Notebookcheck Logo

Xiaomi Redmi 9C Smartphone Review: Lots of memory? Yes! Lots of power? No!

Big comeback. Xiaomi has relaunched the inexpensive Redmi 9C with 128 GB of storage and more RAM, but nothing else has changed about the phone that was released in 2020. In our review, we will find out whether the Redmi 9C is still worth buying in 2022.
Redmi 9C
Xiaomi Redmi 9C (Redmi 9 Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio G35 8 x 2.3 GHz, Cortex-A53
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.53 inch 20:9, 1600 x 720 pixel 269 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB eMMC Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 512 GB, dedicated, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, proximity, microUSB
Networking
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41) , Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9 x 164.9 x 77 ( = 0.35 x 6.49 x 3.03 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/​2.2, phase comparison-AF, LED-flash, Videos @1080p/​30fps (Camera 1); 2.0MP, f/​2.4, macro lens (Camera 2); 2.0MP, f/​2.4, depth of field (Camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2, 1.12µm
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, USB cable, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.355W/​kg (head), 0.779W/​kg (body) , fanless
Weight
196 g ( = 6.91 oz / 0.43 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
190 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
drive
size
resolution
price from
73.8 %
01/2022
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320
196 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.53"1600x720
74.9 %
12/2021
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1
205 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
78.4 %
12/2021
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2
190 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.30"2340x1080
78.6 %
01/2022
Motorola Moto G31
Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2
181 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.40"2400x1080

Case and features: Large phone with lots of memory

In mid-2021, Xiaomi introduced the Redmi 9C — a phone for less than 200 Euros with decent features, but it did not stand out too much among its similarly priced colleagues back then. The manufacturer released a new variant with more storage at the end of 2021, so we wanted to take another closer look at the device.

The Redmi 9C is still quite a large smartphone, but its weight of less than 200 grams is within limits. The casing is made of simple plastic, which is only enhanced by a slightly textured pattern of curved lines. The available colors are bright orange, blue, and subtle dark gray.

The 2021 model now includes 128 GB of mass storage and 4 GB of RAM and is thus better equipped than many similarly priced phones. The previous variants of the Redmi 9C were only to the user in 64 GB/3 GB or 32 GB/2 GB options. However, since prices for the older models have already dropped, the price gap between the storage variants is quite large especially for a phone below 200 Euros. The inexpensive 32 GB model is available for just under 120 Euros while the new Redmi 9C with 128 GB storage costs 190 Euros.

The largest storage variant also has a dedicated SD reader that convinces with class-leading speeds. However, there is no NFC and the outdated microUSB port might also annoy some buyers.

Redmi 9C
Redmi 9C
Redmi 9C
Redmi 9C

Size comparison

164.9 mm / 6.49 inch 77 mm / 3.03 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs164 mm / 6.46 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 205 g0.4519 lbs161.9 mm / 6.37 inch 73.9 mm / 2.91 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 181 g0.399 lbs158.3 mm / 6.23 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs
SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
  (Angelbird V60)
47.8 MB/s ∼100% +126%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.9 - 59.2, n=84, last 2 years)
26.4 MB/s ∼55% +25%
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
  (Angelbird V60)
21.15 MB/s ∼44%
Motorola Moto G31
  (Angelbird V60)
17.7 MB/s ∼37% -16%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro)
15.71 MB/s ∼33% -26%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

051015202530354045505560657075808590Tooltip
Xiaomi Redmi 9C PowerVR GE8320, Helio G35, 128 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write; Angelbird V60: Ø37 (26-47.6)
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F Mali-G52 MP1, Exynos 850, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write; Angelbird V60: Ø32.3 (23.2-38.8)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write; Toshiba Exceria Pro: Ø41.7 (32.2-56.9)
Motorola Moto G31 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Write; Angelbird V60: Ø35 (24.2-45.6)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C PowerVR GE8320, Helio G35, 128 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read; Angelbird V60: Ø73.4 (15.2-76.3)
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F Mali-G52 MP1, Exynos 850, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read; Angelbird V60: Ø50.2 (31.6-54.4)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read; Toshiba Exceria Pro: Ø84 (59.8-90.4)
Motorola Moto G31 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash; SDCard Sequential Read; Angelbird V60: Ø76.7 (37.3-82.8)

