Notebookcheck Logo

realme 9 Pro Smartphone review - Finally mid-range with 5G

A small downgrade. The realme 9 Pro had to relinquish its claim to leadership in realme's mid-range series. It is now a mid-range phone for around 320 Euros with a large battery and a fast processor. But is that enough to stand up to the strong competition from OnePlus or Xiaomi?
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro (9 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G 8 x 1.7 - 2.2 GHz, Kryo 660 Gold (Cortex-A77) / Silver (Cortex-A55)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.60 inch 20:9, 2412 x 1080 pixel 400 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, 240 Hz sampling rate, glossy: yes, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 128 GB 
, 111 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3.5mm-audioport, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B6/​B8/​B19), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B13/​B17/​B18/​B19/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B39/​B40/​B41/​B66), 5G (n1/​n3/​n5/​n7/​n8/​n20/​n28/​n38/​n40/​n41/​n66/​n77/​n78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 164.3 x 75.6 ( = 0.33 x 6.47 x 2.98 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer, 33 Watt realme Dart Charge
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix f/​1.79, phase comparison-AF, LED-flash, Videos @1080p/​30fps (Camera 1); 8.0MP, f/​2.2, wide angle lens (Camera 2); 2.0MP, f/​2.4, macro lens (Camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix f/2.1, 26mm, 1/3.09", 1.0µm, Videos @1080p/​30fps
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, USB cable, silicone bumper, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.987W/​kg (head), 1.251W/​kg (body), fanless
Weight
195 g ( = 6.88 oz / 0.43 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
319 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
Best Price
80.5 %
03/2022
realme 9 Pro
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
195 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.60"2412x1080
81.8 %
04/2021
realme 8 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
176 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.40"2400x1080
78.4 %
02/2022
Samsung Galaxy M32
Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2
180 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.40"2400x1080
83.8 %
03/2022
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4
173 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.43"2400x1080
85.9 %
05/2021
Xiaomi Poco F3
SD 870, Adreno 650
196 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.67"2400x1080

Case and features - RAM surcharge hardly pays off

The realme 9 Pro, which we want to take a closer look at in this review, has been replaced with the higher-quality model realme 9 Pro+. Does this mean that compared to the realme 8 Pro we have to accept some compromises? Yes and no: on the one hand, there is now 5G, but on the other hand, you have to do without the AMOLED screen.

If you are not an expert, you will have a hard time comparing the realme 9 Pro and the 9 Pro Plus to tell them apart: the casing looks almost identical at first glance, but the 9 Pro with its 6.6-inch screen is a bit bigger and also heavier than its sister model with 195 grams. Realme offers the same color variants for both devices: Aurora Green, Midnight Black, and Sunrise Blue, although the latter is difficult to get in Central Europe at the time of testing.

Our black test device lets light reflections dance across the back which is also quite susceptible to fingerprints. Bright spots appear in the IPS display when twisting, but the chassis is otherwise has a stable built.

Realme offers 2 configuration variants:

  • realme 9 Pro 128 GB mass storage / 6 GB RAM: 319 Euro
  • realme 9 Pro 128 GB mass storage / 8 GB RAM: 349 Euro

Is it worth paying 30 euros more for 2 GB more RAM? Probably not, because 6 GB should be completely sufficient for the vast majority of apps. The possibility to allocate virtual RAM from mass storage is probably more of a marketing trick. Although the chipset supports Bluetooth 5.2, realme only specifies Bluetooth 5.1, and an NFC chip for near-field communication is present.

