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.

HauptkameraHauptkameraLow LightZoom 5xUltraweitwinkel

click to load images

8 ∆E

4.1 ∆E

6.3 ∆E

8.3 ∆E

2.1 ∆E

2 ∆E

4.5 ∆E

3.5 ∆E

6.7 ∆E

5.7 ∆E

3.7 ∆E

2.8 ∆E

3.8 ∆E

8.8 ∆E

5 ∆E

3.1 ∆E

3 ∆E

7.4 ∆E

4.1 ∆E

1.2 ∆E

1.3 ∆E

4.3 ∆E

4.9 ∆E

7.9 ∆E

ColorChecker Vivo X300: 4.69 ∆E min: 1.2 - max: 8.84 ∆E

24.5 ∆E

39.5 ∆E

31.3 ∆E

30.1 ∆E

33.3 ∆E

47 ∆E

38.3 ∆E

25.7 ∆E

24.1 ∆E

22.6 ∆E

44.3 ∆E

47.1 ∆E

24.5 ∆E

37.6 ∆E

20.5 ∆E

40.2 ∆E

28.4 ∆E

37.4 ∆E

43 ∆E

47.1 ∆E

42.8 ∆E

33.5 ∆E

22.8 ∆E

13.4 ∆E

ColorChecker Vivo X300: 33.29 ∆E min: 13.38 - max: 47.14 ∆E

The LTPO AMOLED panel of the X300 has a very high resolution of 1216p at 446 ppi and supports a variable refresh rate from 1 Hz to 120 Hz. According to Vivo, peak HDR brightness is rated at 4,500 nits, although in our test we reached only 4,072 cd per square metre. Maximum brightness in the more realistic APL18 pattern is also very good at 2,386 cd per square metre.

Vivo equips its compact smartphone with PWM dimming at 2,160 Hz, which we were able to confirm in our measurements. In addition, we measured a base flicker frequency of 360 Hz.

Also pleasing to the eye are the very low average Delta E deviations in the sRGB colour space, which we identified for the X300 in our analysis using a photospectrometer and Calman software.

1537 cd/m²1545 cd/m²1484 cd/m² 1537 cd/m²1537 cd/m²1491 cd/m² 1541 cd/m²1532 cd/m²1499 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 1545 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1522.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.24 cd/m² Brightness Distribution: 96 % Center on Battery: 1537 cd/m² Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²) ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.4 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.78} ΔE Greyscale Calman: 2.1 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5} 99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D) Gamma: 2.28 CCT: 6754 K

| | Vivo X300
AMOLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy S25+
Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Oppo Find X9
AMOLED, 2760x1256, 6.6" | Xiaomi 15T Pro
AMOLED, 2772x1280, 6.8" | Xiaomi 17 Pro Max
AMOLED, 2608x1200, 6.9" | | | –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— | ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————– | ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— | ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–– | | Screen | | -29% | 11% | -13% | -1% | | Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1537 | 1371 -11% | 1132 -26% | 1064 -31% | 1099 -28% | | Brightness (cd/m²) | 1523 | 1370 -10% | 1114 -27% | 1069 -30% | 1067 -30% | | Brightness Distribution (%) | 96 | 96 0% | 97 1% | 99 3% | 95 -1% | | Black Level * (cd/m²) | | | | | | | Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 2.7 -93% | 0.82 41% | 1.3 7% | 1.05 25% | | Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.6 | 4.2 -62% | 1.95 25% | 3.4 -31% | 2.38 8% | | Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 2 5% | 1 52% | 2 5% | 1.7 19% | | Gamma | 2.28 96% | 2.03 108% | 2.244 98% | 2.22 99% | 2.232 99% | | CCT | 6754 96% | 6450 101% | 6546 99% | 6578 99% | 6779 96% |

* ... smaller is better

Display / APL18 Peak Brightness Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

3269 cd/m² +37%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

2695 cd/m² +13%

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

2386 cd/m²

Display / HDR Peak Brightness Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

4072 cd/m²

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

2900 cd/m² -29%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

2868 cd/m² -30%

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 360 Hz Amplitude: 12.85 % Secondary Frequency: 2127 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 360 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 360 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8101 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Min.

