Vivo X90 Pro smartphone review -end SoC keep up with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2?

A questionable upgrade to the X80 Pro. While the Pro+ model of the Vivo X90 series relies on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, the X90 Pro uses the new MediaTek Dimensity 9200. Our review will tell how well the chipset performs in everyday use and what shortcomings Vivo X90 Pro has.

Marcus Herbrich, ? Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Anton Avdyushkin (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), Published 02/26/2023 ?? ?? …

After we already reviewed the actual flagship of the X90 series, the Vivo X90 Pro+, which is only available in China or as an import, we will take a closer look at the European top model. The Vivo X90 Pro also relies on a camera system with Zeiss branding and Sony’s large IMX989 image sensor in a 1-inch format.

The Vivo X90 Pro’s features are also impressive. The 6.78-inch, 120 Hz Samsung E6 AMOLED panel has a peak brightness of 1,300 nits, and the fast MediaTek Dimensity 9200 chipset, which is supported by 12 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage.

Graphics adapter

ARM Immortalis-G715 MP11

Display

6.78 inch 20:9, 2800 x 1260 pixel 453 PPI, Capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash, 256 GB

, 221 GB free

Connections

1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, color spectrum, OTG, Miracast, IR Blaster

Networking

Wi-Fi 6E (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.3, 5G: N1/N3/N5/N8/N28A/N38/N40/N41/N77 /N78/N79; 4G: B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B26/B28A/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41; 3G: 850/1900/2100MHz; 2G: 850/900/1800/1900MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 9.3 x 164.1 x 74.5 ( = 0.37 x 6.46 x 2.93 in)

Battery

4870 mAh Lithium-Polymer

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 13

Camera

Primary Camera: 50 MPix (f/1.8, 23mm, 1.6µm) + 50MP (2x optical zoom, f/1.6, 50mm, 1/2.4″, 0.7µm) + 12MP (f/2.0), camera2API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.8″, 0.8µm)

Additional features

Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: OnScreen, charger, case, USB cable, info material, Funtouch OS 13, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, NSS: GPS L1+L5, BeiDou, Glonass L1, Galileo E1+E5, SBAS, fanless, waterproof

Weight

214.9 g ( = 7.58 oz / 0.47 pounds), Power Supply: 243 g ( = 8.57 oz / 0.54 pounds)

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

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
89.1 %	02/2023	Vivo X90 Pro Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11	214.9 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.78″	2800×1260
89.1 %	02/2023	Xiaomi 13 SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740	189 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.36″	2400×1080
89.1 %	11/2022	Google Pixel 7 Pro Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7	212 g	128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.70″	3120×1440
87 %	08/2022	OnePlus 10T SD 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730	203.5 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.70″	2412×1080
90 %	02/2023	Vivo X90 Pro+ SD 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740	221 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.78″	3200×1440

The Vivo X90 Pro offers, like the Pro+ model, a kind of leather texture and a huge camera module on the back – the Chinese manufacturer calls this Golden Ratio Skyline design. Apart from that, the looks of both X90 smartphones are very similar and the value is also worth emphasizing. Analogous to the predecessor, the X90 Pro comes exclusively in the black color on the local market. A gray variant is also available as an import device.

Like the X80 Pro, the X90 Pro is both dust- and water-resistant according to IP68 standard. With 90.8 percent, the upper-class phone also has a very efficient ratio of the screen to the total surface on the front. Speaking of the display, the manufacturer does not specify which protective glass has been installed in the X90 Pro.

Vivo X90 Pro+ Vivo X90 Pro Google Pixel 7 Pro OnePlus 10T Xiaomi 13 DIN A6 164.35 mm / 6.47 inch 75.29 mm / 2.96 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs164.1 mm / 6.46 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 214.9 g0.4738 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 212 g0.4674 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.75 mm / 0.3445 inch 203.5 g0.4486 lbs152.8 mm / 6.02 inch 71.5 mm / 2.81 inch 7.98 mm / 0.3142 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

In terms of equipment, the X90 Pro features a dual speaker system, Bluetooth 5.3, fast UFS 4.0 storage, and an NFC chip for contactless payment. In addition, Vivo relies on a USB 3.2 port (Gen. 1), which enables high data transfers and wired image output via HDMI or DisplayPort interfaces. In our copy test including a connected M2.SSD hard drive (Samsung 980 Pro), the USB port’s transfer rate is 212 MB/s, which is clearly below the theoretical peak level.