Memory expansion via microSD card is possible, but one of the two SIM slots has to be sacrificed for that. The card reader is rather slow overall.

realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro
realme 9 Pro

Size comparison

164.3 mm / 6.47 inch 75.6 mm / 2.98 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 195 g0.4299 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs161 mm / 6.34 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 176 g0.388 lbs159.3 mm / 6.27 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs160 mm / 6.3 inch 73 mm / 2.87 inch 7 mm / 0.2756 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs
SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy M32
  (Angelbird V60)
40.7 MB/s ∼100% +38%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
  (Angelbird V60)
31.6 MB/s ∼78% +7%
realme 9 Pro
  (Angelbird V60)
29.6 MB/s ∼73%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.9 - 59.2, n=84, last 2 years)
26.4 MB/s ∼65% -11%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip
realme 9 Pro Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential write; Angelbird V60: Ø37 (24.8-48)
Samsung Galaxy M32 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash; Sequential write; Angelbird V60: Ø34.7 (25-43.4)
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential write; Angelbird V60: Ø39.1 (25.1-49.3)
realme 9 Pro Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential read; Angelbird V60: Ø37.9 (17.6-80.6)
Samsung Galaxy M32 Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash; Sequential read; Angelbird V60: Ø60.7 (30.5-64.9)
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential read; Angelbird V60: Ø78 (32.1-84.2)

Communication, software and operation - Stable, but not so fast WLAN

5G is on board and realme promises that you can use both SIM cards in 5G mode at the same time. In addition, 5G Standalone is supported, which enables even higher speeds. The supported LTE frequency range is generous, so the smartphone can be used for mobile Internet in many countries. In terms of reception, the phone performs on an average level in the 4G network in a short sample test.

In terms of WiFi, realme also does not use the full potential of the Snapdragon 695 which is officially capable of WiFi 6, but the manufacturer leaves it at WiFi 5 in the realme 9 Pro. Thus, the maximum achievable speeds in our test with the reference router Asus GT-AXE11000 are significantly slower than in the OnePlus North CE 2, or Xiaomi Poco F3, but still on par with other class representatives. Thus, the realme 9 Pro is not slow for its price range in terms of WLAN, but it does not stand out positively either.

realme UI 3 is based on ColorOS, which in turn is based on the current Android 12. The security patches are from February 2022 at the time of testing and are thus quite up-to-date. The software is clean and offers many settings, but some advertising apps are preinstalled. At least these can be easily deleted when they are not needed.

The touchscreen offers good gliding properties and the adaptive 120 Hz display makes the handling very smooth. The fingerprint sensor on the right side of the casing unlocks the smartphone very quickly, but it is not always reliable in recognizing the registered fingers. Face recognition can also be used for unlocking.

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Xiaomi Poco F3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
884 (444min - 914max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M32
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
347 (327min - 352max) MBit/s ∼39%
realme 8 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
323 (279min - 332max) MBit/s ∼37%
iperf3 receive AX12
Xiaomi Poco F3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
654 (311min - 702max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M32
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
335 (259min - 351max) MBit/s ∼51%
realme 8 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
304 (218min - 328max) MBit/s ∼46%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
498 (463min - 510max) MBit/s ∼100% +39%
realme 9 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
358 (339min - 370max) MBit/s ∼72%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax
417 (349min - 444max) MBit/s ∼100% +25%
realme 9 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
333 (320min - 345max) MBit/s ∼80%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360Tooltip
; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø332 (320-345)
; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø358 (339-370)

Cameras - Flexible, but mediocre system

Front camera photo
Front camera photo

Compared to the predecessor realme 8 Pro the main camera loses megapixels and the support for blur effects, but the latter was only of dubious use anyway. In contrast to the realme 9 Pro+, there is no optical image stabilization. However, realme still manages to install a flexible camera system with a wide-angle and macro camera in the 9 Pro.

The main camera has a resolution of 64 megapixels, but only uses 1/4 of the resolution by default and creates larger pixels with higher light sensitivity. The fact that the camera is not first-class can be seen immediately in the comparison photo with the flower: red is traditionally a difficult color for cameras, but the high-quality comparison smartphones manage considerably more details than our test device. The surrounding image still looks colorful and also quite sharp, but large areas like the sky are displayed much less cleanly than in higher-quality cameras.

