As with the Pro model, Vivo has taken a noticeable step forward with the X300 Ultra’s cameras compared to the previous generation. However, the X300 Ultra only just manages to replace our previous top camera rating, the X300 Pro.
The color reproduction of the otherwise excellent camera setup shows surprisingly large weaknesses despite the new color sensor.
Photo and video enthusiasts will still get their money’s worth with the Vivo flagship.
The uncompromising equipment with three extra-large image sensors seems to have come at a price due to the DRAM crisis. Some compromises in the Ultra model can be seen in several areas, be it the speakers or the omission of the dedicated camera button.
The Vivo X300 Ultra does not appear to be optimally positioned in terms of cooling due to the high heat emissions and pronounced throttling.
Despite our criticisms, the flagship from Vivo is a great smartphone and on par with the high-end competition. But apart from the cameras, it is at times a shade worse than the Find X9 Ultra or the Galaxy S26 Ultra.
Update May 15, 2026: Vivo has released an update that improves the camera’s color reproduction and power management oft he device. We have updated our review accordingly. Read all details in this article.
Pros
+ great LTPO OLED panel
+ strong camera setup
+ large battery and fast charging
+ long battery run times
+ powerful SoC
Cons
– poor camera color accuracy
– mediocre speakers
– high heat emissions and SoC throttling
– high idle power consumption
The RRP for the only storage option of the Vivo X300 Ultra planned in Europe with 16 GB RAM and 1 TB storage is a hefty €1,999.
We received an import model from Trading Shenzhen with 512 GB storage for less than €1,000.
- $1,799.00
vivo X300 Ultra 5G Unlocked Smartphone|16GB+1TB | China Version |Full GOOG Service| Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5| 200MP Z EISS Main Camera| 6.82″ 144Hz 2K AMOLED Display| 6600mAh Battery+100W Fast Charge
- $1,649.00
vivo X300 Ultra 5G Unlocked Smartphone | China Version | 16GB+512GB | Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 | 200MP 35mm Z EISS Main Camera | 6.82″ 144Hz 2K AMOLED Display | 6600mAh Battery+100W Fast Charge
- $1,449.00
MegTel vivo X300 Ultra 5G Unlocked Smartphone| China Version| 12GB+256GB| Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5| 200MP 35mm Z EISS Main Camera| 6.82″ 144Hz 2K AMOLED Display| 6600mAh Battery+100W Fast Charge
Display
6.82 inch 19.8:9, 3168 x 1440 pixel 510 PPI, capacitive Touchscreen, LTPO OLED, Armor glass, HDR, 144 Hz
Storage
512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash, 512 GB
, 452 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, OTG, Miracast, Walkie-Talkie-Funktion
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz be = Wi-Fi 7), Bluetooth 6.0, 2G (850/900/1800/1900), 3G (B1/B2/B4/B5/B6/B8/B19), 4G (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B13/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28/B32/B34/B38/B39/B40/B41/B42/B43/B48/B66/B71), 5G (n1/n2/n3/n5/n7/n8/n12/n20/n25/n28/n38/n40/n41/n66/n71/n75/n77/n78/n79), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.2 x 163 x 76.8 ( = 0.32 x 6.42 x 3.02 in)
Battery
6600 mAh Silicon-Carbon, 100W (Vivo FlashCharge), 40W (Vivo Wireless FlashCharge)
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 16
Camera
Primary Camera: 200 MPix (f/1.9, 35 mm, 1/1.12″, OIS) + 200 MPix (f/2.7, 85 mm, tele, 1/1.4″, OIS, 3.7x optical, macro) + 50 MPix (f/2.0, 14 mm, ultrawide, 1/1.28″, OIS)
Secondary Camera: 50 MPix (f/2.5, 24mm, 1/2.76″, AF)
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, USB cable, info material, case, charger (China), OriginOS, 24 Months Warranty, SAR-Wert: 0.99W/kg head, 1.29W/kg body | IP68/69 | GPS (L1/L5), GLONASS, BeiDou (B1I/B1C/B2a/B2b), Galileo (E1/E5a/E5b), QZSS (L1/L5), NavIC (L1/L5), fanless, waterproof
Weight
232 g ( = 8.18 oz / 0.51 pounds)
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
ⓘ Vivo
The Vivo X300 Ultra offers IP69 and IP68 certification similar to other flagship devices in its class like the Xiaomi 17 Ultra.