The Vivo X90 Pro comes with Google Android 13 and the in-house Funtouch OS 13 installed. If you are interested in importing the X90 Pro, you should consider that Vivo does not use the Funtouch interface in China, but the Chinese equivalent Origin OS.

Funtouch OS 13 has security patches from January 2023 at the time of the test. How long the Vivo smartphone will enjoy OS upgrades and security updates has not been officially communicated – the X80 Pro had updates for three years.

The transfer rates in the home network are high with the Vivo phone since the WLAN module communicates with our reference router Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 in the 2.4 and 5 GHz range as well as via the 6 GHz frequency band. However, the low reception rates in both the 5- and 6-GHz ranges are noticeable. Access to the LTE network including many supported 4G frequencies is guaranteed, and switching to the fast 5G standard is also possible.

Networking
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000	1787 (min: 928) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	227 (min: 115) MBit/s ∼23%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	229 (min: 219) MBit/s ∼12%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1814 (min: 1250) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000	894 (min: 803) MBit/s ∼50%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	770 (min: 459) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1894 (min: 955) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1656 (min: 1620) MBit/s ∼91%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000	904 (min: 453) MBit/s ∼51%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	945 (min: 917) MBit/s ∼96%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000	934 (min: 768) MBit/s ∼52%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	933 (min: 865) MBit/s ∼95%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
iperf3 receive AXE11000	931 (min: 890) MBit/s ∼52%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	981 (min: 965) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
iperf3 receive AXE11000	630 (min: 34.8) MBit/s ∼35%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	668 (min: 40.5) MBit/s ∼68%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1509 (min: 229) MBit/s ∼80%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1396 (min: 598) MBit/s ∼77%

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø229 (219-238)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1810 (1250-1867)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1752 (928-1850)

Vivo X90 Pro; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø223 (115-235)

We check the tracking accuracy with a practical test on a bicycle. During our short trip, we recorded the route with a Garmin Venu 2 for comparison purposes. From time to time, the determined curve profiles deviate from the actual route, but the deviations in the detailed view of the GPS recording can still be rated as very low overall.

The dual-SIM smartphone supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the home WLAN (WiFi calling). In contrast to the predecessor Vivo flagship now supports an eSIM.

The voice quality of the X90 Pro is inconspicuous. Voices are reproduced cleanly and our interlocutor also characterized them as clear.

The 32 MP front-facing camera enables decent selfies, but the relatively dark pictures of the portrait mode are conspicuous.

The centerpiece of the camera group on the back with ZEISS branding is, as with the X90 Pro+, the large 1-inch Sony sensor, which delivers really good pictures during the day as well as at night. The photos sometimes look too brightened, but have a good basic sharpness – sometimes the autofocus does not always fit (see rabbit motifs). The photos tend to be a bit softer, which is not as good as the over-sharpened photo of the Apple iPhone 14 Pro more natural compared to the over-sharpened photo of the iPhone 14 Pro. The Vivo phone cannot completely convince in terms of color reproduction; green tones are displayed a bit too brightly. However, users who prefer natural colors can activate the Zeiss mode.

In contrast to the predecessor the X90 Pro has to do without a high-resolution ultra-wide-angle camera. The photos look a bit noisy even in good light conditions and lack details. In return, the Vivo phone has quite good zoom qualities, although it does not have a periscope camera and only a 2x lossless zoom. However, the X90 Pro retains many details up to a five-fold magnification. The dedicated Vivo V2 image processor and in-house software optimizations ensure solid image quality in this respect.