The autofocus quickly gets into trouble in low light, but the basic imaging performance is still there, so you can still see colors. The camera software is extensive with many modes and filters.

Videos can be recorded in 1080p and 30 fps at most, exposure adjustment and autofocus work quite reliably here. It is great that the digital zoom can be executed at different speeds.

The rest of the lenses do a passable job, but wide-angle shots should not be enlarged too much. The same applies to selfies with the front-facing camera, although they are usable for web use.

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.

Main cameraMain cameraLow lightWideangle camera
click to load images
ColorChecker
24.1 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
17.5 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
17.5 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
14.4 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
17.5 ∆E
16.5 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
20 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
15.9 ∆E
15 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
ColorChecker realme 9 Pro: 13.43 ∆E min: 4.13 - max: 24.08 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.1 ∆E
51.5 ∆E
38.8 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
44 ∆E
60.3 ∆E
51.7 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
38.3 ∆E
28 ∆E
60.6 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
45.9 ∆E
34.4 ∆E
70.1 ∆E
41.3 ∆E
41.3 ∆E
73.5 ∆E
68 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
ColorChecker realme 9 Pro: 44.28 ∆E min: 13.38 - max: 73.51 ∆E

Display - IPS instead of AMOLED in the realme 9 Pro

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

The realme 9 Pro has to make do with an IPS display; the AMOLED screen is now reserved for the realme 9 Pro+. The screen is reasonably bright with an average of 541 cd/m², but it lacks a brightness boost mode like Samsung's or Xiaomi's that facilitates outdoor use.

The brightness distribution is quite even, but the color reproduction in "Nature" mode is only averagely accurate. Particularly bright colors suffer from a blue cast. We did not notice PWM flickering.

531
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
541
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
541
cd/m²
552
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
540
cd/m²
552
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 552 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 540.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.5 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 541 cd/m²
Contrast: 1230:1 (Black: 0.44 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.42 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 6 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
97.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.074
realme 9 Pro
IPS, 2412x1080, 6.60
realme 8 Pro
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40
Samsung Galaxy M32
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.43
Xiaomi Poco F3
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67
Response Times
74%
66%
65%
89%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
42
8 ?(5, 3)
81%
10 ?(7, 3)
76%
6 ?(3, 3)
86%
3.6 ?(2, 1.6)
91%
Response Time Black / White *
18
6 ?(3, 3)
67%
8 ?(5, 3)
56%
10 ?(5, 5)
44%
2.4 ?(1.2, 1.2)
87%
PWM Frequency
114.7
362.3 ?(99)
354.6
490.2 ?(26)
Screen
7%
38%
16%
61%
Brightness middle
541
581
7%
712
32%
601
11%
889
64%
Brightness
541
563
4%
720
33%
596
10%
902
67%
Brightness Distribution
96
86
-10%
95
-1%
98
2%
95
-1%
Black Level *
0.44
Contrast
1230
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
4.42
4.34
2%
1.94
56%
3.35
24%
0.9
80%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
8.77
7.15
18%
5.81
34%
6.72
23%
1.9
78%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
6
4.9
18%
1.5
75%
4.6
23%
1.3
78%
Gamma
2.074 106%
2.327 95%
2.089 105%
2.363 93%
2.26 97%
CCT
8049 81%
7658 85%
6593 99%
7372 88%
6614 98%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
41% / 23%
52% / 45%
41% / 28%
75% / 68%

* ... 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
18 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ ms rise
↘ 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. » 27 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ ms rise
↘ 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. » 57 % 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 not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 21819 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

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

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 is a relatively new mid-range SoC. It brings decent performance to the realme 9 Pro, but cannot quite keep up with the best representatives of the class. Thus, the results in most benchmarks are good, but not outstanding. The performance is usually sufficient for smooth navigation in the system and a somewhat more complex app in everyday use.

The maximum temperature of 43.2 °C under load is quite noticeable and could increase even more in higher ambient temperatures.

