17% -76%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -399%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼98% -387%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
3147 ms * ∼27% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -25%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
2409.6 ms * ∼21% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼20% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
2299.9 ms * ∼20%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
2281.6 ms * ∼20% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼18% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
1951.9 ms * ∼17% +15%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
124 Points ∼100% +31%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
101 Points ∼81% +6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
95 Points ∼77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼68% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
64 Points ∼52% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼51% -33%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Stock Browser)
19 Points ∼15% -80%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
334 Points ∼100% +28%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
257 Points ∼77% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
251 Points ∼75% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼70% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
164 Points ∼49% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼33% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
96 Points ∼29% -63%

* ... smaller is better

The modern UFS 2.1 flash storage also plays an important part in how quickly apps can be opened and closed. The Mi Mix 3 has one of the fastest storage devices available in the smartphone world - although current flagship smartphones such as the Huawei Mate 20 Pro and the HTC U12 Plus have higher access rates.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionOppo Find XVivo Nex UltimateOnePlus 6TSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusHTC U12 PlusHuawei Mate 20 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
5%
15%
5%
6%
8%
106%
187%
97%
-54%
Random Write 4KB
19.54
22.65
16%
26.98
38%
22.1
13%
22
13%
22.74
16%
104.24
433%
157.84
708%
92.1 (19.5 - 164, n=17)
371%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-18%
Random Read 4KB
133.24
135.21
1%
145.87
9%
126.7
-5%
138.5
4%
129.68
-3%
118.14
-11%
157.42
18%
141 (132 - 158, n=17)
6%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.76
205.23
-1%
206.87
0%
228.4
10%
204.4
-1%
204.94
-1%
195.82
-5%
196.39
-5%
202 (192 - 212, n=17)
-2%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
674.98
691.65
2%
760.99
13%
687.2
2%
735.3
9%
818.69
21%
709.11
5%
853.28
26%
767 (675 - 853, n=17)
14%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-66%

Games - Adreno 630 offers unlimited gaming

The Qualcomm Adreno 630 supports all modern APIs such as Vulkan, OpenGL ES 3.2 and DirectX 12. The GPU is manufactured in the 10-nm process and is one of the most performant GPUs in the smartphone segment. 

The 3D performance of the Mi Mix 3 is put through its paces with a few demanding games from the PlayStore. We make a protocol of frame rates during these gaming sessions using the GameBench app.

Graphically-demanding games such as "Asphalt 9 Legends" are displayed at a consistent 30 FPS at maximum settings. Modern and demanding games such as "PUBG Mobile" can also be displayed smoothly at 40 FPS. We did not encounter any drops in the frame rate even at maximum graphics settings.

The sensors in the Xiaomi smartphone and its capacitive touchscreen respond very well to inputs while gaming. We would like to mention the slight looseness of the display in the case. If you hold the device in landscape mode, the slider can be moved up and down by about one millimeter at the sides. 

PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends

PUBG Mobile

01020304050Tooltip
: Ø39.9 (39-41)

Asphalt 9 Legends

010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.6 (27-31)

Emissions - low temperatures

Temperature

The ceramic back of the Mi Mix 3 hardly heats up under permanent load. While we measured an average temperature of around 26 °C (~79 °F) while idling, the back reaches a maximum surface temperature of 31.1 °C (~88 °F) under load. The heat development on the front is stronger. Still, heat development is no issue in everyday use, even when running more demanding applications.

We used the battery test of the GFXBench app to analyze the heat development of the Qualcomm SoC under continuous load. During this test, the scenarios are repeated in a loop for thirty times and the battery level and frame rate is documented.

The Mi Mix 3 throttles during the demanding Manhattan test (OpenGL ES 3.1). The GFXBench battery test shows that with increasing load, the frame rate drops after 10 runs. The fluctuations in the frame rate are within a third of the Mi Mix 3's maximum performance. This means that there can be drops in performance during continuous load, but that this should not impact everyday performance very much. 

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Max. Load
 31.7 °C
89 F
31.6 °C
89 F
31.6 °C
89 F
 
 31.7 °C
89 F
30.9 °C
88 F
31.3 °C
88 F
 
 32 °C
90 F
31.7 °C
89 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
Maximum: 32 °C = 90 F
Average: 31.5 °C = 89 F
28.9 °C
84 F
30.6 °C
87 F
30.8 °C
87 F
28.2 °C
83 F
30.6 °C
87 F
31.1 °C
88 F
28.1 °C
83 F
30.3 °C
87 F
30.9 °C
88 F
Maximum: 31.1 °C = 88 F
Average: 29.9 °C = 86 F
Power Supply (max.)  26.3 °C = 79 F | Room Temperature 20.8 °C = 69 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.5 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Speakers

Speaker test: Pink Noise
Speaker test: Pink Noise

The Mi Mix 3 has a mono speaker that is positioned along the bottom of the device. However, the build creates some stereo effects as sound is also emitted from the top of the device.

While mids are comparatively linear, highs are underrepresented. Our Pink Noise measurement shows that bass tones are also expectedly quiet. Most low and bass tones are not audible on this smartphone speaker. The maximum volume is sufficient at 85 dB(A).