Image Comparison

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

Main camera Main camera Ultra wide-angle Low Light 5x Zoom

click to load images

ColorChecker Vivo X90 Pro: 7.36 ∆E min: 2.47 – max: 17.92 ∆E

The Vivo phone comes with a modular 120-watt power supply, a USB cable, and a protective case. A protective film is also installed ex-factory.

The Warranty is 24 months after the purchase date.

A real feature of the predecessor X80 Pro is the huge 3D ultrasonic fingerprint sensor, which we also saw in the X90 Pro+. However, the X90 Pro only has an optical fingerprint sensor, so the area is much smaller, only one finger can be scanned, and the recognition rate cannot keep up with the class leader of the predecessor. It is a pity that Vivo has skimped here. However, the X90 Pro still features biometric authentication via 2D facial recognition using the front-facing camera.

At first glance, not much has changed in the display. Like the predecessor, the OLED panel of the X90 Pro measures 6.78 inches diagonally and has a refresh rate of up to 120 Hz. An adaptive adjustment of the frequency is still not possible, but an automatic switching between 60 Hz and 120 Hz is available. A big difference is seen in the pixel density. While the Vivo X80 Pro is equipped with a QHD+ resolution, the AMOLED display of the X90 Pro only works with Full HD+.

The Vivo smartphone uses PWM with a very low frequency of 60 Hz to control the luminance, which is typical for OLEDs, but the fluctuations are small. The maximum luminance of over 1000 cd/m² in the peak that we measured is very good, and the realistic APL18 test (Average Picture Level) also results in a satisfactory maximum brightness of 1225 cd/m² for this price range. A Xiaomi 13 is considerably brighter with 1,765 cd/m².


1002 cd/m²	1024 cd/m²	1054 cd/m²
1005 cd/m²	1018 cd/m²	1063 cd/m²
993 cd/m²	1017 cd/m²	1059 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 1063 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1026.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.15 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 1018 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.9 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26

	Vivo X90 Pro AMOLED, 2800×1260, 6.78	Xiaomi 13 OLED, 2400×1080, 6.36	Google Pixel 7 Pro OLED, 3120×1440, 6.70	OnePlus 10T Fluid AMOLED, 2412×1080, 6.70	Vivo X90 Pro+ AMOLED, 3200×1440, 6.78
Screen		-6%	9%	-54%	-5%
Brightness middle	1018	1209 19%	1022 0%	861 -15%	1109 9%
Brightness	1026	1208 18%	1025 0%	856 -17%	1124 10%
Brightness Distribution	93	98 5%	99 6%	97 4%	96 3%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	0.9	1.2 -33%	0.9 -0%	2.27 -152%	1.1 -22%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	2.2	3 -36%	2.1 5%	4.17 -90%	2.7 -23%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	1.9	2.1 -11%	1.1 42%	2.9 -53%	2 -5%
Gamma	2.26 ^97%	2.26 ^97%	2.22 ^99%	2.303 ^96%	2.25 ^98%
CCT	6473 ^100%	6504 ^100%	6650 ^98%	6141 ^106%	6605 ^98%

* … smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession – a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.

Screen flickering / PWM detected

60 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 60 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 60 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19288 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

Our display color analysis is performed with the help of a photospectrometer and the Calman software. The deviations in the color (0.9) and grayscale (1.9) representation are very low in the ZEISS profile and the color temperature of the panel is almost optimally calibrated. The high coverage of the color spaces is also worth mentioning; even the DCI-P3 is covered almost completely.

Display Response Times

ℹ

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.

↔ Response Time Black to White
1.35 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.6915 ms rise
1.35 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 0.6615 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.6 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.56 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ ms rise
1.56 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.6 ms).

Outdoors, the X90 Pro makes a very good impression thanks to the high brightness in automatic mode. Even in midsummer sunlight, the display content should still be sufficiently visible. However, those who prefer to adjust the brightness manually will have to be content with 525 cd/m² and partly annoying reflections.

The viewing angles of the OLED panel are very good and the brightness drop is only noticeable from an extremely flat angle.