At 8.2 mm, our Black variant is slightly thinner and, at 232 g, slightly lighter than the other color options, but the Vivo flagship is still not handy. All versions of the flagship phone have an efficient screen-to-body ratio of 90.3% in common.
The frame is made of matte aluminum, while the front and back are covered by the company’s own Armor Glass. The powerful camera module on the back makes the X300 Ultra look a little top-heavy, but we don’t find this annoying in practical use.
{element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_347583’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_351327’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_351327’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_351346’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_351346’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_353481’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_353481’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_353472’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_353472’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_a6’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_a6’).checked = false;return false;” title=”hide all”>❌
The variant available in Europe comes with fast UFS 4.1 memory and LPDDR5X Ultra Pro RAM, while the smaller memory options available in China (256 GB, 512 GB) are offered with the LPDDR5X Ultra standard.
The USB port of the X300 Ultra supports the fast 3.2 standard including image output and OTG support. An NFC chip and an infrared blaster are also integrated.
The Vivo phone does not come with ultra-wideband wireless technology.
Vivo relies on its own OriginOS for its X300 Ultra, which is based on Android 16 at the time of testing and supports a variety of languages, including German, in the Chinese version.
According to the manufacturer, Android updates will be available for five years and security patches will be updated for seven years.
Interestingly, Vivo also advertises this update guarantee for China, which is rather unusual there.
The Vivo X300 Ultra comes in outer packaging with no visible plastic, but the box is shrink-wrapped. No information on sustainability has yet been provided.
Whether from China or Europe, the X300 Ultra has a wide range of frequencies for all mobile phone standards. However, if you want to use an eSIM, you have to use the global model.
In addition, Bluetooth 6.0 is only supported by the global version on the software side; for regulatory reasons, only version 5.4 is included in the China version.
Modern Wi-Fi 7 is available for the WLAN, including the fast 6 GHz band. In the test, we achieved a very high transmission speed of nearly 2,000 Mbps at the peak.
| Networking | |
| Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be |
|
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1458 (min: 1179) MBit/s ∼38% |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1829 (min: 1562) MBit/s ∼50% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
946 (min: 475) MBit/s ∼99% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
927 (min: 879) MBit/s ∼58% |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
1844 (min: 911) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
1619 (min: 1324) MBit/s ∼95% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
959 (min: 636) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
1595 (min: 953) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
922 (min: 721) MBit/s ∼50% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
1697 (min: 1513) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
3811 (min: 1912) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
3665 (min: 2916) MBit/s ∼100% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
644 (min: 520) MBit/s ∼67% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
1561 (min: 1441) MBit/s ∼98% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
932 (min: 738) MBit/s ∼97% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
1461 (min: 1265) MBit/s ∼92% |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
956 (min: 595) MBit/s ∼100% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
1040 (min: 459) MBit/s ∼65% |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
1289 (min: 508) MBit/s ∼70% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
1507 (min: 719) MBit/s ∼89% |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1488 (min: 1354) MBit/s ∼39% |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1746 (min: 1411) MBit/s ∼48% |
| Average of class Smartphone |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
662 (min: 52.5) MBit/s ∼69% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
696 (min: 52.2) MBit/s ∼44% |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
1238 (min: 287) MBit/s ∼67% |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
1402 (min: 339) MBit/s ∼83% |
| iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1409 (min: 341) MBit/s ∼37% |
| iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7 |
1616 (min: 343) MBit/s ∼44% |
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1813 (911-1876) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz: Ø922 (721-1081) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1618 (1324-1681) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz: Ø1697 (1513-1771) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø930 (475-968) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit AXE11000: Ø959 (636-1165) MBit/s
Vivo X200 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000: Ø644 (520-871) MBit/s
Oppo Find X9 Pro 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø932 (738-1248) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø925 (879-939) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive AXE11000: Ø1595 (953-1768) MBit/s
Vivo X200 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000: Ø1561 (1441-1609) MBit/s
Oppo Find X9 Pro 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1461 (1265-1701) MBit/s
Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7: Ø1458 (1179-1553) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit RT-BE96U WiFi7; iperf 3.1.3: Ø3748 (1912-3963) MBit/s
Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7: Ø1829 (1562-1984) MBit/s
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive RT-BE96U WiFi7; iperf 3.1.3: Ø3665 (2916-3973) MBit/s
Tri-band connectivity is available for satellite positioning. On a short bike ride, we compare the Vivo X300 Ultra with a Garmin Venu 2, where the X300 Ultra hardly shows any significant inaccuracies and is ideally suited for navigation tasks.
