Notebookcheck

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

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),
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
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.

 

Appareils du comparatif

Note
Date
Modèle
Poids
Drive
Taille
Résolution
Best Price
88 %
05/20
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
208 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2340x1080
89 %
08/20
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
219 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.9"3200x1440
89 %
05/20
Huawei P40 Pro
Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16
209 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.58"2640x1200
87 %
04/20
OnePlus 7T Pro
SD 855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
86 %
04/20
Oppo Find X2 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
202 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"3168x1440
86 %
05/20
Google Pixel 4 XL
SD 855, Adreno 640
193 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.3"3040x1440
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (r.) vs. Mi 9 (l.)
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.
Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro.

Comparaison des tailles

166.9 mm 76 mm 8.8 mm 219 g165.2 mm 74.4 mm 9.5 mm 202 g162.6 mm 74.8 mm 8.96 mm 208 g162.6 mm 75.9 mm 8.8 mm 206 g160.4 mm 75.1 mm 8.2 mm 193 g158.2 mm 72.6 mm 8.95 mm 209 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
883 (834min - 919max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
825 (763min - 855max) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Huawei P40 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
821 (388min - 998max) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
754 (346min - 881max) MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
631 (579min - 653max) MBit/s ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (347min - 505max) MBit/s ∼53% -47%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=584)
274 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P40 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
1544 (797min - 1619max) MBit/s ∼100% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
818 (425min - 890max) MBit/s ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
816 (403min - 832max) MBit/s ∼53%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
509 (264min - 571max) MBit/s ∼33% -38%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (311min - 375max) MBit/s ∼23% -57%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Adreno 640, SD 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
317 (159min - 363max) MBit/s ∼21% -61%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=584)
261 MBit/s ∼17% -68%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920Tooltip
; 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)
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
GPS Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Ultra-grand-angle.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Ultra-grand-angle.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Grand-angle.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - Grand-angle.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 2x zoom.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 5x zoom.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 10x zoom.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 30x zoom.
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 50x zoom.

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 1Scene 2Scene 3Scene 4
ColorChecker
19.2 ∆E
25.4 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
24.7 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
26.1 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
15.4 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
28 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
15.6 ∆E
24.3 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
19.3 ∆E
26.7 ∆E
25.9 ∆E
25.2 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
25.2 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 22.31 ∆E min: 9.21 - max: 31.86 ∆E
ColorChecker
18.9 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
19.2 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
15.7 ∆E
1.4 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
5 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro: 9.63 ∆E min: 1.4 - max: 19.16 ∆E
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 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
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, 6.9
Huawei P40 Pro
OLED, 2640x1200, 6.58
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Oppo Find X2 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.7
Google Pixel 4 XL
P-OLED, 3040x1440, 6.3
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)

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 17699 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 2500000) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