The X90 Pro features the latest flagship SoC from MediaTek, which is manufactured by TSMC in a second-generation 4 nm process. The chipset combines an ARM Cortex X3 core (3.05 GHz) with three ARM Cortex A715 performance cores (2.85 GHz) and four frugal Cortex A510 cores (1.8 GHz). For the graphics unit, MediaTek relies on the new ARM Immortalis G715 with eleven cores.

Compared to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in the Pro+ model the single-core performance of the MediaTek Dimensity 9200 is lower by 7% and the multi-thread performance by 12%. PCMark’s system benchmark also turns out relatively low.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1489 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1478 Points ∼99% +7%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	1384 Points ∼93%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	1384 Points ∼93% 0%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	1277 Points ∼86% -8%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	1048 Points ∼70% -24%
Average of class Smartphone (119 – 1885, n=259, last 2 years)	786 Points ∼53% -43%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	5090 Points ∼100% +20%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	4786 Points ∼94% +13%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	4232 Points ∼83%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	4232 Points ∼83% 0%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	3987 Points ∼78% -6%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	3222 Points ∼63% -24%
Average of class Smartphone (466 – 5538, n=259, last 2 years)	2518 Points ∼49% -41%

Antutu v9 – Total Score
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1273775 Points ∼100% +8%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1262638 Points ∼99% +7%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	1175789 Points ∼92%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	1175789 Points ∼92% 0%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	846323 Points ∼66% -28%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	773857 Points ∼61% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (111952 – 1300282, n=167, last 2 years)	621118 Points ∼49% -47%

PCMark for Android – Work 3.0
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	15944 Points ∼100% +63%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	14094 Points ∼88% +44%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	12748 Points ∼80% +31%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	11397 Points ∼71% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (4436 – 19200, n=226, last 2 years)	10455 Points ∼66% +7%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	9765 Points ∼61%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	9765 Points ∼61% 0%

CrossMark – Overall
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1219 Points ∼100% +31%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1038 Points ∼85% +11%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	932 Points ∼76%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	932 Points ∼76% 0%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	886 Points ∼73% -5%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	806 Points ∼66% -14%
Average of class Smartphone (226 – 1332, n=105, last 2 years)	805 Points ∼66% -14%

BaseMark OS II
Overall
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	8320 Points ∼100% +23%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	8153 Points ∼98% +21%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	7684 Points ∼92% +14%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	6755 Points ∼81%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	6755 Points ∼81% 0%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	6164 Points ∼74% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (411 – 9555, n=172, last 2 years)	4934 Points ∼59% -27%
System
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	13646 Points ∼100% +40%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	12847 Points ∼94% +32%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	12230 Points ∼90% +25%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	9767 Points ∼72%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	9767 Points ∼72% 0%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	9294 Points ∼68% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2083 – 19657, n=172, last 2 years)	8603 Points ∼63% -12%
Memory
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	9245 Points ∼100%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	9245 Points ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	8822 Points ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	8179 Points ∼88% -12%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	7330 Points ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone (670 – 11617, n=172, last 2 years)	5488 Points ∼59% -41%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	5456 Points ∼59% -41%
Graphics
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	27698 Points ∼100%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	27698 Points ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	24037 Points ∼87% -13%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	23966 Points ∼87% -13%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	22837 Points ∼82% -18%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	16375 Points ∼59% -41%
Average of class Smartphone (697 – 28497, n=172, last 2 years)	10147 Points ∼37% -63%
Web
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	1833 Points ∼100% +117%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	1739 Points ∼95% +106%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	1652 Points ∼90% +96%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	1564 Points ∼85% +86%
Average of class Smartphone (10 – 2392, n=172, last 2 years)	1439 Points ∼79% +71%
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	843 Points ∼46%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	843 Points ∼46% 0%

UL Procyon AI Inference – Overall Score
Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200, Immortalis-G715 MP11, 12288	44483 Points ∼100%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	44483 Points ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Google Tensor G2, Mali-G710 MP7, 12288	42662 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (207 – 84787, n=101, last 2 years)	23828 Points ∼54% -46%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 12288	16465 Points ∼37% -63%
Xiaomi 13 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Adreno 740, 8192	15961 Points ∼36% -64%
OnePlus 10T Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, Adreno 730, 16384	11648 Points ∼26% -74%