The Vivo phone supports dual SIM with two nano SIMs. The global version also supports two eSIMs, which can be used in combination with a physical SIM card.
Similar to the Xiaomi 15T, Vivo is equipping its X300 Ultra with a walkie-talkie function. This makes it possible to make phone calls or exchange messages with other compatible Vivo devices via a long-range Bluetooth connection without a cellular service.
The collaboration with Zeiss naturally comes into play again with the X300 Ultra. The Vivo phone’s camera hardware is first-class for a smartphone.
All three cameras offer a large sensor, starting with the 1/1.12-inch format for the Sony LYT-901 main camera, 1/1.28-inch for the Sony LYT-818 ultra-wide angle, and 1/1.4-inch for the ISOCELL HP0 telephoto sensor.
For comparison, the main camera of an iPhone 17 with 1/1.55-inch sensor is significantly smaller than the smallest sensor of the X300 Ultra.
The 12 MP photos with the new 200 MP main camera of the Vivo phone are appealing, and we really like the focusing and image sharpness. A new pixel binning standard is also on board that results in 25 MP shots for more details.
Low-light motifs also benefit from the best photo algorithm currently available for smartphones and the improved in-house image chip VS1+.
In contrast to the Apple iPhone 17 Pro, the Vivo X300 Ultra uses a significantly longer focal length of 35 mm, which makes perfect sense, as the ultra-wide angle also delivers very convincing results and can pass as the main camera in terms of quality.
The same applies to zooming with the new 200 MP camera with 3.7x optical magnification. Compared to the X200 Ultra a smaller aperture is required, but thanks to the high resolution and sensor cropping, even photos taken at 10x are very detailed and hardly over-sharpened.
Does this mean Vivo has achieved the best possible setup in a smartphone? Unfortunately, not.
The new color-sensing camera of the Vivo X300 Ultra with its 12 color channels is not yet convincing. It is supposed to make more natural colors possible, but our measured deviations are very high and the brightening of the colors is pronounced for a high-end smartphone.
Update, May 15: A new color accuracy measurement taken after the update now shows significantly lower values.
Image comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Main cameraMain cameraLow lightUltra-wide angle
click to load images
7.4 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
6 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
9 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
7 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
13 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
The scope of delivery includes a USB cable, a protective cover, and a 100 W power adapter for the Chinese version. Trading Shenzhen also includes an EU adapter for the sockets used in this country.
Vivo is again offering a photography kit including a Zeiss teleconverter lens as an option for its flagship for around €490.
The warranty period is 12 months as an import. In the case of our test device from Trading Shenzhen, it is also possible to send the Vivo phone to a German shipping address in the event of a warranty claim.
Inputs via the touchscreen are implemented quickly and the vibration motor also provides first-class feedback.
Thanks to the 3D ultrasonic sensor, fingerprints are recognized quickly and highly reliably.
The Vivo phone’s 6.82-inch OLED display has a high 1,440p resolution and works with a 1 Hz to 144 Hz variable refresh rate.
We did not quite reach the advertised peak brightness of 4,500 nits in our measurement but came very close with HDR content.