The audio output via the USB C port is loud and of good quality as is typical for Xiaomi. The settings menu offers an equalizer and MI sound optimization.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.739.62526.725.83128.722.44026.5295036.936.46326.725.48026.921.910022.323.812520.223.916017.741.220018.741.925019.248.831515.85540015.660.650013.964.363014.365.680014.866.5100013.466.9125014.370.1160014.571.9200013.873.6250013.674.9315014.174.9400014.174500014.976.763001572.9800015.269.81000014.973.41250014.766.11600014.753SPL26.784.8N0.859.7median 14.8median 66.5Delta1.711.930.32938.131.328.52831.428.536.634.224.628.624.126.520.523.11927.316.939.919.151.416.652.413.9551559.514.659.112.357.411.858.611.863.811.968.611.469.511.27011.573.311.370.510.968.710.568.610.76610.665.210.566.410.655.710.638.964.357.22480.516.810.40.545.3median 11.8median 59.52.28.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi Mix 3OnePlus 6T
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

OnePlus 6T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Runtime - small battery, good runtimes

Power Consumption

Compared to the Mi 8 (Explorer Edition), the Chinese manufacturer has made noticeable improvements to the energy management. The efficient power consumption of the Mi Mix 3 is noticeable particularly while idling. On average, the Xiaomi smartphone is about 80% below the Snapdragon 845 competition.

We would like to mention that the energy saving settings from Xiaomi are quite restrictive in some areas and that users will probably need to deactivate or adapt these.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.11 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.49 / 0.67 / 0.87 Watt
Load midlight 3.64 / 9.04 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-192%
-130%
-57%
-51%
-18%
-104%
-94%
-79%
-68%
Idle Minimum *
0.49
1.8
-267%
0.9
-84%
0.9
-84%
0.7
-43%
0.68
-39%
0.77
-57%
0.95
-94%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-64%
0.88 (0.2 - 3.4, n=636)
-80%
Idle Average *
0.67
2.9
-333%
1.9
-184%
1.5
-124%
1.1
-64%
0.95
-42%
2.18
-225%
2.17
-224%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-157%
1.719 (0.6 - 6.2, n=635)
-157%
Idle Maximum *
0.87
3.5
-302%
3.2
-268%
1.7
-95%
2.1
-141%
1.09
-25%
2.21
-154%
2.25
-159%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
-141%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=636)
-130%
Load Average *
3.64
4.8
-32%
7.1
-95%
3.7
-2%
4.2
-15%
4.58
-26%
6.25
-72%
4.47
-23%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
-32%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=630)
-11%
Load Maximum *
9.04
11.2
-24%
10.7
-18%
7.2
20%
8.3
8%
5.16
43%
10.16
-12%
6.15
32%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
-2%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=630)
36%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

The battery in the Mi Mix 3 is only 3200 mAh large and not particularly generous for a 6.4-inch smartphone. However, it is impressive to see what Xiaomi can get out of this battery. While the runtimes are still shorter than some of the competition's, the Mi Mix 3 still managed a good 12 hours during our Wi-Fi battery test with 150 cd/m² brightness. The Mi Mix 3 even manages 14 hours of video playback.      

Thanks to QuickCharge technology, the Mi Mix 3 recharges in about 1.5 hours with any 18-watt power supply. The 10-watt wireless charging pad takes only about 30 minutes longer to recharge the phone to 100%. This is not bad at all.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
30h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 59min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
13h 56min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 14min
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Battery Runtime
-5%
-17%
23%
18%
-13%
-19%
13%
Reader / Idle
1810
1401
-23%
1925
6%
1936
7%
1343
-26%
1452
-20%
1747
-3%
H.264
836
921
10%
1133
36%
903
8%
674
-19%
464
-44%
854
2%
WiFi v1.3
719
694
-3%
596
-17%
1026
43%
865
20%
521
-28%
507
-29%
767
7%
Load
194
191
-2%
203
5%
261
35%
237
22%
230
19%
282
45%

Pros

+ great OLED panel
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ design
+ good-quality case
+ good cameras
+ precise GPS
+ high performance
+ hardly any loss of heat...

Cons

- ... slight throttling nonetheless
- weight
- Slider mechanism is a little rickety sometimes
- USB 2.0
- Widevine level 3
- storage not expandable

Verdict - Excellent slider phone

Review: Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Test unit provided by TradingShenzhen.
Review: Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Test unit provided by TradingShenzhen.

The Mi Mix 3 is a very good bezel-less smartphone that manages without a display notch. The display in particular is another step up from the Mi 8. The display technology used by Xiaomi is excellent. 

We were surprised by the good performance of the relatively small battery in the slider smartphone. Our battery test shows that the Mi Mix 3 can offer good runtimes thanks to its very good power consumption rates. Most users should easily get through a day with one battery load.

The Mi Mix is a very nice smartphone that might not be an ideal travel companion for everyone due to its sliding mechanism. 

The Mi Mix 3 from Xiaomi does not have a lot of weaknesses. Due to the sliding mechanics, the high-end smartphone does not have any IP certification, is rather heavy and is probably more prone to breakages than a "normal" smartphone with a monobloc body.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - 12/03/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
48 / 60 → 79%