Notebookcheck Logo
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Xiaomi Pad 5 Tablet review - Android-Alternative to the cheapest iPad

Strong middle class. A lot of performance, 120 Hz display and a chic design in the style of the Apple iPad Air: The 11-inch Xiaomi Pad 5 offers all that for 400 Euros (~$450) and is thus an interesting alternative to the Apple iPad 2021, which is one of the best tablets in this price range. We will find out whether the Pad 5 can really compete with the Apple rival in our review.
Manuel Masiero, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Brian Burriston (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 🇩🇪 🇳🇱 ...

Cheap and inexpensive or expensive and very well equipped - because many tablets range between these extremes, there is not much choice when it comes to mid-range models. However, this is now increased with the Xiaomi Pad 5, which is available for 400 Euros (~$450).

The 11-inch Xiaomi Pad 5 is equipped with the fast Snapdragon 860 and is supported by 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB of storage. Other features include a nominally 500 cd/m² bright IPS display with a resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels and a frame rate of 120 Hz. In addition, there are 4 speakers and an 8720 mAh battery battery.

We will find out how the Pad 5 compares with the competition in our review.

Xiaomi Pad 5 (Pad Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 8 x - 3 GHz, Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 485)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
, LPDDR4X
Display
11.00 inch 16:10, 2560 x 1600 pixel 274 PPI, capacitive, IPS, WQHD+, 500 Nits, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 106.2 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: USB-C, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Proximity sensor, DRM Widevine L1, Camera2 API Level 3
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 6.85 x 254.69 x 166.25 ( = 0.27 x 10.03 x 6.55 in)
Battery
8720 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix videos up to [email protected]
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix videos up to [email protected]
Additional features
Speakers: 4 speakers with Dolby Atmos, Keyboard: virtual, 22.5W Charger, USB-C cable, Quick start guide, Warranty card , MIUI 12.5, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
511 g ( = 18.03 oz / 1.13 pounds), Power Supply: 65 g ( = 2.29 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
399 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Height
Size
Resolution
Best Price
87.6 %
12/2021
Xiaomi Pad 5
SD 860, Adreno 640
511 g6.85 mm11.00"2560x1600
88.5 %
10/2021
Apple iPad 2021
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
487 g7.5 mm10.20"2160x1620
88.4 %
09/2021
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
SD 865, Adreno 650
485 g7.25 mm10.95"2560x1600
83.4 %
10/2021
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4
655 g7.9 mm11.00"2000x1200
83.1 %
06/2020
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
467 g7 mm10.40"2000x1200
88.7 %
11/2021
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
SD 870, Adreno 650
515 g6.85 mm11.00"2560x1600

Case - Design model Apple iPad Air

In terms of price, the Xiaomi Pad 5 is close to the Apple iPad 2021, but its design is based on much more expensive tablets like the Apple iPad Air 4. However, with a weight of 511 grams (~1.1 pounds), it is a bit heavier than the Apple competitor and with just under 7 millimeters (~0.28 inches), it is not quite as thin.

The Xiaomi Pad 5, which is available in Pearl White and Cosmic Gray, has the same casing as its sister model Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro. Plus points are the sturdy aluminum frame and a matte back cover with a silky surface finish, which makes it look and feel high-end. The volume rocker and the power button, which unlike the Pad 5 Pro does not have a fingerprint sensor, are firmly attached to the chassis and have a crisp pressure point. There is a magnetic dock for the optional keyboard cover on the bottom.

The same points as in the Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro are also on the minus list for the chassis. The Pad 5 lacks Gorilla Glass as panel protection as well as an IP rating, and the back is only made of plastic.

Size comparison

256.8 mm / 10.1 inch 169 mm / 6.65 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 655 g1.444 lbs254.69 mm / 10 inch 166.25 mm / 6.55 inch 6.85 mm / 0.2697 inch 511 g1.127 lbs254.69 mm / 10 inch 166.25 mm / 6.55 inch 6.85 mm / 0.2697 inch 515 g1.135 lbs253.8 mm / 9.99 inch 165.3 mm / 6.51 inch 7.25 mm / 0.2854 inch 485 g1.069 lbs250.6 mm / 9.87 inch 174.1 mm / 6.85 inch 7.5 mm / 0.2953 inch 487 g1.074 lbs244.5 mm / 9.63 inch 154.3 mm / 6.07 inch 7 mm / 0.2756 inch 467 g1.03 lbs

Equipment - Only available as WiFi version

Xiaomi only offers the Pad 5 in one configuration: with 6 GB LPDDR4X RAM and 128 GB UFS 3.1 storage, which unfortunately cannot be expanded due to the lack of a microSD slot. Because the Pad 5, in contrast to the Pad 5 Pro, is only available as a Wi-Fi version, it also lacks a GPS module.

The USB-C port of the Pad 5 runs at USB 2.0 speed and supports connecting peripherals like a keyboard or mouse via USB OTG. Due to the lack of a 3.5 mm jack, the USB-C port also replaces the audio jack, but Xiaomi does not include a corresponding adapter with its tablet. The tablet supports DRM Widevine L1 and can thus play back streams in HD quality.