In terms of eye protection, the X300 Ultra works with a high-frequency PWM dimming of up to 2,160 Hz at refresh rates of 1-120 Hz and up to 2,592 Hz at 144 Hz. However, the basic flicker is quite low at 110 Hz.
| 1522 cd/m² |
1534 cd/m² |
1555 cd/m² |
||
| 1524 cd/m² |
1568 cd/m² |
1552 cd/m² |
||
| 1533 cd/m² |
1502 cd/m² |
1526 cd/m² |
||
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 1568 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1535.1 cd/m² Minimum: 0.98 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 1568 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.23 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.68}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1.9 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.93}
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.251
CCT: 6552 K
| Vivo X300 Ultra LTPO OLED, 3168×1440, 6.8″ |
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3120×1440, 6.9″ |
Xiaomi 17 Ultra AMOLED, 2608×1200, 6.9″ |
Vivo X200 Ultra AMOLED, 3168×1440, 6.8″ |
Oppo Find X9 Pro LTPO AMOLED, 2772×1272, 6.8″ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen |
-23% |
3% |
4% |
2% |
|
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) |
1568 |
1339 -15% |
1303 -17% |
1286 -18% |
1105 -30% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) |
1535 |
1381 -10% |
1300 -15% |
1238 -19% |
1084 -29% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) |
96 |
94 -2% |
98 2% |
93 -3% |
95 -1% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * |
1.23 |
2.5 -103% |
1.12 9% |
1.04 15% |
1.02 17% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * |
3.22 |
3.8 -18% |
2.25 30% |
2.26 30% |
2.32 28% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * |
1.9 |
1.7 11% |
1.7 11% |
1.6 16% |
1.4 26% |
| Gamma |
2.251 98% |
2.05 107% |
2.242 98% |
2.249 98% |
2.244 98% |
| CCT |
6552 99% |
6498 100% |
6404 101% |
6575 99% |
6411 101% |
* … smaller is better
| Display / APL18 Peak Brightness | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
|
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
|
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
|
| Display / HDR Peak Brightness | |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
|
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
|
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
|
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 | 110 Hz |
 |
|
|
The display backlight flickers at 110 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 110 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7572 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
|||
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)
Our color analysis with the Xrite spectrometer and the Calman Ultimate analysis software from Portrait Displays shows slight deviations for the OLED screen of the Vivo phone.
We achieve the best result in the “Professional” color mode.
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0.9 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.5 ms rise |
 |
| ↘ 0.4 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. » 3 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.6 ms). |
||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 1.2 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.6 ms rise |
 |
| ↘ 0.6 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 0.13 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (30.7 ms). |
||
| Geekbench 6.7 | |
| Single-Core | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
3759 Points +9% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
3722 Points +8% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (3462 – 3831, n=24) |
3628 Points +5% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
3511 Points +1% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
3462 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
2976 Points -14% |
| Average of class Smartphone (196 – 4733, n=184, last 2 years) |
1868 Points -46% |
| Multi-Core | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
11411 Points +6% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
11337 Points +6% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9631 – 12383, n=24) |
10941 Points +2% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
10733 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
10378 Points -3% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
9284 Points -14% |
| Average of class Smartphone (830 – 12854, n=184, last 2 years) |
5664 Points -47% |
| PCMark for Android – Work 3.x | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9790 – 28557, n=14) |
19508 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
19499 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
18697 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
15938 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (4507 – 28557, n=127, last 2 years) |
14934 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
13977 Points |
| CrossMark – Overall | |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
2576 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
2543 Points -1% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (1698 – 2856, n=19) |
2322 Points -10% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
2162 Points -16% |
| Average of class Smartphone (376 – 2856, n=107, last 2 years) |
1225 Points -52% |
| BaseMark OS II | |
| Overall | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
14611 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (5640 – 16690, n=17) |
13071 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
11953 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
10756 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
8155 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (1885 – 16690, n=113, last 2 years) |
7895 Points |
| System | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
20567 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
17435 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9356 – 21153, n=17) |
17161 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
15554 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (4117 – 21153, n=113, last 2 years) |
11466 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
10953 Points |
| Memory | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
18561 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (5531 – 24052, n=17) |
15939 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
10780 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (2760 – 24052, n=113, last 2 years) |
9319 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
8243 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
7081 Points |
| Graphics | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
384996 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
51642 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9859 – 62351, n=17) |
51022 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
48863 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
47299 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (1046 – 61797, n=113, last 2 years) |
24488 Points |
| Web | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
2358 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
2297 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (1561 – 2587, n=17) |
2197 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
2109 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (1062 – 2587, n=113, last 2 years) |
1731 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
1477 Points |
| UL Procyon AI Inference for Android – Overall Score NNAPI | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
25289 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
24002 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
21543 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (10671 – 24487, n=13) |
