Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro : Xiaomi rejoint l'élite des smartphones

Name: Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Brand: Xiaomi

Enfin haut de gamme - mais à quel prix ? Avec le Mi 10 Pro, Xiaomi montre pour la première fois ses véritables intentions avec la série Mie : rejoindre l’élite des smartphones, à n’importe quel prix. La génération Mi 10 est le début d’une nouvelle ère pour Xiaomi. Dans ce test du smartphone Mi, nous allons voir si le concept ambitieux est une réussite.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (traduit par Prévots), 05/18/2020 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android 5G Touchscreen Smartphone

Exemplaire de test fourni par TradingShenzhen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Mi 10 Gamme)

Processeur

Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 8 x 2.4 - 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)

Carte graphique

Qualcomm Adreno 650

Mémoire

8192 Mo

, LPDDR5

Écran

6.67 pouces 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 386 PPP, capacitif, Super AMOLED, brillant: oui, HDR, 90 Hz

Disque dur

256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 256 Go

, 226 Go libres

Connexions

1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: USB C, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, gyroscope, e-boussole, capteur à effet Hall, baromètre, Miracast, émetteur IR, USB OTG

Réseau

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.1, 5G : Sub6G : n1 / n3 / n7 / n28 / n77 / n78 ; 4G : FDD LTE : 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 7 / 8 / 20 / 28 / 32, TD LTE : 38 / 40; 3G : WCDMA: B1 / B2 / B4 / B5 / B8; 2G : GSM : B2 / B3 / B5 / B8, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Taille

Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.96 x 162.6 x 74.8

Batterie

4500 mAh Lithium-Polymère

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Système d'exploitation

Android 10

Appareil photo

Appareil photo primaire: 108 MPix (f/1,7, 1 / 1,33", 0.8µm) + 8 MP (f/2,0, 1,0µm) + 12 MP f/2,0, 1 / 2,55", 1,4µm) + 20 MP (f/2,2, 13 mm) ; API Camera2: niveau 3
Appareil photo secondaire: 20 MPix f/2,0, 1 / 3", 0,9 µm

Fonctionnalités additionnelles

Haut-parleurs: stéréo, 1216 super linéaire, Clavier: virtuel, câble USB, adaptateur secteur modulaire, coque, MiUI 11, 12 Mois Garantie, DAS (corps) : 0,568 W/kg, DAS (tête) : 0,428 W/kg (version chinoise), Widevine L1, fanless

Poids

208 g, Alimentation: 81 g

Prix

999 euros

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

voir toutes les spécifications

Appareils du comparatif

Note	Date	Modèle	Poids	Drive	Taille	Résolution
88 %	05/20	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650	208 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.67"	2340x1080
89 %	08/20	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11	219 g	128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.90"	3200x1440
89 %	05/20	Huawei P40 Pro Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16	209 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.58"	2640x1200
87 %	04/20	OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640	206 g	256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.67"	3120x1440
86 %	04/20	Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650	202 g	512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	6.70"	3168x1440
86 %	05/20	Google Pixel 4 XL SD 855, Adreno 640	193 g	64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6.30"	3040x1440

Comparaison des tailles

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Oppo Find X2 Pro Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro OnePlus 7T Pro Google Pixel 4 XL Huawei P40 Pro ❌

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	883 (834^min - 919^max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	825 (763^min - 855^max) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	821 (388^min - 998^max) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	754 (346^min - 881^max) MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Google Pixel 4 XL Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	631 (579^min - 653^max) MBit/s ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 7T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	471 (347^min - 505^max) MBit/s ∼53% -47%
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 1414, n=657)	295 MBit/s ∼33% -67%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P40 Pro Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	1544 (797^min - 1619^max) MBit/s ∼100% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	818 (425^min - 890^max) MBit/s ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	816 (403^min - 832^max) MBit/s ∼53%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	509 (264^min - 571^max) MBit/s ∼33% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	352 (311^min - 375^max) MBit/s ∼23% -57%
Google Pixel 4 XL Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	317 (159^min - 363^max) MBit/s ∼21% -61%
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 1599, n=657)	281 MBit/s ∼18% -66%

; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø883 (834-919)

; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø803 (403-832)

Comparaison des images

Choisir une scène pour naviguer dans la première image. Un clic permet de changer le niveau de zoom, un autre clic permet de revenir à l'image originale dans une nouvelle fenêtre. La première image montre l'original pris par l'appareil testé.