The mono speaker on the bottom edge does a decent job, but overemphasizes trebles very strongly and thus leads to a somewhat unpleasant sound at high volumes. At least the speaker can get quite loud. Better sound is achieved via the 3.5 mm audio output, whose DAC is even Hi-Res Audio certified. Audio signals can also be output via Bluetooth, where all important current codecs are supported.

Realme provides its smartphone with the in-house charging technology Dart Charge with a maximum power of 33 watts. Thus, it charges noticeably slower than the realme 9 Pro+ with 60 watts, but also significantly faster than, for example, the Samsung Galaxy A52s with its weak power supply. The larger battery compared to the realme 8 Pro is noticeable, but not as much as one would expect. Nevertheless, the realme 9 Pro clocks a very good 17:27 hours in our Wi-Fi battery test, which should allow for a few days without a power outlet when used sparingly.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
697 Points ∼70%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
570 Points ∼57% -18%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
367 Points ∼37% -47%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
747 Points ∼75% +7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
998 Points ∼100% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (659 - 697, n=4)
680 Points ∼68% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=254, last 2 years)
669 Points ∼67% -4%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2016 Points ∼60%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1694 Points ∼50% -16%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1342 Points ∼40% -33%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
2182 Points ∼65% +8%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3368 Points ∼100% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (1663 - 2016, n=4)
1819 Points ∼54% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=254, last 2 years)
2190 Points ∼65% +9%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
9585 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
6508 Points ∼48% -32%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
8055 Points ∼59% -16%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
13610 Points ∼100% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (9585 - 9776, n=2)
9681 Points ∼71% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=144, last 2 years)
10155 Points ∼75% +6%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4237 Points ∼53%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3782 Points ∼47% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1743 Points ∼22% -59%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
5099 Points ∼64% +20%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7970 Points ∼100% +88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
 
4237 Points ∼53% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 13121, n=223, last 2 years)
4942 Points ∼62% +17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4528 Points ∼38%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
4008 Points ∼33% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1592 Points ∼13% -65%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
6041 Points ∼50% +33%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
12033 Points ∼100% +166%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
 
4528 Points ∼38% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 31940, n=223, last 2 years)
6921 Points ∼58% +53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3458 Points ∼95%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3160 Points ∼87% -9%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
2609 Points ∼71% -25%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
3293 Points ∼90% -5%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3653 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
 