The Pad 5 is the little brother of the identically built Pad 5 Pro. The Pro model comes with up to 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage, offers optional 5G cellular and uses the Snapdragon 870, an even faster SoC. There are also 8 speakers instead of 4, a fingerprint sensor and charging with 67 watts. The Pad 5 is limited to 33 watts.

Left: Power button, speaker
Left: Power button, speaker
Right: Speaker, USB-C 2.0
Right: Speaker, USB-C 2.0
Top: Volume rocker
Top: Volume rocker
Bottom: Magnetic dock for the optional keyboard cover
Bottom: Magnetic dock for the optional keyboard cover

Software - Android 11 and MIUI 12.5 for the Pad 5

The Pad 5 runs Android 11, which Xiaomi has overlaid with its in-house user interface MIUI 12.5. At the time of testing (mid-December), the Android security updates are up to date from October 1 and thus still fairly current.

About 106 GB of the 128 GB storage are free in factory fresh or reset state. Xiaomi almost completely omits third-party tools from its tablet. Only Netflix and WPS Office are installed, but they can be uninstalled easily.

Communication and GNSS - WiFi 5 and Bluetooth 5.0, but no GPS

The communication modules of the Xiaomi Pad 5 are quickly listed, because they are limited to Bluetooth 5.0 and WiFi 5 aka WLAN 802.11ac. The tablet does not support NFC. A cellular and GPS module are also not part of its repertoire.

The Pad 5 provides good transfer rates in WLAN, but they sometimes fluctuate noticeably in the receiving direction. When connected to our reference router, the Netgear Nighthawk AX12, it can narrowly beat the Apple iPad 2021 in terms of transmission and reception performance, but it cannot surpass a mid-range position among the comparison devices. The Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro is significantly faster.

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) 1 m 4M x10 Netgear AX12
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
902 (886min - 925max) MBit/s ∼100% +42%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (829min - 888max) MBit/s ∼96% +36%
Xiaomi Pad 5
Adreno 640, SD 860, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
635 (320min - 652max) MBit/s ∼70%
Apple iPad 2021
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
587 (290min - 624max) MBit/s ∼65% -8%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
231 (114min - 380max) MBit/s ∼26% -64%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
140 (55min - 209max) MBit/s ∼16% -78%
iperf3 Client (receive) 1 m 4M x10 Netgear AX12
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
827 (708min - 899max) MBit/s ∼100% +54%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
780 (635min - 867max) MBit/s ∼94% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
613 (300min - 633max) MBit/s ∼74% +14%
Xiaomi Pad 5
Adreno 640, SD 860, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
538 (317min - 618max) MBit/s ∼65%
Apple iPad 2021
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
485 (191min - 554max) MBit/s ∼59% -10%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
141 (83min - 201max) MBit/s ∼17% -74%
03570105140175210245280315350385420455490525560595630Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) 1 m 4M x10 Netgear AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø538 (317-618)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) 1 m 4M x10 Netgear AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø624 (320-652)

Cameras - Good for video chats

Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the main camera

Cameras usually play a subordinate role in tablets because they are rarely used for taking pictures, unlike smartphones. The camera module of the Xiaomi Pad 5 is quickly covered in the technical specifications: The 13 MP main camera records videos with up to 4K at 30 fps, the selfie camera has a resolution of 8 MP and videos in a maximum of 1080p at 30 fps - there is no more information. The same camera setup can also be found on the Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro.

The camera module of the Pad 5 does a better job than the scanty technical specs would lead us to believe or fear. However, the camera settings only offer minimum options. There are only a few picture modes and a Pro mode for manually adjusting the picture parameters is also missing. The camera software offers standards like HDR, flash, timer functions and an AI mode for automatic image optimization.

The selfie camera achieves a solid picture quality and also cuts a good figure in video chats. Users who want to take pictures with the main camera will not be disappointed with the Pad 5 either, as long as they do not expect more than good snapshots. The tablet takes quite detailed and vivid pictures in daylight via its 13 MP sensor, but they are sometimes a bit off track in terms of color tones, which are usually a bit too vivid. Zoom shots are okay as long as you do not enlarge the pictures too much. The camera visibly runs out of steam in low-light conditions, because the subjects then only appear blurry.

Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the selfie camera
Shooting with the selfie camera
Shooting with the main camera
Shooting with the main camera

Image Comparison

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

Daylight scene 1Daylight scene 25x ZoomLow light

We take another close look at the main camera under controlled lighting conditions. In ideal lighting conditions, it hits bright and dark gray tones pretty accurately, but lacks precision in dark green and blue tones. Under low-light conditions (lower color chart at 1 lux), the displayed colors have nothing in common with the original, with the exception of dark gray tones, and you cannot see anything of the test chart.

ColorChecker
14.1 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
14.6 ∆E
20.3 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
14.7 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
15.4 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
5 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
12.5 ∆E
4 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Pad 5: 10.16 ∆E min: 4.04 - max: 20.29 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.9 ∆E
55.5 ∆E
40.1 ∆E
36.8 ∆E
45.6 ∆E
64.2 ∆E
54.6 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
44.3 ∆E
28.4 ∆E
66.6 ∆E
65.2 ∆E
31.4 ∆E
49 ∆E
38 ∆E
77.9 ∆E
44.4 ∆E
44.5 ∆E
94.9 ∆E
71.8 ∆E
53 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
14 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Pad 5: 47.84 ∆E min: 14.02 - max: 94.85 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - Only one 22.5 watt power supply included

The included 22.5 watt power supply unit
The included 22.5 watt power supply unit

Xiaomi includes a 22.5-watt power supply, a USB cable (Type C to A), a quick start guide and a booklet with warranty information with the EU version of the pad. A 33-watt power supply is only available in the global version.

