Notebookcheck

Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro Smartphone Review – A Little More

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 01/22/2020

One of the best smartphone cameras? The Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro not only offers more memory than the Mi Note 10, but also provides an extra lens for the main cam. What sounds like a minimal upgrade is intended to provide brighter and better camera images. We'll see if that works in the test.

Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro (Mi Note Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.47 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 398 PPI, Capacitive, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes, HDR, 60 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 256 GB 
, 245 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B6/​B8/​B19), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B18/​B19/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 157.8 x 74.2 ( = 0.38 x 6.21 x 2.92 in)
Battery
5260 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 108 MPix f/1.69, OIS, quad LED flash, video @2160p/30fps (camera 1); 20.0MP, f/2.2, wide angle lens (camera 2); 12.0MP, f/2.0, telephoto lens (camera 3); 5.0MP, f/2.0, telephoto lens, OIS (camera 4); 2.0MP, macro lens (camera 5)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.0, 26mm, 1/2.8", 0.8µm, Videos @1080p/​30fps
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Quick charger, USB cable, SIM tool, silicone bumper, 12 Months Warranty, SAR value: 1.107W/kg (head), 1.392W/kg (body); LTE: Cat 15 800 MBit/s (download), Cat 13 150 Mbit/s (upload), fanless
Weight
208 g ( = 7.34 oz / 0.46 pounds), Power Supply: 114 g ( = 4.02 oz / 0.25 pounds)
Price
600 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
84 %7
01/2020
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
SD 730G, Adreno 618
208 g256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.47"2340x1080
83 %7
12/2019
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
SD 730G, Adreno 618
208 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.47"2340x1080
86 %7
10/2019
OnePlus 7T
SD 855+, Adreno 640
190 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.55"2400x1080
84 %7
12/2019
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
SD 855, Adreno 640
206 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"2400x1080
86 %7
07/2019
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
SD 855, Adreno 640
190 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080

Case, Equipment and Operation - High Quality and Opulent

The Mi Note 10 Pro is the international version of the Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro Premium Edition, and it has the best camera rating in the Dxomark, just behind the Huawei Mate 30 Pro. But we don't rely on that, of course, and do our own tests to see how the slightly improved version of Mi Note 10 performs.

Let's first take a look at the case: There are no differences to the Mi Note 10. There are once again the three colors blue-green, white and black, all with elaborate light refraction on the back. This makes the device look quite high-end, but there is no IP certification for protection against water or dust. There are no differences to the Mi Note 10 in size and weight.

However, the Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro comes with 6 GB RAM and 256 GB mass storage. That's a lavish configuration, but Xiaomi charges an extra 100 euro, which isn't a small amount, according to the current price level on the internet. You can't expand the memory via microSD, but there is NFC, two SIM slots and an infrared blaster, which is otherwise rarely found.

In terms of WLAN, the Mi Note 10 Pro is rather a bit below the speed of other smartphones in its class, at a very similar level to the Mi Note 10.

Size Comparison

164.8 mm / 6.49 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs160.94 mm / 6.34 inch 74.44 mm / 2.93 inch 8.13 mm / 0.3201 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs159.1 mm / 6.26 inch 75.44 mm / 2.97 inch 9.2 mm / 0.3622 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs157.8 mm / 6.21 inch 74.2 mm / 2.92 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs157.8 mm / 6.21 inch 74.2 mm / 2.92 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 208 g0.4586 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
513 (min: 457, max: 532) MBit/s ∼100% +56%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
447 (min: 201, max: 659) MBit/s ∼87% +36%
OnePlus 7T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
430 (min: 374, max: 485) MBit/s ∼84% +31%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
331 (min: 317, max: 341) MBit/s ∼65% +1%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
329 (min: 284, max: 350) MBit/s ∼64%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
523 (min: 410, max: 563) MBit/s ∼100% +67%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
501 (min: 479, max: 554) MBit/s ∼96% +60%
OnePlus 7T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
422 (min: 238, max: 447) MBit/s ∼81% +35%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
327 (min: 321, max: 333) MBit/s ∼63% +4%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
313 (min: 306, max: 319) MBit/s ∼60%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø329 (284-350)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø313 (306-319)

Cameras - Even Sharper

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

At first glance, the camera specs look just as massive as on the Xiaomi Mi Note 10: a main camera with up to 108 megapixels of resolution, plus four additional lenses on the back with wide-angle, telephoto and macro focal lengths. 