25%

50%

75%

100%

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (The amplitude curve at minimum brightness looks flat, but this is due to the scaling. The info box shows the enlarged version of the amplitude at minimum brightness)

Colour accuracy (profile: natural, target colour space: sRGB)

Colour space (profile: natural, target colour space: sRGB)

Greyscale (profile: natural, target colour space: sRGB)

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 0.77 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.4105 ms rise ↘ 0.3565 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.2 ms). ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey 0.75 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.384 ms rise ↘ 0.3635 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 0.165 (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 (31.6 ms).

Although the Vivo X300 delivers slightly weaker scores in Geekbench than the Oppo Find X9, the upper-class smartphone still offers true flagship performance thanks to its MediaTek Dimensity 9500. In everyday use, the system runs without delays and feels very smooth.

The X300 performs extremely well in the graphics tests of the GFXBench benchmark. With frame rates of over 60 fps, the Mali-G1 Ultra reaches top values. However, the 3DMark stress tests also reveal significant throttling. In these scenarios, the Vivo smartphone sometimes reduces its performance by more than 50 percent.

While the battery capacity is only 5,360 mAh, the X300 still achieves very long runtimes in our battery test. The device can be charged either via USB-C at up to 90 watts or wirelessly at 40 watts. Wired charging takes just under an hour to fully recharge the battery.

Geekbench 6.5 Single-Core Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

3640 Points +7%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (3397 - 3635, n=5)

3523 Points +4%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

3508 Points +3%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

3397 Points

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

3136 Points -8%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

2624 Points -23%

Average of class Smartphone (196 - 3883, n=212, last 2 years)

1773 Points -48%

Multi-Core Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

10620 Points +6%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (9998 - 10941, n=5)

10467 Points +5%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

10405 Points +4%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

10029 Points 0%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

9998 Points

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

7749 Points -22%

Average of class Smartphone (830 - 11634, n=212, last 2 years)

5184 Points -48%

3DMark Wild Life Score Average of class Smartphone (270 - 13896, n=95, last 2 years)

2925 Points

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

Points

Wild Life Unlimited Score Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

26616 Points +1%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

26476 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (25978 - 26944, n=4)

26447 Points 0%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

26389 Points 0%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

23088 Points -13%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

22436 Points -15%

Average of class Smartphone (271 - 30621, n=196, last 2 years)

11366 Points -57%

Wild Life Extreme Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

7089 Points

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

7029 Points -1%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (6251 - 7582, n=4)

7022 Points -1%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

6289 Points -11%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

6251 Points -12%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

5706 Points -20%

Average of class Smartphone (61 - 8140, n=198, last 2 years)

3006 Points -58%

Wild Life Extreme Unlimited Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

7101 Points

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

6885 Points -3%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (4678 - 7629, n=4)

6652 Points -6%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

6168 Points -13%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

5824 Points -18%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

4678 Points -34%

Average of class Smartphone (62 - 8004, n=197, last 2 years)

2985 Points -58%

GFXBench on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

120 fps 0%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

120 fps

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

116 fps -3%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

107 fps -11%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (60 - 120, n=4)

90.3 fps -25%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

61 fps -49%

Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 166, n=209, last 2 years)

60.2 fps -50%

1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

361 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (211 - 367, n=4)

307 fps -15%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

286 fps -21%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

211 fps -42%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

203 fps -44%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

201 fps -44%

Average of class Smartphone (3.4 - 367, n=209, last 2 years)

118.9 fps -67%

on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

120 fps 0%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

120 fps

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

100 fps -17%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (60 - 121, n=4)

90.5 fps -25%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

86 fps -28%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

61 fps -49%

Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=210, last 2 years)

48.2 fps -60%

2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

146 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (72 - 146, n=4)

111.8 fps -23%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

107 fps -27%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

80 fps -45%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

72 fps -51%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

65 fps -55%

Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 146, n=209, last 2 years)

45.9 fps -69%

3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

61 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (41 - 62, n=4)

53 fps -13%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

52 fps -15%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

41 fps -33%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

38 fps -38%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

35 fps -43%

Average of class Smartphone (0.54 - 62, n=210, last 2 years)

21.4 fps -65%

Geekbench AI Single Precision NPU 1.5 Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

1042 Points +70%

Average of class Smartphone (80 - 5210, n=60, last 2 years)

790 Points +29%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

612 Points

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

524 Points -14%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (190 - 733, n=4)

432 Points -29%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

190 Points -69%

Half Precision NPU 1.5 Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

8818 Points +1320%

Average of class Smartphone (80 - 36297, n=60, last 2 years)