Optionally, you can purchase the stylus pen Xiaomi Smart Pen (100 Euro/~$112). However, there was no sign of the magnetically docking keyboard case at the time of testing.

The Pad 5 comes with a 12-month warranty.

Input devices & operation - Very smooth due to the 120 Hz screen

Thanks to its fast eight-core SoC, 6 GB of RAM and its 120 Hz display, the Xiaomi Pad 5 can be operated very smoothly. Unlike the Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro, the Pad 5 does not have a fingerprint sensor in the power button, leaving facial recognition as the only biometric recognition method. It does not work in the dark due to the lack of an IR sensor, but it scores with a high recognition rate even in low residual light and/or low display illumination.

Keyboard transverse
Keyboard transverse
Keyboard high
Keyboard high

Display - Good IPS panel without PWM

Subpixel
Subpixel

The IPS display of the Pad 5 has a resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels and is well suited for sensitive users due to the lack of PWM flickering. The refresh rate can be set to 60 or 120 Hz. HDR10 and Dolby Vision are supported, but they cannot be displayed attractively due to the panel's brightness.

With an average of 472.7 cd/m² and a maximum of 497 cd/m², the Pad 5 pretty much meets the manufacturer's specification of 500 cd/m² in a pure white background. In the APL50 measurement, where bright and dark image areas are evenly distributed, the maximum luminance is 470 cd/m². Without the brightness sensor, the tablet manages up to 490 cd/m². The lowest brightness level is 2.43 cd/m².

452
cd/m²
470
cd/m²
492
cd/m²
458
cd/m²
491
cd/m²
485
cd/m²
448
cd/m²
475
cd/m²
483
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 492 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 472.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.43 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 491 cd/m²
Contrast: 564:1 (Black: 0.87 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
95.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.21
Xiaomi Pad 5
IPS, 2560x1600, 11.00
Apple iPad 2021
IPS, 2160x1620, 10.20
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
IPS, 2560x1600, 10.95
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
IPS LCD, 2000x1200, 11.00
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
TFT, 2000x1200, 10.40
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
IPS, 2560x1600, 11.00
Screen
21%
-27%
-15%
-20%
30%
Brightness middle
491
507
3%
550
12%
380
-23%
503
2%
497
1%
Brightness
473
491
4%
515
9%
376
-21%
477
1%
475
0%
Brightness Distribution
91
90
-1%
90
-1%
89
-2%
91
0%
89
-2%
Black Level *
0.87
0.5
43%
0.96
-10%
0.24
72%
0.29
67%
0.42
52%
Contrast
564
1014
80%
573
2%
1583
181%
1734
207%
1183
110%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
1.9
1.7
11%
3.3
-74%
4.61
-143%
4.4
-132%
1.4
26%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
4.1
3.9
5%
7.9
-93%
8.77
-114%
10.4
-154%
3
27%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
3
2.4
20%
4.9
-63%
5.1
-70%
7.5
-150%
2.3
23%
Gamma
2.21 100%
2.25 98%
2.24 98%
2.248 98%
2.19 100%
2.25 98%
CCT
7182 91%
6923 94%
7288 89%
7966 82%
7700 84%
6744 96%

* ... 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 not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 21941 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

In the display settings, you can choose from the 3 color schemes "Vivid", "Saturated" and "Standard". The colors can also be adjusted to the ambient light ("Adaptive Colors") and the color temperature can be set via color wheel or presets. The best picture quality is achieved when the tablet is set to the "Standard" picture mode and the other settings are simply ignored. In this case, the Pad 5 does not deliver a masterpiece with Delta E values of maximum 3, a color temperature of 7182 K and a gamma of 2.2, but it achieves a quite neutral display.

Color accuracy (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Color accuracy (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Color space (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Color space (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Grayscale (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Color saturation (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)
Color saturation (color scheme standard, target color space sRGB)

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
17.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5.2 ms rise
↘ 12.4 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. » 26 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 16.4 ms rise
↘ 19.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (37 ms).

The tablet does well outdoors as long as direct sunlight is avoided. There are no restrictions at all in terms of viewing angle stability. Contents remain perfectly visible and do not change their colors even when viewed from very flat side views.

Outdoor use with overcast sky (maximum brightness)
Outdoor use with overcast sky (maximum brightness)
Outdoor use in overcast conditions (automatic brightness)
Outdoor use in overcast conditions (automatic brightness)
Viewpoint
Viewing angle stability

Performance - Plenty of power for everyday use

The eight-core SoC Snapdragon 860 with its integrated graphics chip Adreno 640 together with its 6 GB LPDDR4X RAM and 128 GB UFS 3.1 storage gives the Xiaomi Pad 5 a system performance that is easily sufficient for everyday tasks.