The only difference in the Mi Note 10 Pro is that the main lens has one more lens, making a total of 8 lenses. More lenses per lens are usually used to compensate for colour errors or distortion. Xiaomi does not give any information about the function of the additional lens in the main lens, but maybe we can shed some light on this with our image comparison: 

If you look at the test chart under perfect lighting, the edges there appear a little sharper, while the sharpness in the center of the image is quite similar. Also the light intensity has not changed, thus, the only advantage of the additional lens seems to be a slightly higher sharpness in the edge areas of the images. 

If one photographs objects from close up, the photo software puts a strong blur over the background and sometimes exaggerates a little bit. Thus, the pictures should rather look like they were taken with a reflex or system camera. But apart from that, the representation of the camera is impressively sharp and also the colours appear very strong. 

With the help of the additional lenses, a 5x optical zoom is possible, which also works in fine steps, and with the help of optical image stabilizers, the image is protected against blurring. 

Videos can be recorded in 4K at a maximum of 30 fps. We really like the image quality here, but optical zoom is not possible during recording. 

The front camera with its lush 32 megapixels also takes sharp and detailed pictures.

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
21.7 ∆E
22.5 ∆E
25.5 ∆E
21.5 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
21.4 ∆E
21.3 ∆E
18.1 ∆E
22.7 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
16.1 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
26.6 ∆E
38.3 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
28.9 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro: 19.94 ∆E min: 7.7 - max: 38.29 ∆E
ColorChecker
5.4 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
2.4 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
3 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro: 4.95 ∆E min: 2.19 - max: 8.52 ∆E
Testchart - Perfect lighting
Testchart - Perfect lighting
Testchart - 1 Lux
Testchart - 1 Lux

Display - Bright and Accurate

Sub-pixel Array
Sub-pixel Array

In our brightness test we didn't achieve quite as high a score as the Xiaomi Mi 10, but the Mi 10 Pro is still on a class level. Apart from that, the AMOLED screen's values are quite similar: quick response times, relatively small color deviations and a slightly visible blue cast.

All in all, it's great that Xiaomi uses a high-quality screen with HDR support, which is by no means common in this price range.

554
cd/m²
582
cd/m²
609
cd/m²
547
cd/m²
579
cd/m²
592
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
589
cd/m²
589
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 609 cd/m² Average: 575.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.57 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.61 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.9
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.1
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.244
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47
OnePlus 7T
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.4
Response Times
9%
47%
12%
129%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
8 (3, 5)
10 (5, 5)
-25%
6 (3, 3)
25%
10 (5, 5)
-25%
44 (21.2, 22.8)
-450%
Response Time Black / White *
24 (19, 5)
8 (5, 3)
67%
6 (3, 3)
75%
6 (3, 3)
75%
25.6 (12.4, 13.2)
-7%
PWM Frequency
255
215.5
-15%
357
40%
223
-13%
2404 (58)
843%
Screen
5%
20%
-13%
1%
Brightness middle
579
625
8%
693
20%
581
0%
569
-2%
Brightness
576
607
5%
703
22%
581
1%
537
-7%
Brightness Distribution
89
89
0%
96
8%
94
6%
79
-11%
Black Level *
0.31
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.61
4.38
5%
3.42
26%
5.44
-18%
3.5
24%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.72
6.83
12%
6.12
21%
13.05
-69%
6
22%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.2
4.1
2%
3.3
21%
4
5%
5.1
-21%
Gamma
2.244 98%
2.251 98%
2.265 97%
2.118 104%
2.36 93%
CCT
7201 90%
7251 90%
6799 96%
5882 111%
6827 95%
Contrast
1835
Total Average (Program / Settings)
7% / 7%
34% / 29%
-1% / -4%
65% / 43%

* ... smaller is better

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 34 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.3 ms).