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 4

Cliquer pour charger les images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Weitwinkel)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

Cliquer pour charger les images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Low-Light)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

Cliquer pour charger les images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Ultraweitwinkel)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

Cliquer pour charger les images

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (5-facher Zoom)

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra

Canon EOS 70D

ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 22.31 ∆E min: 9.21 - max: 31.86 ∆E

<a href="https://www.notebookcheck.biz/Test-du-Xiaomi-Mi-10-Pro-Xiaomi-rejoint-l-elite-des-smartphones.463117.0.html">Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro</a> — Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro


748 cd/m²	757 cd/m²	782 cd/m²
757 cd/m²	753 cd/m²	774 cd/m²
761 cd/m²	756 cd/m²	771 cd/m²

Homogénéité de la luminosité

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 782 cd/m² Moyenne: 762.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.01 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 96 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 753 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3200x1440, 6.90	Huawei P40 Pro OLED, 2640x1200, 6.58	OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67	Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70	Google Pixel 4 XL P-OLED, 3040x1440, 6.30	OnePlus 8 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78
Screen		-111%	-22%	-102%	-183%	-134%	10%
Brightness middle	753	734 -3%	584 -22%	606 -20%	778 3%	557 -26%	796 6%
Brightness	762	748 -2%	576 -24%	611 -20%	775 2%	555 -27%	779 2%
Brightness Distribution	96	95 -1%	95 -1%	95 -1%	99 3%	95 -1%	94 -2%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *	0.9	3.2 -256%	1.1 -22%	3.46 -284%	4.4 -389%	3.9 -333%	0.68 24%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *	1.6	6.8 -325%	2.3 -44%	5.64 -253%	8.7 -444%	6.1 -281%	1.55 3%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *	1.5	2.7 -80%	1.8 -20%	2 -33%	5.6 -273%	3.5 -133%	1.1 27%
Gamma	2.24 ^98%	2.11 ^104%	2.16 ^102%	2.258 ^97%	2.26 ^97%	2.18 ^101%	2.237 ^98%
CCT	6415 ^101%	6299 ^103%	6355 ^102%	6779 ^96%	7250 ^90%	6127 ^106%	6310 ^103%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion)

ℹ

Afin d'abaisser la luminosité de l'écran, certains ordinateurs portables font varier très rapidement le rétroéclairage entre éteint et allumé. La fréquence à laquelle le rétroéclairage s'éteint et se rallume est normalement fixée à une valeur qui permet de rendre la variation indétectable à l'œil nu? Si la fréquence est trop basse, certaines personnes peuvent être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire, des maux de tête ou même percevoir les variations.

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) décelé

373.1 Hz

≤ 99 Niveau de luminosité

Le rétroéclairage de l'écran scintille à la fréquence de 373.1 Hz (certainement du fait de l'utilisation d'une MDI - Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) à un niveau de luminosité inférieur ou égal à 99 % . Aucun scintillement ne devrait être perceptible au-dessus de cette valeur.

La fréquence de rafraîchissement de 373.1 Hz est relativement élevée, la grande majorité des utilisateurs ne devrait pas percevLa fréquence de rafraîchissement de 373.1 Hz est relativement élevée, la grande majorité des utilisateurs ne devrait pas percevoir de scintillements et être sujette à une fatigue oculaire accrue.oir de scintillements et être sujette à une fatigue oculaire accrue. Néanmoins certaines personnes pourront toujours percevoir un scintillement.

En comparaison, 51 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 9687 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 142900) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

Temps de réponse de l'écran

ℹ

Le temps de réponse d'un écran mesure la rapidité à laquelle l'écran est capable de changer une couleur pour une autre. Un temps de réponse élevé se traduit par une image floutée pour les objets en mouvement. Les joueurs bénéficieront de faibles latences d'affichage en jeu.