As expected, the Xiaomi tablet cannot compete in the benchmarks with its sister model the Pad 5 Pro, which is equipped with the faster SoC. From the Android camp, it is outperformed by the Huawei MatePad 11 2021, the closest in terms of performance. The Apple iPad 2021 is sometimes very close to the Pad 5 and can even beat it in GFXBench. Nevertheless, the Apple rival is almost always a bit ahead and does not give any Android tablets a chance in browser benchmarks.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Apple iPad 2021
1328 Points ∼65% +69%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
1019 Points ∼50% +30%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
905 Points ∼44% +15%
Xiaomi Pad 5
784 Points ∼38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (728 - 784, n=2)
756 Points ∼37% -4%
Average of class Tablet (133 - 1719, n=47, last 2 years)
679 Points ∼33% -13%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
483 Points ∼24% -38%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
345 Points ∼17% -56%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
3317 Points ∼12% +20%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
3288 Points ∼11% +19%
Apple iPad 2021
3235 Points ∼11% +17%
Xiaomi Pad 5
2768 Points ∼10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (2657 - 2768, n=2)
2713 Points ∼9% -2%
Average of class Tablet (455 - 7378, n=47, last 2 years)
2308 Points ∼8% -17%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
1593 Points ∼6% -42%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1207 Points ∼4% -56%
OpenCL Score 5.1
Average of class Tablet (last 2 years)
5353 Points ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1477 Points ∼1%
Vulkan Score 5.1
Average of class Tablet (last 2 years)
4654 Points ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1081 Points ∼1%
PCMark for Android
Work 3.0
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
11694 Points ∼63% +3%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
11610 Points ∼63% +3%
Xiaomi Pad 5
11318 Points ∼61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (11153 - 11318, n=2)
11236 Points ∼61% -1%
Average of class Tablet (4564 - 13996, n=23, last 2 years)
9035 Points ∼49% -20%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
8435 Points ∼45% -25%
Work 2.0 performance score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (10095 - 11699, n=3)
11164 Points ∼73% +11%
Xiaomi Pad 5
10095 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
10060 Points ∼66% 0%
Average of class Tablet (4454 - 12603, n=23, last 2 years)
6904 Points ∼45% -32%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
5518 Points ∼36% -45%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
10486 Points ∼62% +21%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
9901 Points ∼59% +14%
Xiaomi Pad 5
8661 Points ∼52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (7752 - 8661, n=2)
8207 Points ∼49% -5%
Average of class Tablet (527 - 13682, n=40, last 2 years)
4427 Points ∼26% -49%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3122 Points ∼19% -64%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2074 Points ∼12% -76%
Apple iPad 2021
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
14054 Points ∼33% +17%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
13005 Points ∼30% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (12007 - 12070, n=2)
12039 Points ∼28% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
12007 Points ∼28%
Average of class Tablet (475 - 42751, n=40, last 2 years)
7668 Points ∼18% -36%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3055 Points ∼7% -75%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2021 Points ∼5% -83%
Apple iPad 2021
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
5552 Points ∼81% +27%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
5394 Points ∼78% +23%
Xiaomi Pad 5
4385 Points ∼64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (3442 - 4385, n=2)
3914 Points ∼57% -11%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3346 Points ∼49% -24%
Average of class Tablet (806 - 5623, n=40, last 2 years)
2866 Points ∼42% -35%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2283 Points ∼33% -48%
Apple iPad 2021
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
8844 Points ∼77% +27%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
8089 Points ∼70% +16%
Xiaomi Pad 5
6981 Points ∼61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (6871 - 6981, n=2)
6926 Points ∼60% -1%
Apple iPad 2021
5362 Points ∼47% -23%
Average of class Tablet (305 - 9630, n=42, last 2 years)
3570 Points ∼31% -49%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2609 Points ∼23% -63%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1649 Points ∼14% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
10563 Points ∼41% +29%
Apple iPad 2021
9773 Points ∼38% +19%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
9428 Points ∼37% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (8202 - 8218, n=2)
8210 Points ∼32% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
8202 Points ∼32%
Average of class Tablet (258 - 25707, n=42, last 2 years)
4996 Points ∼19% -39%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2476 Points ∼10% -70%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1528 Points ∼6% -81%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
5634 Points ∼71% +23%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
5403 Points ∼68% +18%
Xiaomi Pad 5
4590 Points ∼58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (4367 - 4590, n=2)
4479 Points ∼56% -2%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3492 Points ∼44% -24%
Average of class Tablet (443 - 5634, n=42, last 2 years)
2874 Points ∼36% -37%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2280 Points ∼29% -50%
Apple iPad 2021
2078 Points ∼26% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (5000 - 5406, n=2)
5203 Points ∼38% +4%
Xiaomi Pad 5
5000 Points ∼37%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2681 Points ∼20% -46%
Average of class Tablet (469 - 6292, n=29, last 2 years)
1947 Points ∼14% -61%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1543 Points ∼11% -69%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (6876 - 6987, n=2)
6932 Points ∼26% +1%
Xiaomi Pad 5
6876 Points ∼26%