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 255 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 255 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 255 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 50 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18215 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Color Space

Performance, Emissions and Battery Life - More Power Would Be Good

In terms of performance, our Xiaomi phone actually gets a bit more problems in the test than the cheaper Mi Note 10 due to the higher price: In the price range around 600 euro, many smartphones with high-end SoCs are already on the road, whereas our test device relies on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, which has decent performance values for everyday use, but can't hold a candle to a Snapdragon 855+ in the OnePlus 7T, for example. The Galaxy A90 also has much greater performance reserves.

The tests with the Mi Note 10, which also relies on this SoC, have shown that gaming is also quite possible, but if you are looking for high-end power in your smartphone, the Mi Note 10 Pro might disappoint you.

The temperature development is not critical: the Mi Note 10 Pro's outer shell always stays cool. The loudspeaker on the bottom edge seems to be the same as the Mi Note 10, at least it offers an almost identical sound. The speaker does its job properly, doesn't distort and can get quite loud. Headphones can be connected via the 3.5mm jack, as well as via Bluetooth. Both work perfectly.

Our Xiaomi Mi Phone also does very well in terms of battery life: We are very satisfied with 18:32 hours in our WLAN test and Xiaomi is allowed to pat herself on the back: "You have to search a long time before you find such a persistent smartphone.