The MediaTek Dimensity 9200 performs well in GFXBench’s graphics tests. However, even the onscreen rates are often lower than in the Pro+ model which has to cope with the significantly higher resolution. The browser benchmarks and the BaseMark OS II browser test are also conspicuously low.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3792 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3707 Points ∼98% -2%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3173 Points ∼84% -16%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	2876 Points ∼76% -24%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1807 Points ∼48% -52%

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3783 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3751 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	3192 Points ∼84% -16%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	2824 Points ∼75% -25%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1847 Points ∼49% -51%

3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	14038 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	14002 Points ∼100% +4%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	13492 Points ∼96%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10989 Points ∼78% -19%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6721 Points ∼48% -50%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	120 fps ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps ∼50% -50%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	490 fps ∼100% +9%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	451 fps ∼92%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	435 fps ∼89% -4%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	395 fps ∼81% -12%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	251 fps ∼51% -44%

GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	119 fps ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	84 fps ∼70% -30%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps ∼50% -50%

GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	299 fps ∼100% +13%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	265 fps ∼89%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	257 fps ∼86% -3%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	221 fps ∼74% -17%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	139 fps ∼46% -48%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	120 fps ∼100% +15%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	106 fps ∼88% +2%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	104 fps ∼87%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps ∼50% -42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	56 fps ∼47% -46%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	218 fps ∼100% +93%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	181 fps ∼83% +60%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	171 fps ∼78% +51%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	113 fps ∼52%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	101 fps ∼46% -11%

GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	93 fps ∼100% +15%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	81 fps ∼87%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	62 fps ∼67% -23%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps ∼65% -26%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	37 fps ∼40% -54%

GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	127 fps ∼100% +43%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	108 fps ∼85% +21%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	105 fps ∼83% +18%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	89 fps ∼70%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	68 fps ∼54% -24%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	82 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	66 fps ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	59 fps ∼72% -28%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	50 fps ∼61% -39%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	28 fps ∼34% -66%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	61 fps ∼100% +20%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	56 fps ∼92% +10%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	51 fps ∼84%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	44 fps ∼72% -14%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	31 fps ∼51% -39%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	113 fps ∼100% +8%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	105 fps ∼93%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	80 fps ∼71% -24%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	60 fps ∼53% -43%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	38 fps ∼34% -64%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	156 fps ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	142 fps ∼91% +28%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	123 fps ∼79% +11%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	111 fps ∼71%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	75 fps ∼48% -32%

Jetstream 2 – Total Score
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	143.264 Points ∼100% +112%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	116.455 Points ∼81% +72%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	98.153 Points ∼69% +45%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)	81.383 Points ∼57% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (14.8 – 282, n=169, last 2 years)	80 Points ∼56% +18%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	67.646 Points ∼47%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	67.6 Points ∼47% 0%

Speedometer 2.0 – Result
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	113 runs/min ∼100% +88%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	104 runs/min ∼92% +73%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)	93.4 runs/min ∼83% +55%
Average of class Smartphone (12.8 – 375, n=157, last 2 years)	75.4 runs/min ∼67% +25%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	60.2 runs/min ∼53%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	60.2 runs/min ∼53% 0%

WebXPRT 4 – Overall Score
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	139 Points ∼100% +111%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	136 Points ∼98% +106%
Average of class Smartphone (25 – 202, n=63, last 2 years)	94 Points ∼68% +42%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	90 Points ∼65% +36%
OnePlus 10T	75 Points ∼54% +14%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	66 Points ∼47%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	66 Points ∼47% 0%

WebXPRT 3 – —
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)	106 Points ∼100% +29%
Average of class Smartphone (27 – 292, n=163, last 2 years)	105.5 Points ∼100% +29%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	98 Points ∼92% +20%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	82 Points ∼77%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	82 Points ∼77% 0%