Communication, software and, operations: Lame Wi-Fi

With a current street price of 190 Euros, the Redmi 9C with 128 GB storage plays in the class of a Motorola Moto G31 or the in-house Redmi Note 8 2021 but cannot keep up with them in terms of internet speeds. Both comparison devices feature Wi-Fi 5 and thus surf the internet much faster. For a Wi-Fi 4 smartphone, the Redmi 9C achieves standard data rates of around 50 Mbps.

MIUI 12 is based on Android 10, so further feature updates should not be expected. At least the security patches are from December 2021 and thus relatively up-to-date at the time of testing.

There is a physical fingerprint sensor on the back that unlocks the smartphone after a noticeable delay. Fingerprint recognition is reasonably accurate and worked in 9 out of 10 cases in our test. The touchscreen is easy to use and offers good gliding properties for the finger.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
347 (338min - 353max) MBit/s ∼100% +627%
Motorola Moto G31
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
346 (334min - 352max) MBit/s ∼100% +625%
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
802.11 b/g/n
47.7 (14min - 69max) MBit/s ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
802.11 b/g/n
42.9 (21min - 65max) MBit/s ∼12% -10%
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto G31
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
353 (261min - 359max) MBit/s ∼100% +886%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
320 (290min - 330max) MBit/s ∼91% +794%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
802.11 b/g/n
50.4 (41min - 57max) MBit/s ∼14% +41%
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
802.11 b/g/n
35.8 (19min - 52max) MBit/s ∼10%
05101520253035404550556065Tooltip
; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø35.4 (19-52)
; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø47.7 (14-69)

Cameras - Good image quality for the price

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

In addition to the main camera with 13 MP, there are two other, but very low-resolution, cameras on the back — a macro camera and a support camera for blur effects in portraits.

The main camera takes photos with a low dynamic range but with decent sharpness. Of course, it cannot keep up with really good phone cameras in terms of detail representation, but it does a pretty decent job for its price range. However, no details can be seen in the pictures in very low light in the lab.

Videos can be recorded with a maximum of 1080p and 30 fps, whereby the autofocus occasionally reacts a bit too slowly. Otherwise, the quality is acceptable.

The front-facing camera with only 5 megapixels takes decent selfies in good light. However, the dynamic range is not very large here either, so dark areas quickly turn into flat blacks. This can be seen well in the hair in our test picture.

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.

Hauptkamera PflanzeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low Light
click to load images
ColorChecker
8.7 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
12 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
12 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
6 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
2.4 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi 9C: 8.44 ∆E min: 2.37 - max: 12.29 ∆E
ColorChecker
30 ∆E
55.5 ∆E
39.8 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
46.1 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
53.7 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
44.2 ∆E
29 ∆E
65.1 ∆E
64.1 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
37.3 ∆E
77.1 ∆E
44.6 ∆E
42 ∆E
88.6 ∆E
70.6 ∆E
52.5 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi 9C: 46.97 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 88.65 ∆E

Display: Low resolution, good brightness

Subpixel recording
Subpixel recording

A 720p display like in the Redmi 9C is nothing unusual below 200 Euros. That being said, smartphones like the Redmi Note 8 2021 or the Motorola Moto G31 show that 1080p screens are also possible, and the Moto even has a high-quality OLED screen.

In terms of brightness, the panel in our review sample can keep up with other smartphones in the price range. The black value is also quite high, which negatively affects the contrast and thus the luminosity of colors.

The color reproduction is fairly true to the original but cannot compete with the OLED in the Moto G31.