Average of class Tablet (400 - 25909, n=29, last 2 years)
2744 Points ∼10% -60%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2537 Points ∼10% -63%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1437 Points ∼5% -79%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (2558 - 3017, n=2)
2788 Points ∼53% +9%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2738 Points ∼52% +7%
Xiaomi Pad 5
2558 Points ∼49%
Average of class Tablet (230 - 3285, n=29, last 2 years)
2218 Points ∼42% -13%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2076 Points ∼39% -19%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
Points ∼0% -100%
Wild Life Score
Apple iPad 2021
7457 Points ∼7% +118%
Average of class Tablet (371 - 17263, n=28, last 2 years)
4750 Points ∼4% +39%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
4273 Points ∼4% +25%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
3818 Points ∼3% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (3428 - 3488, n=2)
3458 Points ∼3% +1%
Xiaomi Pad 5
3428 Points ∼3%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
1363 Points ∼1% -60%
Wild Life Unlimited Score
Apple iPad 2021
7858 Points ∼7% +129%
Average of class Tablet (366 - 18326, n=26, last 2 years)
5581 Points ∼5% +62%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
4290 Points ∼4% +25%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
3823 Points ∼3% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (3436 - 3455, n=2)
3446 Points ∼3% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
3436 Points ∼3%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
1371 Points ∼1% -60%
Wild Life Extreme
Apple iPad 2021
1992 Points ∼4% +102%
Average of class Tablet (135 - 5035, n=24, last 2 years)
1627 Points ∼3% +65%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
1228 Points ∼3% +25%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
1116 Points ∼2% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (985 - 987, n=2)
986 Points ∼2% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
985 Points ∼2%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
372 Points ∼1% -62%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Apple iPad 2021
1872 Points ∼4% +93%
Average of class Tablet (132 - 4975, n=24, last 2 years)
1577 Points ∼3% +63%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
1235 Points ∼3% +27%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
1103 Points ∼2% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (970 - 974, n=2)
972 Points ∼2% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
970 Points ∼2%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
376 Points ∼1% -61%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
119 fps ∼4% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (112 - 119, n=2)
115.5 fps ∼3% +3%
Xiaomi Pad 5
112 fps ∼3%
Average of class Tablet (19 - 120, n=41, last 2 years)
61.6 fps ∼2% -45%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
60 fps ∼2% -46%
Apple iPad 2021
60 fps ∼2% -46%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
58 fps ∼2% -48%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
44 fps ∼1% -61%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
307 fps ∼2% +67%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
229 fps ∼2% +24%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
206 fps ∼2% +12%
Xiaomi Pad 5
184 fps ∼1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (184 - 184, n=2)
184 fps ∼1% 0%
Average of class Tablet (14 - 588, n=41, last 2 years)
163.9 fps ∼1% -11%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
79 fps ∼1% -57%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
48 fps ∼0% -74%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (65 - 103, n=2)
84 fps ∼23% +29%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
81 fps ∼22% +25%
Xiaomi Pad 5
65 fps ∼18%
Apple iPad 2021
60 fps ∼16% -8%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
58 fps ∼16% -11%
Average of class Tablet (9.4 - 120, n=40, last 2 years)
47 fps ∼13% -28%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
42 fps ∼12% -35%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
24 fps ∼7% -63%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
167 fps ∼13% +53%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
137 fps ∼11% +26%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
127 fps ∼10% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (109 - 110, n=2)
109.5 fps ∼8% 0%
Xiaomi Pad 5
109 fps ∼8%
Average of class Tablet (6.9 - 345, n=41, last 2 years)
93.2 fps ∼7% -14%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
46 fps ∼4% -58%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
26 fps ∼2% -76%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Apple iPad 2021
57 fps ∼2% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (40 - 74, n=2)
57 fps ∼2% +43%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
50 fps ∼1% +25%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
45 fps ∼1% +13%
Xiaomi Pad 5
40 fps ∼1%
Average of class Tablet (6.3 - 107, n=41, last 2 years)
33.8 fps ∼1% -15%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
26 fps ∼1% -35%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
14 fps ∼0% -65%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
110 fps ∼2% +41%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
96 fps ∼2% +23%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
89 fps ∼2% +14%
Xiaomi Pad 5
78 fps ∼2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (77 - 78, n=2)
77.5 fps ∼2% -1%
Average of class Tablet (4.7 - 229, n=41, last 2 years)
63.7 fps ∼1% -18%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
29 fps ∼1% -63%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
16 fps ∼0% -79%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen
Apple iPad 2021
43 fps ∼1% +72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (25 - 44, n=2)
34.5 fps ∼1% +38%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
31 fps ∼1% +24%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
27 fps ∼1% +8%
Xiaomi Pad 5
25 fps ∼1%
Average of class Tablet (2.7 - 87, n=41, last 2 years)
23 fps ∼1% -8%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
16 fps ∼0% -36%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
9.6 fps ∼0% -62%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