3458 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (651 - 6394, n=221, last 2 years)
3237 Points ∼89% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2930 Points ∼80%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2590 Points ∼71% -12%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1319 Points ∼36% -55%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
3647 Points ∼100% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (2930 - 2949, n=2)
2940 Points ∼81% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=178, last 2 years)
2510 Points ∼69% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2817 Points ∼70%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2462 Points ∼62% -13%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1165 Points ∼29% -59%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
3998 Points ∼100% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (2817 - 2831, n=2)
2824 Points ∼71% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=178, last 2 years)
2609 Points ∼65% -7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3410 Points ∼99%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3168 Points ∼92% -7%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
2462 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
2893 Points ∼84% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (3410 - 3455, n=2)
3433 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (688 - 5318, n=178, last 2 years)
2846 Points ∼83% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3085 Points ∼42%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2743 Points ∼37% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1367 Points ∼19% -56%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
3874 Points ∼53% +26%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7377 Points ∼100% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (3085 - 3098, n=2)
3092 Points ∼42% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 11528, n=231, last 2 years)
4014 Points ∼54% +30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2980 Points ∼31%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2642 Points ∼28% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
1204 Points ∼13% -60%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
4028 Points ∼42% +35%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
9498 Points ∼100% +219%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (2980 - 3008, n=2)
2994 Points ∼32% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 19364, n=231, last 2 years)
5009 Points ∼53% +68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3520 Points ∼85%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3164 Points ∼76% -10%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
2605 Points ∼63% -26%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
3273 Points ∼79% -7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4140 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (3462 - 3520, n=2)
3491 Points ∼84% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (635 - 5793, n=231, last 2 years)
3234 Points ∼78% -8%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1209 Points ∼28%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1052 Points ∼25% -13%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
685 Points ∼16% -43%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
2037 Points ∼48% +68%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4288 Points ∼100% +255%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (1197 - 1209, n=2)
1203 Points ∼28% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (216 - 10062, n=181, last 2 years)
3210 Points ∼75% +166%
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1199 Points ∼28%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1052 Points ∼25% -12%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
683 Points ∼16% -43%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
2022 Points ∼47% +69%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
4271 Points ∼100% +256%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (1197 - 1199, n=2)
1198 Points ∼28% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (174 - 11700, n=182, last 2 years)
3405 Points ∼80% +184%
Wild Life Extreme (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
360 Points ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
173 Points ∼14% -52%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
598 Points ∼49% +66%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1223 Points ∼100% +240%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (356 - 360, n=2)
358 Points ∼29% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (22 - 3080, n=137, last 2 years)
1001 Points ∼82% +178%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
353 Points ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
172 Points ∼14% -51%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
578 Points ∼47% +64%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1222 Points ∼100% +246%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (352 - 353, n=2)
353 Points ∼29% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (101 - 2864, n=133, last 2 years)
983 Points ∼80% +178%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
19 fps ∼39%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼35% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
8.1 fps ∼17% -57%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
24 fps ∼49% +26%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
49 fps ∼100% +158%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (18 - 19, n=3)
18.7 fps ∼38% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 98, n=249, last 2 years)
28.7 fps ∼59% +51%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
21 fps ∼37%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
19 fps ∼33% -10%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
9.2 fps ∼16% -56%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
27 fps ∼47% +29%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
57 fps ∼100% +171%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (21 - 21, n=3)
21 fps ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 123, n=250, last 2 years)
34 fps ∼60% +62%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
12 fps ∼36%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
11 fps ∼33% -8%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
5.1 fps ∼15% -57%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
15 fps ∼45% +25%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
33 fps ∼100% +175%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (11 - 12, n=3)
11.7 fps ∼35% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.1 - 69, n=250, last 2 years)
19.8 fps ∼60% +65%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
realme 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7.9 fps ∼36%
realme 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
7 fps ∼32% -11%
Samsung Galaxy M32
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 6144
3.3 fps ∼15% -58%
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
10 fps ∼45% +27%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
22 fps ∼100% +178%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (7.8 - 8, n=3)
7.9 fps ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.7 - 47, n=250, last 2 years)
13 fps ∼59% +65%
realme 9 Prorealme 8 ProSamsung Galaxy M32OnePlus Nord CE 2 5GXiaomi Poco F3Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
4%
-12%
241%
203%
110%
119%
Sequential Read 256KB
494
474
-4%
297.3
-40%
999
102%
1378
179%
756 ?(482 - 999, n=20)
53%
926 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=247, last 2 years)
87%
Sequential Write 256KB
105.3
191.7
82%
178.7
70%
857
714%
684
550%
460 ?(105.3 - 857, n=20)
337%
469 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=247, last 2 years)
345%
Random Read 4KB
148.3
98.5
-34%
98
-34%
253.4
71%
208
40%
165.7 ?(104.5 - 253, n=20)
12%
165.6 ?(13.5 - 345, n=247, last 2 years)
12%
Random Write 4KB
120.4
84.8
-30%
68.8
-43%
212.9
77%
170.6
42%
166.6 ?(120.4 - 213, n=20)
38%
158.9 ?(56.5 - 458, n=248, last 2 years)
32%