Temps de réponse de l'écran

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
↘ 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 (24.4 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
↘ 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 (38.8 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
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=66)
1633 Points ∼41% -35%
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=61)
1759 Points ∼39% -40%
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
  (3076 - 3449, n=13)
3317 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=107)
1961 Points ∼58% -41%
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
  (898 - 924, n=13)
912 Points ∼97% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=107)
557 Points ∼59% -39%
Geekbench 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=354)
4882 Points ∼42% -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 - 13589, n=417)
4999 Points ∼37% -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 - 4965, n=417)
1528 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 ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
10255 Points ∼89% -6%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
11341 Points ∼98% +4%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼91% -5%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11387 Points ∼99% +4%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10335 Points ∼90% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9762 - 15299, n=14)
11519 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=509)
5915 Points ∼51% -46%
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
  (11839 - 19989, n=13)
14121 Points ∼98% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=667)
6485 Points ∼45% -51%
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
  (3193 - 4061, n=11)
3770 Points ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=164)
2657 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
  (8064 - 8333, n=11)
8221 Points ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=164)
2975 Points ∼34% -64%
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
  (6106 - 6754, n=12)
6515 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6754, n=164)
2672 Points ∼41% -59%
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
  (5187 - 5780, n=12)
5446 Points ∼95% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=513)
2203 Points ∼38% -58%
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 ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
9157 Points ∼97% -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 ∼99% 0%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6950 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9157 - 9567, n=12)
9415 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=513)
2113 Points ∼22% -77%
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 ∼80% -19%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼85% -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 ∼79% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7957 - 8269, n=13)
8099 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8269, n=514)
1973 Points ∼24% -75%
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=12)
5136 Points ∼90% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=544)
2114 Points ∼37% -51%
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
  (12547 - 12993, n=12)
12727 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=544)
2832 Points ∼22% -78%
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=12)
9563 Points ∼99% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=544)
2378 Points ∼25% -73%
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=12)
4985 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=594)
2086 Points ∼42% -57%
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
  (7854 - 8432, n=12)
8258 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=594)
1780 Points ∼21% -79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7157 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 12288
6836 Points ∼95% -4%
Huawei P40 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6060 Points ∼84% -15%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼87% -12%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7012 Points ∼97% -2%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5734 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (6943 - 7400, n=13)
7199 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7400, n=595)
1697 Points ∼24% -76%
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=12)
4857 Points ∼96% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=636)
1950 Points ∼39% -59%
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
  (11175 - 12611, n=12)
11841 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12611, n=635)
2343 Points ∼19% -81%
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 - 9549, n=12)
8965 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9549, n=638)
2013 Points ∼22% -78%
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
  (26182 - 58293, n=12)
34668 Points ∼74% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=782)
15420 Points ∼33% -52%
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
  (143643 - 154375, n=12)
148395 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=780)
26563 Points ∼18% -82%
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 ∼79% -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 ∼90% -9%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
80296 Points ∼95% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (72524 - 112989, n=12)
84080 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=780)
20764 Points ∼25% -75%
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 - 207, n=13)
201 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=785)
44.9 fps ∼22% -78%
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
  (60 - 138, n=13)
77.5 fps ∼65% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=794)
31 fps ∼26% -66%
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 - 126, n=13)
121 fps ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=690)
26.5 fps ∼22% -78%
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
  (58 - 109, n=13)
72.5 fps ∼82% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=698)
22.3 fps ∼25% -75%
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 - 88, n=14)
84.1 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=553)
21.3 fps ∼25% -75%
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 - 77, n=14)
59.6 fps ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=555)
19.4 fps ∼25% -75%
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=14)
27.9 fps ∼85% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=306)
11.3 fps ∼34% -62%
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 - 20, n=14)
20 fps ∼91% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=304)
8.09 fps ∼37% -60%
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=14)
43.6 fps ∼85% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=310)
16.9 fps ∼33% -64%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
54 (20min) 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 - 54, n=14)
51.1 fps ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=309)
19.4 fps ∼35% -64%
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 - 52, n=14)
49.9 fps ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=478)
14.4 fps ∼28% -71%
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 - 46, n=14)
39.1 fps ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=482)
12.7 fps ∼28% -72%
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
  (538107 - 607937, n=14)
577410 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=107)
319223 Points ∼53% -46%
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=3)
6598 Score ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 7649, n=87)
2558 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 - 1650, n=13)
1472 Points ∼90% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=724)
817 Points ∼50% -46%
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 ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 4 XL
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9356 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11399 - 12073, n=13)
11666 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=724)
2491 Points ∼21% -78%
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
  (5564 - 8874, n=13)
7251 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=724)
1850 Points ∼23% -77%
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=13)
9708 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=724)
3443 Points ∼34% -66%
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 - 6273, n=13)
5879 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=724)
1754 Points ∼29% -71%
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 (50.9 - 77, n=13)
63.7 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 - 140, n=184)
40.7 Points ∼58% -37%
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 (79.1 - 126, n=12)
112 Points ∼96% -3%
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 - 302, n=615)
47.1 Points ∼40% -59%
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%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
63.7 runs/min ∼89% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=13)
63.5 runs/min ∼88% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=167)
43 runs/min ∼60% -37%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 120, n=13)
104 Points ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
101 Points ∼97%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼96% -1%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼96% -1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼89% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
86 Points ∼83% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=251)
69.9 Points ∼67% -31%
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 (15745 - 24467, n=13)
21981 Points ∼91% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
19122 Points ∼80% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=782)
7838 Points ∼33% -66%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=808)
9783 ms * ∼100% -384%
Google Pixel 4 XL (Chrome 80)
2398.3 ms * ∼25% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80)
2344.7 ms * ∼24% -16%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼22% -6%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
2043.6 ms * ∼21% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
2021.2 ms * ∼21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1992 - 2538, n=14)
1968 ms * ∼20% +3%
Huawei P40 Pro (Huawei Browser 10.1)
1913.7 ms * ∼20% +5%