↔ Temps de réponse noir à blanc
2.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées	↗ 1.2 ms hausse
2.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées	↘ 1.2 ms chute
L'écran montre de très faibles temps de réponse, parfait pour le jeu. En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 0 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances. Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (24.3 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
↔ Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
2.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées	↗ 1.2 ms hausse
2.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées	↘ 1.2 ms chute
L'écran montre de très faibles temps de réponse, parfait pour le jeu. En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances. Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (38.6 ms) de tous les appareils testés.

Geekbench 5.3
Vulkan Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	2519 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3804 Points ∼96% +51%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3979 Points ∼100% +58%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	2641 Points ∼66% +5%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	2411 Points ∼61% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2487 - 3259, n=8)	2723 Points ∼68% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 4043, n=67)	1615 Points ∼41% -36%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	2932 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	Points ∼0% -100%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4511 Points ∼100% +54%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	2960 Points ∼66% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2829 - 3080, n=8)	2981 Points ∼66% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (272 - 4739, n=62)	1737 Points ∼39% -41%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	3338 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	2815 Points ∼84% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3165 Points ∼94% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	3360 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	2164 Points ∼64% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (2687 - 3449, n=21)	3273 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (248 - 4201, n=182)	1939 Points ∼58% -42%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	906 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	940 Points ∼100% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	779 Points ∼83% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	911 Points ∼97% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	552 Points ∼59% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (764 - 924, n=21)	903 Points ∼96% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (63 - 1604, n=182)	560 Points ∼60% -38%

Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9443 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8648 Points ∼75% -8%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	11557 Points ∼100% +22%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9491 Points ∼82% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9443 - 9739, n=5)	9559 Points ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=367)	4937 Points ∼43% -48%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	13186 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	12557 Points ∼94% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	12774 Points ∼95% -3%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	13279 Points ∼99% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (13186 - 13589, n=5)	13396 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 14895, n=434)	5074 Points ∼38% -62%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4261 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4791 Points ∼100% +12%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	3935 Points ∼82% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4278 Points ∼89% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4261 - 4304, n=5)	4281 Points ∼89% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 5099, n=434)	1551 Points ∼32% -64%

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	10952 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	10255 Points ∼90% -6%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	11341 Points ∼100% +4%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10442 Points ∼92% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11387 Points ∼100% +4%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	10335 Points ∼91% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9202 - 15299, n=22)	11268 Points ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=580)	6148 Points ∼54% -44%
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	13142 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	14307 Points ∼100% +9%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	14352 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	12645 Points ∼88% -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	13360 Points ∼93% +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	12760 Points ∼89% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (10990 - 19989, n=21)	13586 Points ∼95% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 19989, n=728)	6781 Points ∼47% -48%