Octane V2 – Total Score
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	44245 Points ∼100% +104%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	43632 Points ∼99% +102%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)	39982 Points ∼90% +85%
Average of class Smartphone (3905 – 74261, n=196, last 2 years)	28257 Points ∼64% +31%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	27938 Points ∼63% +29%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	21648 Points ∼49%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	21648 Points ∼49% 0%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 – Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 – 12437, n=179, last 2 years)	2309 ms * ∼100% -25%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200	1848 ms * ∼80% -0%
Vivo X90 Pro (Chrome 109)	1847.5 ms * ∼80%
Vivo X90 Pro+ (Chrome Beta 110)	1773.4 ms * ∼77% +4%
OnePlus 10T (Chrome 104)	1627.3 ms * ∼70% +12%
Google Pixel 7 Pro (Chrome 106)	1011.5 ms * ∼44% +45%
Xiaomi 13 (Chrome 108)	870.7 ms * ∼38% +53%

* … smaller is better

Average 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

Average of class Smartphone

AndroBench 3-5

-56%

-60%

-3%

-5%

-64%

Sequential Read 256KB

3866.75

3454.01

-11%

1346.78

-65%

1568.37

-59%

3397.4

-12%

3548

The graphics performance of the Immortalis G715 offers enough graphics performance for demanding games like PUBG mobile even at the highest details for smooth playback at a constant 40 fps. The shooter is played constantly at about 60 FPS with the HD graphics setting, the new 90-fps mode is not available due to a frame lock on Vivo’s part – we use GameBench’s app to determine our frame rates.

The full 120 Hz of the OLED panel is generally not supported in our test games. We also measured 60 fps in Armajet, although the arena shooter theoretically allows 144 fps. The open-world action RPG Genshin Impact is even only rendered at 30 fps with the X90 Pro.

The surface temperatures are very low in our measurements. There is hardly any temperature development even under load. However, the X90 Pro shows a moderate performance loss of 20 to 25 percent in the 3DMark stress tests.


26.3 °C 79 F	26.4 °C 80 F	27 °C 81 F
26.5 °C 80 F	26.5 °C 80 F	27 °C 81 F
26.6 °C 80 F	26.7 °C 80 F	26.8 °C 80 F

Maximum: 27 °C = 81 F
Average: 26.6 °C = 80 F


25.8 °C 78 F	25.9 °C 79 F	25.8 °C 78 F
25.8 °C 78 F	25.7 °C 78 F	25.8 °C 78 F
25.6 °C 78 F	25.9 °C 79 F	26 °C 79 F

Maximum: 26 °C = 79 F
Average: 25.8 °C = 78 F

Power Supply (max.) 23.8 °C = 75 F | Room Temperature 21.3 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 26 °C / 79 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	92.7 % ∼100% +25%
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	88.5 % ∼95% +19%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	78.9 % ∼85% +6%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	74.1 % ∼80%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.9 % ∼73% -8%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	87 % ∼100% +6%
Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	81.7 % ∼94%
Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	79.1 % ∼91% -3%
Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	75.6 % ∼87% -7%
OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	% ∼0% -100%

Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø19.9 (18.5-22.6)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø20.6 (17.7-22.4)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø9.93 (8.31-11)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø21.4 (19.4-22.3)

Vivo X90 Pro Immortalis-G715 MP11, Dimensity 9200, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø64.4 (58.3-78.6)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø68.6 (62.7-79.5)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø32.8 (26.2-38.6)

OnePlus 10T Adreno 730, SD 8+ Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø61.8 (59-63.6)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø76.6 (70.7-80)

Xiaomi 13 Adreno 740, SD 8 Gen 2, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø80 (76.5-84.2)

Google Pixel 7 Pro Mali-G710 MP7, Tensor G2, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø36.5 (30.7-39.8)

The stereo speakers reach a high maximum volume of over 92 dB(A) in our test. The sound output is characterized by tones from medium frequencies that could have been a bit more linear. However, a slight bass note is also recognizable. Alternatively, headphones can be connected via the USB-C port or wirelessly via Bluetooth.