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

Xiaomi Mi 10 ProSamsung Galaxy S20 UltraHuawei P40 ProOnePlus 7T ProOppo Find X2 ProGoogle Pixel 4 XLAverage 256 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-13%
-14%
-47%
-14%
-52%
-22%
-82%
Random Write 4KB
258.54
221.37
-14%
271.83
5%
26
-90%
204.98
-21%
164.18
-36%
183 (24.8 - 272, n=19)
-29%
35.4 (0.14 - 319, n=879)
-86%
Random Read 4KB
264.9
202.43
-24%
228.06
-14%
169
-36%
202.63
-24%
142.24
-46%
206 (169 - 265, n=19)
-22%
58.7 (1.59 - 324, n=879)
-78%
Sequential Write 256KB
750.44
697.08
-7%
395.74
-47%
405
-46%
728.72
-3%
197.41
-74%
536 (387 - 756, n=19)
-29%
127 (2.99 - 911, n=879)
-83%
Sequential Read 256KB
1738.65
1632.02
-6%
1774.68
2%
1489
-14%
1605.6
-8%
870.91
-50%
1595 (1398 - 1789, n=19)
-8%
339 (12.1 - 1802, n=879)
-81%
PUBG Mobile
01020304050Tooltip
: Ø39.9 (37-41)
Asphalt 9 Legends
010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.9 (28-32)
Dead Trigger 2
0102030405060708090Tooltip
: Ø89.9 (89-90)
 30.8 °C32.1 °C32.6 °C 
 30 °C31.7 °C33.1 °C 
 29.5 °C31 °C32.5 °C 
Maximum: 33.1 °C
Moyenne: 31.5 °C
29.6 °C30.7 °C30.7 °C
29.8 °C30.3 °C29.7 °C
29.1 °C30.3 °C30.1 °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 33 °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 35.4 °C / 96 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 33.9 °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 33 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2030.538.72522.429.23121.426.34024.328.35028.238.16321.6258022.325.610020.43712518.647.416017.256.320017.55225015.15631515.260.44001564.150014.267.663013.169.480013.969.110001370.412501370.6160013.772.3200014.273.925001477.5315014.475.2400014.374.8500014.470.7630014.669.3800014.964.91000014.962.81250015.262.91600015.656.5SPL26.484.5N0.859.2median 14.6median 67.6Delta0.86.733.431.529.629.329.828.525.526.133.232.126.824.925.523.323.724.319.13318.953.317.250.917.552.81757.515.159.7156414.764.315.565.715.567.314.771.514.575.114.675.714.574.313.775.714.772.314.572.314.569.814.570.614.869.514.962.715.55626.984.40.958.1median 14.9median 65.71.38.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi 10 ProSamsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
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, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 12% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 85% 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
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.01 / 0.23 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.61 / 1.19 / 1.23 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.18 / 8.53 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        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%
-67%
-26%
Idle Minimum *
0.61
0.76
-25%
0.92
-51%
2.1
-244%
1.47
-141%
0.83
-36%
1.255 (0.53 - 2.2, n=13)
-106%
0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=883)
-46%
Idle Average *
1.19
1.91
-61%
1.41
-18%
3
-152%
3.43
-188%
1.24
-4%
2.16 (1.19 - 3.43, n=13)
-82%
1.755 (0.6 - 6.2, n=882)
-47%
Idle Maximum *
1.23
1.96
-59%
1.47
-20%
3.5
-185%
3.52
-186%
1.25
-2%
2.47 (1.23 - 4, n=13)
-101%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=883)
-66%
Load Average *
4.18
4.72
-13%
3.35
20%
5.3
-27%
6.2
-48%
4.98
-19%
5.37 (3.5 - 7.4, n=13)
-28%
4.1 (0.8 - 10.8, n=877)
2%
Load Maximum *
8.53
10.15
-19%
6.37
25%
8.3
3%
10.63
-25%
9.09
-7%
9.94 (7.68 - 12.3, n=13)
-17%
6.07 (1.2 - 14.2, n=877)
29%

* ... 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.
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.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro - 04/18/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Châssis
88%
Clavier
67 / 75 → 89%
Dispositif de pointage
96%
Connectivité
54 / 70 → 78%
Poids
88%
Autonomie
90%
Écran
92%
Performances en jeu
61 / 64 → 95%
Performances dans les applications
82 / 86 → 96%
Chauffe
93%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
78 / 90 → 87%
Appareil photo
76%
Moyenne
82%
88%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Test du Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro : Xiaomi rejoint l'élite des smartphones
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-05-18 (Update: 2020-05-18)