69 fps ∼0% +47%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
58 fps ∼0% +23%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
52 fps ∼0% +11%
Xiaomi Pad 5
47 fps ∼0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (46 - 47, n=2)
46.5 fps ∼0% -1%
Average of class Tablet (2.1 - 153.5, n=41, last 2 years)
39.7 fps ∼0% -16%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
18 fps ∼0% -62%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
10 fps ∼0% -79%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Apple iPad 2021
35 fps ∼22% +106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (17 - 29, n=2)
23 fps ∼15% +35%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
21 fps ∼13% +24%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
18 fps ∼11% +6%
Xiaomi Pad 5
17 fps ∼11%
Average of class Tablet (2 - 75, n=45, last 2 years)
16.4 fps ∼10% -4%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
10 fps ∼6% -41%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
5.8 fps ∼4% -66%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
31 fps ∼10% +72%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
23 fps ∼7% +28%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
21 fps ∼7% +17%
Xiaomi Pad 5
18 fps ∼6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (17 - 18, n=2)
17.5 fps ∼6% -3%
Average of class Tablet (0.87 - 70, n=45, last 2 years)
15.4 fps ∼5% -14%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
6.5 fps ∼2% -64%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
3.6 fps ∼1% -80%
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Apple iPad 2021
50 fps ∼24% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (26 - 45, n=2)
35.5 fps ∼17% +37%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
33 fps ∼16% +27%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
29 fps ∼14% +12%
Xiaomi Pad 5
26 fps ∼13%
Average of class Tablet (3.2 - 102, n=45, last 2 years)
23.5 fps ∼11% -10%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
17 fps ∼8% -35%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
9.7 fps ∼5% -63%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Apple iPad 2021
82 fps ∼11% +74%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
60 fps ∼8% +28%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
54 fps ∼7% +15%
Xiaomi Pad 5
47 fps ∼6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (46 - 47, n=2)
46.5 fps ∼6% -1%
Average of class Tablet (2.4 - 191, n=45, last 2 years)
41.1 fps ∼5% -13%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
19 fps ∼3% -60%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
10 fps ∼1% -79%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
704209 Points ∼59% +22%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
628715 Points ∼53% +9%
Apple iPad 2021
622382 Points ∼52% +8%
Xiaomi Pad 5
575553 Points ∼49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (563850 - 575553, n=2)
569702 Points ∼48% -1%
Average of class Tablet (117837 - 1186706, n=24, last 2 years)
553815 Points ∼47% -4%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
323166 Points ∼27% -44%
AImark - Score v2.x
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
119152 Points ∼42% +157%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
118331 Points ∼41% +155%
Xiaomi Pad 5
46413 Points ∼16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (46152 - 46413, n=2)
46283 Points ∼16% 0%
Average of class Tablet (4281 - 119686, n=22, last 2 years)
31292 Points ∼11% -33%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
13045 Points ∼5% -72%
Apple iPad 2021
Points ∼0% -100%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
6139 Points ∼73% +19%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
5276 Points ∼62% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (5154 - 5224, n=2)
5189 Points ∼61% +1%
Xiaomi Pad 5
5154 Points ∼61%
Average of class Tablet (806 - 6908, n=28, last 2 years)
3418 Points ∼40% -34%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
2690 Points ∼32% -48%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
637 Points ∼8% -88%
Apple iPad 2021
Points ∼0% -100%
System
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
10171 Points ∼52% +16%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
9624 Points ∼49% +9%
Xiaomi Pad 5
8805 Points ∼45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (8549 - 8805, n=2)
8677 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Tablet (1492 - 10926, n=28, last 2 years)
6069 Points ∼31% -31%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
4657 Points ∼24% -47%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
4193 Points ∼21% -52%
Memory
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
8167 Points ∼90% +41%
Xiaomi Pad 5
5788 Points ∼64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (5716 - 5788, n=2)
5752 Points ∼64% -1%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
5388 Points ∼60% -7%
Average of class Tablet (675 - 8167, n=28, last 2 years)
3790 Points ∼42% -35%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3765 Points ∼42% -35%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
1670 Points ∼18% -71%
Graphics
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
12118 Points ∼42% +18%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
11366 Points ∼39% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (10293 - 10549, n=2)
10421 Points ∼36% +1%
Xiaomi Pad 5
10293 Points ∼36%
Average of class Tablet (542 - 22308, n=28, last 2 years)
6430 Points ∼22% -38%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
3694 Points ∼13% -64%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
2154 Points ∼7% -79%
Web
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
1411 Points ∼59% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (1346 - 1445, n=2)
1396 Points ∼58% +4%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
1353 Points ∼57% +1%
Xiaomi Pad 5
1346 Points ∼56%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
1314 Points ∼55% -2%
Average of class Tablet (730 - 1581, n=28, last 2 years)
1183 Points ∼49% -12%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
10 Points ∼0% -99%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Pad 5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 860, Qualcomm Adreno 640, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
 