401
cd/m²
438
cd/m²
386
cd/m²
397
cd/m²
467
cd/m²
397
cd/m²
396
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
405
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 467 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 416.7 cd/m² Minimum: 3.88 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 83 %
Center on Battery: 467 cd/m²
Contrast: 881:1 (Black: 0.53 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.14 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 6 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
92.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.291
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
IPS, 1600x720, 6.53
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
IPS LCD, 1600x720, 6.50
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.30
Motorola Moto G31
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.40
Response Times
-32%
-22%
24%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
60 ?(27, 33)
58 ?(31, 27)
3%
52 ?(27, 25)
13%
6 ?(3, 3)
90%
Response Time Black / White *
34 ?(17, 17)
34 ?(17, 17)
-0%
28 ?(13, 15)
18%
6 ?(3, 3)
82%
PWM Frequency
17120
178.6 ?(7)
-99%
352.1 ?(5)
-98%
223.2
-99%
Screen
14%
31%
28%
Brightness middle
467
446
-4%
496
6%
423
-9%
Brightness
417
423
1%
491
18%
425
2%
Brightness Distribution
83
88
6%
91
10%
94
13%
Black Level *
0.53
0.29
45%
0.19
64%
Contrast
881
1538
75%
2611
196%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
4.14
4.94
-19%
5.5
-33%
1.58
62%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
8.49
8.81
-4%
8.88
-5%
4.68
45%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
6
5.1
15%
6.6
-10%
2.7
55%
Gamma
2.291 96%
2.145 103%
2.36 93%
2.219 99%
CCT
7536 86%
7890 82%
8432 77%
6674 97%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-9% / 2%
5% / 16%
26% / 27%

* ... 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
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 88 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (23.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
60 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 27 ms rise
↘ 33 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. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (36.8 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 17120 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 17120 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 17120 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 21792 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

PWM Brightness 0%
PWM Brightness 0%
PWM Brightness 50%
PWM Brightness 50%
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions, and battery life: Redmi 9C with little power

The MediaTek Helio G35 is responsible for the performance in the Redmi 9C. The 8 cores can work with a maximum clock of 2.3 GHz. The SoC cannot keep up with the comparison devices. The performance difference is dramatic and is over 100% in some cases.

It also becomes clear during our test that you have to make do with very little power — the screen can only be rotated with a long delay when a more complex app is running, and invoking the volume control is also delayed sometimes.

The eMMC flash is large but not fast. However, the comparison devices do not offer faster storage modules either.

Excessive heating does not occur even under longer loads; the temperatures always stay below 40 °C.

The small mono speaker on the bottom edge does not get very loud and sounds rather mediocre. If you want better sound, you can connect headphones or speakers via the 3.5 mm jack or Bluetooth.