3411 Points +449%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

621 Points

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

486 Points -22%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (176 - 718, n=4)

424 Points -32%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

180 Points -71%

Quantized NPU 1.5 Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

12177 Points +764%

Average of class Smartphone (133 - 49889, n=60, last 2 years)

4934 Points +250%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

1409 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (432 - 1631, n=4)

977 Points -31%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

974 Points -31%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

432 Points -69%

BaseMark OS II - Overall Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

13223 Points +14%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

12929 Points +12%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

11566 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (10620 - 11566, n=4)

10922 Points -6%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

10744 Points -7%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

7887 Points -32%

Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 16690, n=149, last 2 years)

7738 Points -33%

Antutu v10 - Total Score Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (2755585 - 3095982, n=4)

2922542 Points +6%

Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

2857236 Points +4%

Vivo X300 MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288

2755585 Points

Xiaomi 15T Pro Mediatek Dimensity 9400+, Immortalis-G925 MC12, 12288

2483050 Points -10%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384

2390211 Points -13%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy, Adreno 830, 12288

2271821 Points -18%

Average of class Smartphone (142748 - 3269237, n=152, last 2 years)

1504892 Points -45%

| | Vivo X300 | Samsung Galaxy S25+ | Oppo Find X9 | Xiaomi 15T Pro | Xiaomi 17 Pro Max | Average 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | | | ———————————————————————————————————————–– | ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————— | –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— | —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–– | —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–– | | AndroBench 3-5 | | 27% | -10% | 21% | 60% | 24% | -15% | | Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 2056.87 | 4057.35 97% | 3232.3 57% | 3219.93 57% | 3971.4 93% | 3246 ?(2057 - 3899, n=3)58% | 2228 ?(270 - 4370, n=196, last 2 years)8% | | Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1997.76 | 3311.02 66% | 1565.8 -22% | 3593.03 80% | 3899.9 95% | 2829 ?(1998 - 3391, n=3)42% | 1852 ?(103.2 - 4051, n=196, last 2 years)-7% | | Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 332.61 | 294.51 -11% | 335.7 1% | 426.1 28% | 548.4 65% | 368 ?(325 - 446, n=3)11% | 296 ?(47.6 - 576, n=196, last 2 years)-11% | | Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 654.09 | 351.16 -46% | 172.6 -74% | 110.46 -83% | 561.3 -14% | 556 ?(348 - 667, n=3)-15% | 339 ?(9.4 - 987, n=196, last 2 years)-48% |

46 °C 115 F46.4 °C 116 F43.5 °C 110 F 46.6 °C 116 F46.6 °C 116 F42.6 °C 109 F 46.2 °C 115 F45 °C 113 F42.4 °C 108 F Maximum: 46.6 °C = 116 F Average: 45 °C = 113 F

42 °C 108 F44.1 °C 111 F44.8 °C 113 F 41 °C 106 F44.1 °C 111 F45.8 °C 114 F 41.2 °C 106 F45.3 °C 114 F44.8 °C 113 F Maximum: 45.8 °C = 114 F Average: 43.7 °C = 111 F

Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 45 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone. (-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.6 °C / 116 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone. (-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.8 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F (+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.3 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test Stability Oppo Find X9 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

89.3 % +52%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

70.9 % +20%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

60.3 % +2%

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

58.9 %

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

53.4 % -9%

Wild Life Extreme Stress Test Oppo Find X9 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

74.3 % +59%

Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

73.3 % +57%

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

65.2 % +40%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

51.3 % +10%

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

46.7 %

Solar Bay Stress Test Stability Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

77 %

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

69.7 %

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

58.9 %

Oppo Find X9 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

49.3 %

Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability Xiaomi 15T Pro Immortalis-G925 MC12, Dimensity 9400+, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash

68.5 % +12%

Samsung Galaxy S25+ Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash

66.5 % +9%

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

60.9 %

Oppo Find X9 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash

49.7 % -18%

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.14.3: Ø25.4 (19.9-42.7)

Xiaomi 17 Pro Max Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 1TB UFS 4.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø27.7 (24.7-37.8)

Vivo X300 Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø87.4 (78-132.5)

[Xiaomi 17 Pro Max](https://www.notebookcheck.net/Xiaomi-17-Pro-Max-smartphone-review-Does-the-giant-phone-