Temperature

Max. Load
 42.5 °C
109 F
40.1 °C
104 F
37.5 °C
100 F
 
 42.2 °C
108 F
40.2 °C
104 F
37.5 °C
100 F
 
 42.2 °C
108 F
39.6 °C
103 F
37.4 °C
99 F
 
Maximum: 42.5 °C = 109 F
Average: 39.9 °C = 104 F
37.7 °C
100 F
38.4 °C
101 F
42.4 °C
108 F
37.7 °C
100 F
38.3 °C
101 F
43.2 °C
110 F
37.3 °C
99 F
38.7 °C
102 F
41.9 °C
107 F
Maximum: 43.2 °C = 110 F
Average: 39.5 °C = 103 F
Power Supply (max.)  39.6 °C = 103 F | Room Temperature 21.1 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.9 °C / 104 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 42.5 °C / 109 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 43.2 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.8 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap front
Heatmap front
Heatmap back side
Heatmap back side

Speaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.5412535.535.43131.728.64030.833.65032.237.56325.1288019.421.710020.920.812517.621.416015.834.42001341.125011.744.931510.654.440010.559.950011.966.363013.869.580015.474100012.774.812501678160012.472.9200011.668.4250013.169.1315013.170400013.771500014.271.8630014.769.1800015.369.61000015.967.41250016.566.81600017.155.8SPL26.184N0.757.8median 13.8median 68.4Delta1.81028.323.923.320.520.3241926.529.835.717.225.712.926.219.426.112.139.51149.99.548.812.655.313.660.210.562.31167.99.768.411.174.811.576.812.778.913.479.112.775.813.676.314.180.41380.113.276.813.978.613.475.213.773.214.467.816.76525.189.40.679.5median 13median 73.20.99.8hearing rangehide median Pink Noiserealme 9 ProXiaomi Poco F3
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
realme 9 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Poco F3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 31% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life

realme 9 Pro
5000 mAh
realme 8 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M32
5000 mAh
OnePlus Nord CE 2 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Poco F3
4520 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
1047
1006
-4%
1098
5%
962
-8%
805
-23%
906 ?(438 - 1953, n=255, last 2 years)
-13%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
17h 27min

Pros

+ stable chassis
+ stable WLAN performance
+ adaptive 120 Hz screen
+ long battery life

Cons

- fingerprint sensor inaccurate from time to time
- partly blurry camera pictures
- treble-heavy speaker sound
- bloatware preinstalled

Verdict

In review: realme 9 Pro. Test device provided by:
In review: realme 9 Pro. Test device provided by:
cyberport.com

The realme 9 Pro has a few highlights: the battery life is good, the casing looks nice, and the processor has a lot of power. However, it is never really enough for realme's mid-range phone to achieve top rates in the class, and thus it remains a solid phone that cannot inspire. The somewhat inaccurate fingerprint sensor and missing features like optical image stabilization also contribute to that.

At the same time, the realme phone does not have any serious weaknesses, so it can be quite worthwhile at a low price: the stable chassis, hardly fluctuating WLAN speeds and the good performance rates, as well as the 120 Hz screen with adaptive frame rate, make the smartphone well usable in everyday use.

Realme brings a solid mid-range phone with long runtimes with the 9 Pro, but there are strong alternatives in its price range.

Compared to the realme 9 Pro Plus you have to accept some compromises: the weaker IPS screen, slightly lower performance, slower charging, a much lower-quality speaker, and no Wi-Fi 6. Thus, you should consider investing 50 Euros more in the sister model. It might also be worth taking a look at the Xiaomi Poco F3 which has considerably more power.

Price and availability

The realme 9 Pro can be ordered directly from the manufacturer but only in green and black. The variant with 6 GB of working memory is available for approximately 320 Euros (~$320) at the time of testing, and the device with 8 GB of working memory costs 349 Euros (~$349). You can get the smartphone cheaper at amazon.de, notebooksbilliger.de, or cyberport.de.

realme 9 Pro - 03/28/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
83%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
92%
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 65%
Weight
88%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
34 / 64 → 52%
Application Performance
71 / 86 → 82%
Temperature
86%
Noise
100%
Audio
60 / 90 → 67%
Camera
61%
Average
74%
81%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > realme 9 Pro Smartphone review - Finally mid-range with 5G
Florian Schmitt, 2022-03-31 (Update: 2022-03-31)