The 5,000 mAh battery offers a decent runtime of over 15 hours, but it takes a long time to charge because the maximum charging power is only 10 W.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
149 Points ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
178 Points ∼27% +19%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
355 Points ∼53% +138%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
353 Points ∼53% +137%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (149 - 176, n=4)
164.5 Points ∼25% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=255, last 2 years)
671 Points ∼100% +350%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
538 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
1087 Points ∼50% +102%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1336 Points ∼61% +148%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1295 Points ∼59% +141%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (538 - 965, n=4)
755 Points ∼34% +40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=255, last 2 years)
2195 Points ∼100% +308%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
5208 Points ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
5739 Points ∼56% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
7090 Points ∼69% +36%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
6596 Points ∼65% +27%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (5208 - 5309, n=4)
5272 Points ∼52% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=147, last 2 years)
10202 Points ∼100% +96%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
843 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
1273 Points ∼26% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1897 Points ∼38% +125%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1785 Points ∼36% +112%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (599 - 928, n=4)
813 Points ∼16% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 13121, n=225, last 2 years)
4949 Points ∼100% +487%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
799 Points ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
1142 Points ∼17% +43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1765 Points ∼26% +121%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1633 Points ∼24% +104%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (541 - 853, n=4)
755 Points ∼11% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 31940, n=225, last 2 years)
6918 Points ∼100% +766%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1043 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
2032 Points ∼63% +95%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
2778 Points ∼86% +166%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2644 Points ∼81% +153%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (954 - 1343, n=4)
1128 Points ∼35% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (651 - 6394, n=223, last 2 years)
3245 Points ∼100% +211%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
445 Points ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
863 Points ∼34% +94%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1463 Points ∼58% +229%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1408 Points ∼56% +216%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (341 - 486, n=4)
423 Points ∼17% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=180, last 2 years)
2529 Points ∼100% +468%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
377 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
738 Points ∼28% +96%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1264 Points ∼48% +235%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1246 Points ∼47% +231%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (289 - 412, n=4)
359 Points ∼14% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=180, last 2 years)
2628 Points ∼100% +597%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1194 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
2031 Points ∼71% +70%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
2654 Points ∼93% +122%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2578 Points ∼90% +116%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (933 - 1301, n=4)
1141 Points ∼40% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (688 - 5318, n=180, last 2 years)
2857 Points ∼100% +139%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
491 Points ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
867 Points ∼22% +77%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1453 Points ∼36% +196%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1430 Points ∼36% +191%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (373 - 539, n=4)
471 Points ∼12% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 11528, n=233, last 2 years)
4017 Points ∼100% +718%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
425 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
736 Points ∼15% +73%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
1253 Points ∼25% +195%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1267 Points ∼25% +198%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (318 - 462, n=4)
409 Points ∼8% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 19364, n=233, last 2 years)
5005 Points ∼100% +1078%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1073 Points ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
2109 Points ∼65% +97%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
2811 Points ∼87% +162%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2603 Points ∼80% +143%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (839 - 1304, n=4)
1041 Points ∼32% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (635 - 5793, n=233, last 2 years)
3241 Points ∼100% +202%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7.5 fps ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
11 fps ∼38% +47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
8.5 fps ∼30% +13%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
8.4 fps ∼29% +12%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (7.4 - 7.8, n=4)
7.58 fps ∼26% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 98, n=251, last 2 years)
28.7 fps ∼100% +283%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.1 fps ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
6.2 fps ∼18% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
9.7 fps ∼29% +137%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
9.6 fps ∼28% +134%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (4.1 - 4.2, n=4)
4.15 fps ∼12% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 123, n=252, last 2 years)
34 fps ∼100% +729%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.8 fps ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
7 fps ∼35% +46%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
5.5 fps ∼28% +15%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
5.4 fps ∼27% +13%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (4.7 - 5, n=4)
4.83 fps ∼24% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.1 - 69, n=252, last 2 years)
19.8 fps ∼100% +313%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C
Mediatek Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1, 4096
2.2 fps ∼17% +47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4076
3.5 fps ∼27% +133%
Motorola Moto G31
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
3.5 fps ∼27% +133%
Average Mediatek Helio G35
  (1.5 - 1.5, n=4)
1.5 fps ∼12% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.7 - 47, n=252, last 2 years)
13 fps ∼100% +767%
Xiaomi Redmi 9CSamsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127FXiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021Motorola Moto G31Average 128 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
3%
39%
64%
18%
222%
Sequential Read 256KB
263.1
302.3
15%
309.4
18%
309.8
18%
282 ?(106.7 - 501, n=52)
7%
929 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=248, last 2 years)
253%
Sequential Write 256KB
208.4
74.5
-64%
159.7
-23%
221.5
6%
191.9 ?(90 - 314, n=52)
-8%
472 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=248, last 2 years)
126%
Random Read 4KB
54.5
77.8
43%
73.6
35%
84
54%
81.2 ?(10.1 - 247, n=52)
49%
166.5 ?(13.5 - 345, n=248, last 2 years)
206%
Random Write 4KB
39.7
47.21
19%
88.9
124%
109.8
177%
48.7 ?(5.3 - 159.9, n=52)
23%
159.7 ?(56.5 - 458, n=249, last 2 years)
302%

Temperature

Max. Load
 39.3 °C
103 F
34.5 °C
94 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
 38.6 °C
101 F
34.5 °C
94 F
32.8 °C
91 F
 