Geekbench 5
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
1729 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
1723 Points ∼63% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2753 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2733 Points ∼99% +58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (1723 - 1729, n=2)
1726 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=64)
1831 Points ∼67% +6%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
543 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
543 Points ∼69% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
783 Points ∼100% +44%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
740 Points ∼95% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (543 - 543, n=2)
543 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=64)
522 Points ∼67% -4%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
7551 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
7558 Points ∼74% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8702 Points ∼85% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10251 Points ∼100% +36%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9814 Points ∼96% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (7134 - 7558, n=3)
7414 Points ∼72% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=463)
5667 Points ∼55% -25%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
9240 Points ∼71%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
9052 Points ∼69% -2%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10286 Points ∼79% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
12747 Points ∼98% +38%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
13047 Points ∼100% +41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (9052 - 9240, n=3)
9146 Points ∼70% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=624)
6193 Points ∼47% -33%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3202 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3188 Points ∼69% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4635 Points ∼100% +45%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4576 Points ∼99% +43%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2840 Points ∼61% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3162 - 3202, n=3)
3184 Points ∼69% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5728, n=469)
2111 Points ∼46% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2492 Points ∼31%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
2425 Points ∼30% -3%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7977 Points ∼100% +220%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6990 Points ∼88% +180%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7069 Points ∼89% +184%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (2425 - 2492, n=3)
2450 Points ∼31% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9389, n=469)
1972 Points ∼25% -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2567 Points ∼37%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
2561 Points ∼37% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6875 Points ∼100% +168%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6257 Points ∼91% +144%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5311 Points ∼77% +107%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (2561 - 2567, n=3)
2564 Points ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8111, n=470)
1831 Points ∼27% -29%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3155 Points ∼67%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3193 Points ∼68% +1%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4517 Points ∼96% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4119 Points ∼88% +31%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4703 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3112 - 3193, n=3)
3153 Points ∼67% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5718, n=499)
2022 Points ∼43% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3648 Points ∼32%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3646 Points ∼32% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11433 Points ∼100% +213%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10024 Points ∼88% +175%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10290 Points ∼90% +182%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3646 - 3648, n=3)
3647 Points ∼32% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=499)
2616 Points ∼23% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3522 Points ∼41%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3535 Points ∼41% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8531 Points ∼100% +142%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7602 Points ∼89% +116%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8141 Points ∼95% +131%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3513 - 3535, n=3)
3523 Points ∼41% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=499)
2200 Points ∼26% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3202 Points ∼71%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3171 Points ∼71% -1%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4492 Points ∼100% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4374 Points ∼97% +37%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4320 Points ∼96% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3088 - 3202, n=3)
3154 Points ∼70% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 4987, n=549)
2004 Points ∼45% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2245 Points ∼31%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
2237 Points ∼31% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7150 Points ∼100% +218%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6231 Points ∼87% +178%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6336 Points ∼89% +182%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (2237 - 2245, n=3)
2242 Points ∼31% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=549)
1647 Points ∼23% -27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2405 Points ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
2394 Points ∼38% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6319 Points ∼100% +163%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5694 Points ∼90% +137%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5705 Points ∼90% +137%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (2388 - 2405, n=3)
2396 Points ∼38% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7190, n=550)
1576 Points ∼25% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3228 Points ∼72%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3191 Points ∼72% -1%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4377 Points ∼98% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4231 Points ∼95% +31%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4454 Points ∼100% +38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3075 - 3228, n=3)
3165 Points ∼71% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5054, n=591)
1870 Points ∼42% -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3485 Points ∼32%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3498 Points ∼32% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10781 Points ∼100% +209%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9703 Points ∼90% +178%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9973 Points ∼93% +186%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3485 - 3504, n=3)
3496 Points ∼32% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12394, n=590)
2146 Points ∼20% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3424 Points ∼42%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
3425 Points ∼42% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8136 Points ∼100% +138%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7537 Points ∼93% +120%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7820 Points ∼96% +128%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (3399 - 3425, n=3)
3416 Points ∼42% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9123, n=593)
1855 Points ∼23% -46%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
10 fps ∼37%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
10 fps ∼37% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
27 fps ∼100% +170%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼89% +140%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼89% +140%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (10 - 10, n=3)
10 fps ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=261)
10.7 fps ∼40% +7%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
6.7 fps ∼37%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
10 fps ∼56% +49%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
18 fps ∼100% +169%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼89% +139%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼89% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (6.7 - 10, n=3)
7.8 fps ∼43% +16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 68, n=259)
7.56 fps ∼42% +13%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼39%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
16 fps ∼39% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼100% +156%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼90% +131%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼88% +125%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (16 - 16, n=3)
16 fps ∼39% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=265)
15.8 fps ∼39% -1%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼38% 0%
OnePlus 7T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼100% +161%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼87% +128%
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
42 fps ∼89% +133%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
  (18 - 18, n=3)
18 fps ∼38% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 165, n=264)
17.9 fps ∼38% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 ProXiaomi Mi Note 10OnePlus 7TSamsung Galaxy A90 5GAsus ZenFone 6 ZS630KLAverage 256 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
4%
40%
114%
35%
-8%
-53%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.4 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
53.5
50.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=491)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
75.1 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
87.04 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
74.5
68.6 (8.1 - 96.5, n=491)
Random Write 4KB
108.5
118.9
10%
29.9
-72%
168.5
55%
160.18
48%
65.3 (22 - 109, n=2)
-40%
29.3 (0.14 - 272, n=827)
-73%
Random Read 4KB
119.2
106.2
-11%
170.1
43%
190.5
60%
153.29
29%
132 (119 - 144, n=2)
11%
54 (1.59 - 265, n=827)
-55%
Sequential Write 256KB
205.1
243.6
19%
218.4
6%
522.3
155%
195.6
-5%
203 (202 - 205, n=2)
-1%
113 (2.99 - 750, n=827)
-45%
Sequential Read 256KB
499.2
480.5
-4%
1406
182%
1418.4
184%
831.4
67%
484 (469 - 499, n=2)
-3%
310 (12.1 - 1781, n=827)
-38%