Apple iPad 2021 Apple A13 Bionic, Apple A13 Bionic GPU, 64 GB SSD
 
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Qualcomm Adreno 650, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
 
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 Mediatek Helio G90T, ARM Mali-G76 MP4, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite Samsung Exynos 9611, ARM Mali-G72 MP3, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 650, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
142.2 Points ∼100% +95%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
80 Points ∼56% +10%
Average of class Tablet (14 - 184.3, n=34, last 2 years)
78.5 Points ∼55% +8%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
73 Points ∼51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (62 - 73, n=2)
67.5 Points ∼47% -8%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
66.6 Points ∼47% -9%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
35.99 Points ∼25% -51%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
27.46 Points ∼19% -62%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
291.1 Points ∼100% +127%
Average of class Tablet (22.1 - 436, n=41, last 2 years)
140.2 Points ∼48% +9%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
134.7 Points ∼46% +5%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
128.1 Points ∼44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (110.2 - 128.1, n=2)
119.2 Points ∼41% -7%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
112.9 Points ∼39% -12%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 (Chrome93)
69.8 Points ∼24% -46%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
50.3 Points ∼17% -61%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
202 Points ∼100% +110%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
121 Points ∼60% +26%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
105 Points ∼52% +9%
Average of class Tablet (24 - 254, n=42, last 2 years)
100.9 Points ∼50% +5%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
96 Points ∼48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (90 - 96, n=2)
93 Points ∼46% -3%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
54 Points ∼27% -44%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 (Chrome93)
53 Points ∼26% -45%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
171 runs/min ∼100% +179%
Average of class Tablet (12.2 - 255, n=33, last 2 years)
81.9 runs/min ∼48% +34%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
68.9 runs/min ∼40% +12%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
65.5 runs/min ∼38% +7%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
61.3 runs/min ∼36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (59 - 61.3, n=2)
60.2 runs/min ∼35% -2%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 (Chrome93)
33.5 runs/min ∼20% -45%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
29.2 runs/min ∼17% -52%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
47288 Points ∼100% +66%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
30367 Points ∼64% +7%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
28456 Points ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (23902 - 28456, n=2)
26179 Points ∼55% -8%
Average of class Tablet (3111 - 66974, n=40, last 2 years)
24616 Points ∼52% -13%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
24196 Points ∼51% -15%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 (Chrome93)
15632 Points ∼33% -45%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
9415 Points ∼20% -67%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
4872 ms * ∼100% -204%
Average of class Tablet (455 - 12972, n=43, last 2 years)
3981 ms * ∼82% -148%
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 (Chrome93)
3782 ms * ∼78% -136%
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 (Huawei Browser 11.1)
1933 ms * ∼40% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 860 (1603 - 2155, n=2)
1879 ms * ∼39% -17%
Xiaomi Pad 5 (Chrome 96.0.4664.45)
1603 ms * ∼33%
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro (Chrome 94.0.4606.85)
1447 ms * ∼30% +10%
Apple iPad 2021 (Safari 15)
545 ms * ∼11% +66%

* ... smaller is better

The Pad 5 ensures short load times with high sequential read rates. However, the other rates are somewhat below average for UFS 3.1 storage.

Xiaomi Pad 5Huawei MatePad 11 2021Lenovo Yoga Tab 11Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 LiteXiaomi Pad 5 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Tablet
AndroBench 3-5
16%
-29%
-37%
44%
26%
-41%
Sequential Read 256KB
1459
1468
1%
503
-66%
483.7
-67%
1684
15%
1567 ?(1030 - 1898, n=34)
7%
685 ?(123.3 - 2031, n=39, last 2 years)
-53%
Sequential Write 256KB
534
708
33%
374.4
-30%
219.3
-59%
772
45%
752 ?(233 - 1095, n=34)
41%
362 ?(67.4 - 1559, n=39, last 2 years)
-32%
Random Read 4KB
208.7
190.7
-9%
136.8
-34%
119.8
-43%
289.3
39%
232 ?(126.2 - 322, n=34)
11%
118.6 ?(10.1 - 310, n=39, last 2 years)
-43%
Random Write 4KB
158.9
217.5
37%
182.2
15%
195.8
23%
281.5
77%
232 ?(121.4 - 323, n=34)
46%
103.8 ?(4.27 - 370, n=39, last 2 years)
-35%

Games - Run smoothly even in high detail settings

With its responsive 120 Hz display and 4 Dolby Atmos speakers, the Xiaomi Pad 5 is a great choice for gaming. Thanks to the Adreno 640 graphics chip, the tablet has no trouble rendering even graphically demanding games like PUBG Mobile smoothly. However, we could not achieve more than 30 frames per second with any of the games installed in the test, not even with Armajet, which theoretically does not have a frame limit.

We determine the gaming frame rates with the tool Gamebench.

Armajet
Armajet
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
051015202530Tooltip
; Armajet; 1.61.6: Ø30 (30-30)
; PUBG Mobile; 1.7.0: Ø30 (29-31)

Emissions - Dolby Atmos sound from 4 speakers

Temperature

During operation, the Xiaomi Pad 5 stays cool with a maximum temperature value of 33.6 °C (92.48 °F) even under permanent load. However, throttling can definitely occur internally, as our tests with GFXBench show.

While the graphically simpler T-Rex scenario is run 30 times in a row without a significant drop in performance, the tablet slams on the brakes after 17 runs in the more demanding Manhattan scenario. On the other hand, the 3DMark stress tests are again relatively stable. Thus, the tablet can definitely reduce its performance in everyday use, but you should not notice it in most cases.