When it comes to fast charging, the Vivo smartphone offers wired 120 watts and wireless 50 watts. We cannot verify how long a complete charging process takes since we were provided with a UK version for testing. Interestingly, the battery of the X90 Pro is operated at a high voltage of 7.78 volts, resulting in an equivalent capacity of 4,870 mAh (3.89V).

The Vivo X90 Pro reveals an increased power consumption in idle mode in our measurements.

Vivo X90 Pro
4870 mAh

Xiaomi 13
4500 mAh

Google Pixel 7 Pro
5000 mAh

OnePlus 10T
4800 mAh

Vivo X90 Pro+
4700 mAh

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9200

Average of class Smartphone

Power Consumption

28%

19%

24%

Idle Minimum *

0.9

0.76

16%

0.78

13%

0.8

11%

0.92

-2%

0.9

-0%

0.886

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Geekbench 5.4: Ø8.29 (3.35-15.7)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Geekbench 5.4: Ø6.3 (1.574-11.4)

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø14.8 (12.7-16.8)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø9.77 (9.38-10.2)

Vivo X90 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9200; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø3.29 (3.24-3.38)

Vivo X90 Pro+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.193 (1.109-1.298)

The X90 Pro lasted a good 15 hours in our WLAN test with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m2. This is a good rate, which is only surpassed by the Xiaomi 13 in our comparison.

Pros

+ bright OLED panel

+ fast SoC

+ good workmanship

+ appealing main camera

+ fast charging

Cons

– no frugal LTPO panel

– deteriorations compared to the predecessor

– ultra wide-angle camera is solid at best

– high power consumption

Without the official pricing for Europe, a conclusive assessment of the X90 Pro is difficult. If the Chinese manufacturer’s flagship phone in Europe matches the X80 Pro’s RRP of 1299 Euros, we see a few reasons to buy the predecessor rather than the X90 Pro – especially since a Xiaomi 13 that is better in many areas is much cheaper.

Whether the X90 Pro can hold its own as a flagship for Europe against a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra or Xiaomi 13 Pro is highly doubtful.

Overall, the X90 Pro is a really good smartphone, but the technical deteriorations compared with the predecessor make it a bit of a relegation. Why the successor of the X80 Pro has to accept a downgrade in the ultra-wide-angle camera and zoom lenses, the fingerprint sensor, and the display resolution is incomprehensible. Especially in view of the fact that the X90 Pro is the manufacturer’s European flagship and already has to accept compromises in terms of the SoC compared with the Pro+ model.

If you really want the best of the best from Vivo, you will have to import the actual high-end smartphone X90 Pro+. Besides the Xiaomi 13, we also see the Google Pixel 7 Pro as a suitable and cheaper alternative to the Vivo X90 Pro.

Vivo has announced the international launch of the Vivo X90 Pro, but no concrete details about the price and availability are known at the moment. However, the predecessor had a slightly lower MSRP in China, so we assume that it will be available for less than 1,300 Euros in this country as well. The X90 Pro can already be purchased via import, for example at Trading Shenzhen, starting at around 780 Euros.

Vivo X90 Pro
–
02/21/2023 v7

Marcus Herbrich

Connectivity

67 / 70 → 95%

Games Performance

69 / 64 → 100%

Application Performance

90 / 86 → 100%

Smartphone – Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review.

Pricecompare

I have always been very passionately interested in mobile technologies, especially smartphones. Being a tech enthusiast means the half-life of my devices isn’t exactly long, and being the latest hardware is not enough to suffice as the manufacturer and operating system play a minor role – the most important aspect for me is that the device is state-of-the-art. After posting for Mobi Test I joined Notebookcheck in 2016, where I have been pursuing my enthusiasm for technology by reviewing the latest smartphone, tablet, and accessory trends.

Translator: Ninh Duy – Editorial Assistant – 291532 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2008

My main responsibility as an editorial assistant is maintaining the Library section, which aggregates reviews from other publications and channels. In addition, my daily breakfast is Notebookcheck’s long list of new content, which I comb through to select the most interesting topics for translation from English to French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch.”

Marcus Herbrich, 2023-02-26 (Update: 2023-02-26)