3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	3830 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3201 Points ∼79% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4057 Points ∼100% +6%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	3564 Points ∼88% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	3843 Points ∼95% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	3452 Points ∼85% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1786 - 4061, n=19)	3414 Points ∼84% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (1740 - 4061, n=224)	2632 Points ∼65% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8173 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8659 Points ∼100% +6%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6360 Points ∼73% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6527 Points ∼75% -20%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8076 Points ∼93% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5685 Points ∼66% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (7618 - 9104, n=19)	8249 Points ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (203 - 11259, n=224)	3010 Points ∼35% -63%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	6578 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	6280 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5648 Points ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	5509 Points ∼84% -16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	6444 Points ∼98% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4970 Points ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4582 - 6961, n=20)	6202 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (253 - 6977, n=224)	2650 Points ∼40% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	5277 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4447 Points ∼78% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5728 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4683 Points ∼82% -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5187 Points ∼91% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5024 Points ∼88% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4957 - 5780, n=20)	5344 Points ∼93% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (573 - 5780, n=587)	2308 Points ∼40% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9356 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9157 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6771 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8006 Points ∼85% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9345 Points ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6950 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8633 - 9567, n=20)	9380 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (75 - 12146, n=587)	2344 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7986 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	7412 Points ∼92% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6508 Points ∼81% -19%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6916 Points ∼86% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	7982 Points ∼99% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6404 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (7517 - 8269, n=21)	8030 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (93 - 9643, n=588)	2154 Points ∼27% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4283 Points ∼75%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4436 Points ∼78% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5718 Points ∼100% +34%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4604 Points ∼81% +7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5209 Points ∼91% +22%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4652 Points ∼81% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (3956 - 5765, n=20)	5110 Points ∼89% +19%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 5765, n=614)	2211 Points ∼39% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	12694 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9470 Points ∼74% -25%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7905 Points ∼62% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	11448 Points ∼90% -10%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	12573 Points ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9995 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (11956 - 13044, n=20)	12723 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 22052, n=616)	3162 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8823 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	7563 Points ∼79% -14%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7286 Points ∼76% -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8605 Points ∼89% -2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9616 Points ∼100% +9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7963 Points ∼83% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8499 - 10090, n=20)	9540 Points ∼99% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (88 - 11895, n=616)	2596 Points ∼27% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4895 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4267 Points ∼86% -13%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4971 Points ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4519 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4582 Points ∼92% -6%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4612 Points ∼93% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4582 - 5209, n=20)	4941 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (435 - 5318, n=663)	2166 Points ∼44% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	8299 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8257 Points ∼99% -1%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6465 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	7044 Points ∼85% -15%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8045 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6163 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (6500 - 9167, n=20)	8128 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (53 - 11573, n=663)	1909 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7157 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	6836 Points ∼96% -4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6060 Points ∼85% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	6266 Points ∼88% -12%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	7012 Points ∼98% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5734 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5996 - 7653, n=21)	7103 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 9138, n=664)	1810 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	4729 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	3889 Points ∼77% -18%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	4975 Points ∼98% +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4503 Points ∼89% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5054 Points ∼100% +7%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	4618 Points ∼91% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (3965 - 5274, n=20)	4844 Points ∼96% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (293 - 5301, n=706)	2042 Points ∼40% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	12394 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	11488 Points ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	7499 Points ∼61% -39%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10637 Points ∼86% -14%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11458 Points ∼92% -8%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9141 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (10599 - 13305, n=20)	11750 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (43 - 16670, n=705)	2563 Points ∼21% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	9123 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	8010 Points ∼88% -12%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6739 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	8165 Points ∼89% -11%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	8866 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	7507 Points ∼82% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8215 - 9611, n=20)	8915 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 11256, n=708)	2184 Points ∼24% -76%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	32384 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	42135 Points ∼90% +30%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	46731 Points ∼100% +44%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	30561 Points ∼65% -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	28147 Points ∼60% -13%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	43773 Points ∼94% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (17817 - 58293, n=19)	34885 Points ∼75% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (735 - 59268, n=851)	16090 Points ∼34% -50%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	150281 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	79572 Points ∼53% -47%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	82652 Points ∼55% -45%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	118129 Points ∼79% -21%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	145567 Points ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	105430 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (110875 - 154375, n=19)	145987 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (536 - 224130, n=849)	29337 Points ∼20% -80%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	82937 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	66452 Points ∼80% -20%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	70593 Points ∼84% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	72173 Points ∼86% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	75632 Points ∼91% -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	80296 Points ∼96% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (56045 - 112989, n=19)	83547 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (662 - 117606, n=849)	22458 Points ∼27% -73%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	203 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	200 fps ∼99% -1%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	152 fps ∼75% -25%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	185 fps ∼91% -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	202 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	136 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (168 - 209, n=21)	203 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=842)	49.5 fps ∼24% -76%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	90 fps ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	119 fps ∼100% +32%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	60 fps ∼50% -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	60 fps ∼50% -33%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	60 fps ∼50% -33%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	60 fps ∼50% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50 - 138, n=21)	76.9 fps ∼65% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 142, n=851)	32.9 fps ∼28% -63%

GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	122 fps ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	100 fps ∼81% -18%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	118 fps ∼96% -3%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	111 fps ∼90% -9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	123 fps ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	82 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (96 - 130, n=21)	122 fps ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 180, n=747)	29.6 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	88 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	59 fps ∼67% -33%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	59 fps ∼67% -33%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	57 fps ∼65% -35%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	58 fps ∼66% -34%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	46 fps ∼52% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (50 - 111, n=21)	72.9 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 119, n=755)	24.2 fps ∼28% -72%

GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	86 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	72 fps ∼84% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	75 fps ∼87% -13%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	79 fps ∼92% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	86 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	53 fps ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (67 - 90, n=22)	85.1 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=610)	23.6 fps ∼27% -73%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	77 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	58 fps ∼75% -25%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	52 fps ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	40 fps ∼52% -48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	45 fps ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	27 fps ∼35% -65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (43 - 83, n=22)	60.8 fps ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=612)	21 fps ∼27% -73%

GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	30 fps ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	33 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	23 fps ∼70% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	17 fps ∼52% -43%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	18 fps ∼55% -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	11 fps ∼33% -63%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (18 - 32, n=23)	27.7 fps ∼84% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (0.61 - 60, n=379)	12 fps ∼36% -60%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	20 fps ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	22 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	19 fps ∼86% -5%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	19 fps ∼86% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	20 fps ∼91% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	12 fps ∼55% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (20 - 21, n=23)	20.2 fps ∼92% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (0.21 - 101, n=377)	8.36 fps ∼38% -58%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	47 fps ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	51 fps ∼100% +9%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	36 fps ∼71% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	26 fps ∼51% -45%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	28 fps ∼55% -40%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	17 fps ∼33% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (28 - 53, n=23)	43.2 fps ∼85% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 64, n=383)	17.9 fps ∼35% -62%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	54 (20^min) fps ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	56 fps ∼100% +4%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	50 fps ∼89% -7%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	47 fps ∼84% -13%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	53 fps ∼95% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	33 fps ∼59% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (27 - 56, n=23)	52 fps ∼93% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (0.6 - 257, n=383)	20.5 fps ∼37% -62%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	50 fps ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	50 fps ∼98% 0%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	44 fps ∼86% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	48 fps ∼94% -4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	51 fps ∼100% +2%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	32 fps ∼63% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (39 - 54, n=22)	50.5 fps ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (0.6 - 75, n=535)	15.7 fps ∼31% -69%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	45 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	44 fps ∼98% -2%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	31 fps ∼69% -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	24 fps ∼53% -47%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	26 fps ∼58% -42%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	16 fps ∼36% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (25 - 48, n=22)	40.5 fps ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 60, n=539)	13.8 fps ∼31% -69%

AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	595466 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	498708 Points ∼83% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	496966 Points ∼83% -17%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	486654 Points ∼81% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	599843 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	426757 Points ∼71% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 607937, n=22)	578062 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (53335 - 700592, n=159)	330483 Points ∼55% -45%

VRMark - Amber Room (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7156 Score ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4957 Score ∼69% -31%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5037 Score ∼70% -30%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4986 Score ∼70% -30%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	4988 Score ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4988 - 7649, n=4)	6205 Score ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 7649, n=102)	2592 Score ∼36% -64%

BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	1514 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	1270 Points ∼78% -16%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	1629 Points ∼100% +8%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	1236 Points ∼76% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	1351 Points ∼83% -11%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	1502 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1276 - 2169, n=21)	1504 Points ∼92% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 2169, n=772)	847 Points ∼52% -44%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	11567 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	10781 Points ∼92% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	10138 Points ∼87% -12%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	10618 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	11496 Points ∼98% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	9356 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (11399 - 12073, n=21)	11701 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 16996, n=772)	2674 Points ∼23% -77%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	7945 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4497 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	6038 Points ∼76% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	5091 Points ∼64% -36%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	6350 Points ∼80% -20%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	6387 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5304 - 8874, n=21)	7103 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 8874, n=772)	2009 Points ∼25% -75%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	10002 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	9478 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	9782 Points ∼98% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	9294 Points ∼93% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	9555 Points ∼96% -4%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	8417 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (8421 - 10147, n=21)	9721 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 14189, n=772)	3631 Points ∼36% -64%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192	6072 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288	4915 Points ∼81% -19%
Huawei P40 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192	5589 Points ∼92% -8%
OnePlus 7T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192	4992 Points ∼82% -18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288	5540 Points ∼91% -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144	5243 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (5264 - 6402, n=21)	5885 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 6402, n=772)	1870 Points ∼31% -69%