Temperature

Max. Load
 37.5 °C
100 F
39.8 °C
104 F
39.3 °C
103 F
 
 37.2 °C
99 F
38.6 °C
101 F
37.6 °C
100 F
 
 37.1 °C
99 F
38.3 °C
101 F
36.9 °C
98 F
 
Maximum: 39.8 °C = 104 F
Average: 38 °C = 100 F
36.7 °C
98 F
38.7 °C
102 F
39.6 °C
103 F
36.4 °C
98 F
36.7 °C
98 F
36.9 °C
98 F
36.2 °C
97 F
37.4 °C
99 F
36.8 °C
98 F
Maximum: 39.6 °C = 103 F
Average: 37.3 °C = 99 F
Power Supply (max.)  40 °C = 104 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.8 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Top
Heatmap Top
Heatmap Back
Heatmap Back

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2045.841.52541.436.93131.231.4403635.65035.635.3633133802627.710023.723.312521.726.616019.137.120018.243.325017.149.431515.655.540015.359.150016.161.8630146380013.666.410001471.6125013.674.6160014.872.7200014.472.2250014.666.6315013.763.8400013.865.4500014.168630014.369.8800014.670.2100001564.71250015.3701600015.757.3SPL65.526.681.7N18.50.849.8median 14.8median 64.7Delta1.79.842.946.342.343.934.834.63939.140.842.634.43528.127.125.125.123.627.822.137.120.244.919.650.218.456.418.960.520.163.62065.217.566.316.17515.576.217.874.3167315.971.416.172.316.363.416.564.816.572.116.970.916.663.91764.516.55567.866.429.383.620.818.51.255.5median 17median 64.51.710.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi Note 10 ProXiaomi Mi Note 10
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Mi Note 10 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life

Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
5260 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Note 10
5260 mAh
OnePlus 7T
3800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
4500 mAh
Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL
5000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
1112
1127
1%
896
-19%
946
-15%
801
-28%
681 (223 - 2636, n=693)
-39%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
18h 32min

Pros

+ great terms
+ color accurate screen with HDR
+ a lot of memory
+ little warming

Cons

- only 12 months warranty
- comparatively low system performance for the price

Conclusion - Great Camera, Lasts Very Long

In Review: Xiaomi Mi grade 10 Pro. Test device provided by:
In Review: Xiaomi Mi grade 10 Pro. Test device provided by:
notebooksbilliger.de

If the Xiaomi Mi Note 10 has too little memory, or if you're generally a fan of plenty of room for data, the choice is clear: The Mi Note 10 Pro offers a very lavish memory configuration with 256 GB UFS 2.0 flash, even for its price range. However, with just under 600 euro, it's not such a big bargain anymore as the Mi Note 10 in its price range.

This is mainly due to the fact that you can get partly much more powerful devices for around 600 euro, which also offer even faster WLAN.

The advantages of the Mi Note 10 Pro are the great screen with HDR support, the great camera, which is even slightly improved in detail compared to the Mi Note 10 and the eternally long runtimes of the smartphone, which it has in common with the Mi Note 10.

The Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro is a well-equipped smartphone with a good camera, only in terms of performance it could be even faster.

If the price goes down a bit, the Xiaomi smartphone should become even more interesting. It's not a price-performance hit for just under 600 euro, mainly because of its too low performance, but it's also not a bad offer. Overall, the phone is, like its smaller brother, definitely recommendable.

Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro - 01/22/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
86%
Keyboard
69 / 75 → 92%
Pointing Device
96%
Connectivity
49 / 70 → 70%
Weight
88%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
31 / 64 → 48%
Application Performance
72 / 86 → 84%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
74 / 90 → 82%
Camera
75%
Average
78%
84%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 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 Note 10 Pro Smartphone Review – A Little More
Florian Schmitt, 2020-01-22 (Update: 2020-01-22)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.