 37.7 °C
100 F
34.5 °C
94 F
32.9 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 39.3 °C = 103 F
Average: 35.3 °C = 96 F
31.8 °C
89 F
34.5 °C
94 F
38.6 °C
101 F
32.4 °C
90 F
34.1 °C
93 F
39.2 °C
103 F
31.8 °C
89 F
34.5 °C
94 F
38 °C
100 F
Maximum: 39.2 °C = 103 F
Average: 35 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.3 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.3 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.3 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front
Heatmap back side
Heatmap back side

Loudspeaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.737.82539.237.63130.934.54033.730.6503733.26330.230.98021.419.310019.919.812514.614.716012.521.52009.929.62509.338.63158.246.34008.551.75009.356.16309.857.680014.561.2100011.464.7125010.365.416009.36520009.266.6250010.664.9315011.765.3400011.466.4500012.168630012.666.5800012.868.81000013.568.8125001461.51600014.454.8SPL23.877.7N0.539.6median 11.4median 61.5Delta2.111.438.945.244.744.3343636.839.642.644.737.335.426.227.528.327.822.431.318.939.51642.314.547.213.2561361.616.565.819.568.719.670.517.470.715.375.115.374.915.775.516.575.617.976.120.869.62272.720.980.521.777.722.874.22268.922.556.331.586.91.468.6median 18.9median 69.6311.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Redmi 9CXiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Redmi 9C audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 41% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Xiaomi Redmi 9C
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A12 Exynos SM-A127F
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 2021
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto G31
5000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
905
879
-3%
748
-17%
1032
14%
906 ?(438 - 1953, n=256, last 2 years)
0%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
15h 05min

Pros

+ a lot of memory
+ decent main camera
+ good screen brightness
+ long runtimes
+ hardly any heating

Cons

- no NFC
- outdated microUSB port
- lame processor
- slow charging

Verdict - Too expensive, even with large memory

In review: Xiaomi Redmi 9C. Test device provided by:
In review: Xiaomi Redmi 9C. Test device provided by:
cyberport.com

The new storage variant definitely makes the Xiaomi Redmi 9C a bit more contemporary. Especially the RAM increase to 4 GB is a blessing here: It prevents you from simply not being able to run more complex apps because the working memory is not sufficient. Also, 128 GB of mass storage is a great feature for a smartphone under 200 Euros.

However, the newer Redmi 9C simply shows that its other components were already 18 months old when it was launched. The processor in particular cannot keep up with similarly priced phones in terms of speed, and Wi-Fi 4 is also becoming increasingly rare in devices under 200 Euros (~$200). There is no NFC in the Redmi 9C and there are definitely higher-resolution screens in this price range.

The Xiaomi Redmi 9C now offers a lot of storage, but it is simply too expensive at the manufacturer's price due to the slow processor.

The Xiaomi Redmi 9C does not yet look hopelessly outdated, but it is still a bit too expensive and too slow to be a real price-performance hit in the rapidly developing smartphone landscape.

The Redmi 9C can still be recommended to those who want the maximum storage in their smartphone at the lowest possible price and only use simple apps. The device could become even more interesting if the price drops significantly in the next few months.

The Redmi Note 8 2021 from the same manufacturer offers more performance, faster internet, and a higher-resolution screen. The Moto G31 from Motorola even has an OLED screen.

Price and availability

The Redmi 9C with 128 GB of data storage is available for just under 190 Euros (~$190) at the time of testing. You should compare the prices of the different color variants, where you can sometimes save more than 10%. Our lender Cyberport offers the gray variant particularly for cheap, and it is also currently available at Amazon.

Xiaomi Redmi 9C - 01/27/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
79%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
92%
Connectivity
35 / 70 → 50%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
83%
Games Performance
5 / 64 → 8%
Application Performance
40 / 86 → 47%
Temperature
91%
Noise
100%
Audio
50 / 90 → 56%
Camera
53%
Average
67%
74%
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 Redmi 9C Smartphone Review: Lots of memory? Yes! Lots of power? No!
Florian Schmitt, 2022-01-31 (Update: 2022-01-31)