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	69.956 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	64.958 Points ∼93%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	64.567 Points ∼92% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=19)	63.5 Points ∼91% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	62.417 Points ∼89% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	51.826 Points ∼74% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=234)	43.3 Points ∼62% -33%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	116.61 Points ∼100% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	115.44 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	115.43 Points ∼99%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	114.65 Points ∼98% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 126, n=19)	111 Points ∼95% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	89.62 Points ∼77% -22%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	84.388 Points ∼72% -27%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 375, n=666)	50.8 Points ∼44% -56%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	71.8 runs/min ∼100% +5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	71 runs/min ∼99% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	68.6 runs/min ∼96%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)	66.4 runs/min ∼92% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=18)	63.8 runs/min ∼89% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	63.7 runs/min ∼89% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 196, n=212)	45.5 runs/min ∼63% -34%

WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=21)	106 Points ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	101 Points ∼95%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	100 Points ∼94% -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	100 Points ∼94% -1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	93 Points ∼88% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	86 Points ∼81% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=304)	71.4 Points ∼67% -29%
Huawei P40 Pro	Points ∼0% -100%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	24044 Points ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	23999 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	23690 Points ∼99% +4%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	22976 Points ∼96% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	22834 Points ∼95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 24467, n=21)	22024 Points ∼92% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	19122 Points ∼80% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=837)	8521 Points ∼35% -63%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=863)	9434 ms * ∼100% -367%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)	2398.3 ms * ∼25% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)	2344.7 ms * ∼25% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)	2133.5 ms * ∼23% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1839 - 2911, n=22)	2054 ms * ∼22% -2%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)	2043.6 ms * ∼22% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)	2021.2 ms * ∼21%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)	1913.7 ms * ∼20% +5%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra	Huawei P40 Pro	OnePlus 7T Pro	Oppo Find X2 Pro	Google Pixel 4 XL	Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-13%	-14%	-47%	-14%	-52%	-21%	-80%
Random Write 4KB	258.54	221.37 -14%	271.83 5%	26 -90%	204.98 -21%	164.18 -36%	184 (24.8 - 272, n=20) -29%	41.8 (0.14 - 319, n=947) -84%
Random Read 4KB	264.9	202.43 -24%	228.06 -14%	169 -36%	202.63 -24%	142.24 -46%	208 (169 - 265, n=20) -21%	64.5 (1.59 - 325, n=947) -76%
Sequential Write 256KB	750.44	697.08 -7%	395.74 -47%	405 -46%	728.72 -3%	197.41 -74%	546 (387 - 756, n=20) -27%	144 (2.99 - 1321, n=947) -81%
Sequential Read 256KB	1738.65	1632.02 -6%	1774.68 2%	1489 -14%	1605.6 -8%	870.91 -50%	1603 (1398 - 1789, n=20) -8%	371 (12.1 - 2037, n=947) -79%

PUBG Mobile

: Ø39.9 (37-41)

Asphalt 9 Legends

: Ø29.9 (28-32)

Dead Trigger 2

: Ø89.9 (89-90)

A pleine charge

Au repos/à faible charge


30.8 °C	32.1 °C	32.6 °C
30 °C	31.7 °C	33.1 °C
29.5 °C	31 °C	32.5 °C

Maximum: 33.1 °C
Moyenne: 31.5 °C


29.6 °C	30.7 °C	30.7 °C
29.8 °C	30.3 °C	29.7 °C
29.1 °C	30.3 °C	30.1 °C

Maximum: 30.7 °C
Moyenne: 30 °C

Alimentation (valeur maximale) 25 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 22 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.1 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 30.7 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 34% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique

Éteint/en veille	0.01 / 0.23 Watts
Au repos	0.61 / 1.19 / 1.23 Watts
Fortement sollicité	4.18 / 8.53 Watts


Légende: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh	Huawei P40 Pro 4200 mAh	OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh	Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh	Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh	Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-35%	-9%	-121%	-118%	-14%	-57%	-26%
Idle Minimum *	0.61	0.76 -25%	0.92 -51%	2.1 -244%	1.47 -141%	0.83 -36%	1.134 (0.52 - 2.2, n=20) -86%	0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=936) -46%
Idle Average *	1.19	1.91 -61%	1.41 -18%	3 -152%	3.43 -188%	1.24 -4%	2.07 (1.19 - 3.43, n=20) -74%	1.757 (0.6 - 6.2, n=935) -48%
Idle Maximum *	1.23	1.96 -59%	1.47 -20%	3.5 -185%	3.52 -186%	1.25 -2%	2.3 (1.23 - 4, n=20) -87%	2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=936) -66%
Load Average *	4.18	4.72 -13%	3.35 20%	5.3 -27%	6.2 -48%	4.98 -19%	5.24 (3.5 - 7.4, n=20) -25%	4.14 (0.8 - 10.8, n=930) 1%
Load Maximum *	8.53	10.15 -19%	6.37 25%	8.3 3%	10.63 -25%	9.09 -7%	9.73 (7.67 - 12.3, n=20) -14%	6.15 (1.2 - 14.2, n=930) 28%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Autonomie

Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)		35h 33min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3		14h 25min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p		16h 13min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)		3h 18min

	Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh	Huawei P40 Pro 4200 mAh	OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh	Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh	Google Pixel 4 XL 3700 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie		-1%	-7%	10%	-24%	-28%
Reader / Idle	2133	1858 -13%	1474 -31%	2015 -6%
H.264	973	1131 16%	1137 17%	957 -2%
WiFi v1.3	865	720 -17%	743 -14%	912 5%	654 -24%	623 -28%
Load	198	221 12%	198 0%	283 43%

Points positifs

+ écran OLED

+ qualité de construction

+ vibreur

+ haut-parleurs stéréos

+ chauffe et throttling

+ appareils photo

Points négatifs

- absence de double SIM / stockage micro SD

- photo en ultra grand-angle

- USB 2.0

- absence de certaines fonctionnalités haut de gammes (120 Hz, 1440p, IP)

- appareil photo avant sans 4K

Verdict

En test : le Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro. Modèle de test aimablement fourni par TradingShenzhen.

Pour la première fois un smartphone Xiaomi se rapproche de l’élite, et vient même en faire partie – cela se vérifie aussi dans le prix. Pour presque 1 000 €, la série Mi du fabricant Chinois n’est plus l’appareil au prix de choix qu’il était depuis des années, l’appareil proposant maintenant une expérience premium qui concurrence les flagships des concurrents. Les fonctionnalités qui se démarquent sont entre autres la qualité du vibreur, les haut-parleurs qui sont certainement les meilleurs actuellement disponibles sur un smartphone, une excellente qualité de construction et d’excellents appareils photo - même si la lentille grand-angle est en retrait face à celles du Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra ou du Huawei P40 Pro. Cela est compensé par le zoom (jusqu’à x10), qui est plus élevé que ceux de la concurrence.

De même, l’écran est à la hauteur de ce que l’on demande à un flagship de 2020. La dalle du Mi 10 Pro possède un taux de rafraîchissement élevé, des couleurs fidèles et une luminosité élevée. On peut malgré tout se demander pourquoi le fabricant chinois n’a pas été plus loin (120 Hz, 1440p), même si ces améliorations n’auraient pas profité à tous, en particulier face à un OnePlus 8 Pro par exemple. L’absence de certification IP et le port USB 2.0 sont d’autres défauts de l’appareil.

Oui, la série Mi n’est plus abordable comme elle l’était. Mais le prix du fleuron de Xiaomi est justifié, au moins au regard du pris des autres smartphones du segment haut de gamme.

L’intégralité de cette critique est disponible en anglais en suivant ce lien.