GFXBench battery test T-Rex
GFXBench battery test T-Rex
GFXBench battery test Manhattan
GFXBench battery test Manhattan

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

0510152025303540Tooltip
Xiaomi Pad 5 Adreno 640, SD 860, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø20.5 (20.3-20.6)
Apple iPad 2021 A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø39.5 (38.7-44.5)
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø22.7 (22.7-22.9)
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø8.09 (8.05-8.11)
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø25.5 (25.4-25.6)
Xiaomi Pad 5 Adreno 640, SD 860, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø5.86 (5.85-5.89)
Apple iPad 2021 A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test: Ø10.7 (10.6-12.2)
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.4.2: Ø6.66 (6.65-6.67)
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 Mali-G76 MP4, Helio G90T, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø2.31 (2.29-2.31)
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø7.36 (7.35-7.37)
Max. Load
 30.5 °C
87 F
29.5 °C
85 F
32.1 °C
90 F
 
 30.9 °C
88 F
30.6 °C
87 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
 30.8 °C
87 F
29.8 °C
86 F
31.5 °C
89 F
 
Maximum: 32.6 °C = 91 F
Average: 30.9 °C = 88 F
28.8 °C
84 F
30.3 °C
87 F
32.4 °C
90 F
28.8 °C
84 F
30.3 °C
87 F
33.6 °C
92 F
28.1 °C
83 F
30.9 °C
88 F
31.3 °C
88 F
Maximum: 33.6 °C = 92 F
Average: 30.5 °C = 87 F
Power Supply (max.)  26.2 °C = 79 F | Room Temperature 21.4 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 30.4 °C / 87 F for the devices in the class Tablet.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34.4 °C / 94 F, ranging from 22 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.7 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 30.4 °C / 87 F.

Speaker

The Xiaomi Pad 5 has 4 speakers with Dolby Atmos support, which are distributed in pairs on the two short sides of the tablet. Four Atmos presets can be selected in the sound settings: "Dynamic", "Video", "Music" and "Speech". However, the Atmos quartet is only partially convincing in the test.

Compared with a smartphone, the Pad 5 produces a much more voluminous sound that is very balanced especially in the mids and trebles. However, no matter which preset we choose, the bass is underrepresented in the sound mix, which is why the Atmos sound sounds a bit thin overall. The sound comparison with the Apple iPad 2021 ends in a draw. The Apple tablet only has 2 speakers, but it performs a bit better in the mid- and high-range. In return, it is weaker than the Pad 5 in the bass range.

Headsets and external speakers can be connected to the Pad 5 via a USB-C adapter, which is not included with the tablet. Wireless connectivity is possible via Bluetooth 5.0.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.837.6252422.83116.123.74027.625.25032.337.66323.430.2802236.61002239.51252146.316017.954.820013.355.925015.259.831513.260.940011.563.250012.269.963012.372.180013.372.1100014.571.2125012.274.7160011.272200011.770.2250012.168.5315012.767.2400013.672.3500013.176630013.677.3800013.170.71000013.661.21250013.655.11600013.560.7SPL2584.4N0.663.1median 13.3median 68.5Delta1.273734.425.637.429.137.223.440.336.843.228.441.324.841.722.444.319.246.716.95815.655.813.857.613.46213.361.913.865.81268.112.769.812.275.91373.813.777.913.276.813.478.81380.213.381.613.682.513.385.213.883.613.778.41473.813.571.225.591.90.789.5median 13.5median 73.80.78.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Pad 5Apple iPad 2021
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Pad 5 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (13.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 22% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Apple iPad 2021 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Power management - Braked charging power

Energy absorption

The Pad 5 consumes about the same amount of power in operation as the Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro and behaves quite economically in terms of power consumption. However, the Lenovo Yoga Tab 11 requires significantly less energy.

Although the Pad 5 can be charged with up to 33 watts, Xiaomi only includes a 22.5-watt power adapter with the EU version of its tablet. A 33-watt power supply is only available for the Chinese version. Despite the 1/3 lower charging power, the Xiaomi Pad 5 can be recharged quite quickly. In the test, it takes about 2 hours until the empty battery is completely filled again.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.08 / 0.31 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.99 / 4.2 / 4.22 Watt
Load midlight 7.88 / 10.63 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Xiaomi Pad 5
8720 mAh
Apple iPad 2021
8686 mAh
Huawei MatePad 11 2021
7250 mAh
Lenovo Yoga Tab 11
7700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite
7040 mAh
Xiaomi Pad 5 Pro
8600 mAh
Power Consumption
-44%
-14%
31%
0%
-4%
Idle Minimum *
0.99
1.3
-31%
1.33
-34%
1.2
-21%
1.21
-22%
1.14
-15%
Idle Average *
4.2
7.5
-79%
5.37
-28%
1.5
64%
4.24
-1%
4.3
-2%
Idle Maximum *
4.22
7.58
-80%
5.41
-28%
1.9
55%
4.34
-3%
4.31
-2%
Load Average *
7.88
10.03
-27%
6.87
13%
4.9
38%
6.99
11%
8.09
-3%
Load Maximum *
10.63
10.91
-3%
10.08
5%
8.8
17%
8.79
17%
10.32
3%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
Xiaomi Pad 5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 860: Ø5.81 (2.06-10.2)
Huawei MatePad 11 2021 Qualcomm Snapdragon 865: Ø4.42 (2.21-8.49)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

012345678