20981 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (2895 – 66164, n=99, last 2 years) |
18733 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
16866 Points |
| AImark – Score v3.x | |
| Average of class Smartphone (293 – 231543, n=66, last 2 years) |
9395 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
2076 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384 |
2043 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
1878 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (774 – 2381, n=7) |
1683 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
Points |
| Geekbench AI | |
| Single Precision NPU 1.7 | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
768 Points +8% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
711 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
704 Points -1% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (471 – 843, n=23) |
639 Points -10% |
| Average of class Smartphone (80 – 6997, n=135, last 2 years) |
539 Points -24% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
192 Points -73% |
| Half Precision NPU 1.7 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (80 – 55067, n=135, last 2 years) |
1756 Points +148% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
757 Points +7% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
709 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
679 Points -4% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (471 – 843, n=23) |
624 Points -12% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
176 Points -75% |
| Quantized NPU 1.7 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (124 – 71367, n=135, last 2 years) |
2663 Points +64% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
1769 Points +9% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
1622 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
1530 Points -6% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (974 – 1987, n=23) |
1446 Points -11% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
436 Points -73% |
| AI Benchmark – Score V6 | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384 |
21143 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288 |
21071 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (1098 – 22780, n=12) |
18588 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (55.6 – 22780, n=78, last 2 years) |
6287 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384 |
765 Points |
The GPU benchmarks show a similar picture. The Adreno 840 in the X300 Ultra works with the handbrake somewhat applied, although over 120 fps in GFXBench high-tier tests should easily be sufficient for high-frame rate gaming.
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
8053 Points +8% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7432 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7198 Points -3% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7087 Points -5% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
6743 Points -9% |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
7735 Points +4% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7452 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7167 Points -4% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
7098 Points -5% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
6722 Points -10% |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
30624 Points +2% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
30187 Points +1% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
29984 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
25978 Points -13% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
25127 Points -16% |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
14788 Points +9% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
14321 Points +6% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
13542 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
12911 Points -5% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
12239 Points -10% |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Unlimited Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
14635 Points +8% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
14525 Points +7% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
13589 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
12895 Points -5% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
12227 Points -10% |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Unlimited Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
3198 Points +8% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
3088 Points +5% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
2954 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
2823 Points -4% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
2571 Points -13% |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
3211 Points +6% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
3084 Points +2% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
3032 Points |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
2796 Points -8% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
2589 Points -15% |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
954 fps +25% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
813 fps +6% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
788 fps +3% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
764 fps |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
711 fps -7% |
| GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
606 fps +41% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
489 fps +13% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
487 fps +13% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
431 fps |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
429 fps 0% |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
385 fps +7% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
369 fps +2% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
361 fps |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
344 fps -5% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
288 fps -20% |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
106 fps -12% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen | |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
217 fps |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
216 fps 0% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
214 fps -1% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
201 fps -7% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
199 fps -8% |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
109 fps -9% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
92 fps -23% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
129 fps |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
127 fps -2% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
119 fps -8% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
118 fps -9% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
109 fps -16% |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
120 fps |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60 fps -50% |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
355 fps +5% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
338 fps |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
332 fps -2% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
322 fps -5% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
287 fps -15% |
| GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
59 fps +13% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
55 fps +6% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
52 fps 0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
52 fps |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
48 fps -8% |
| Speedometer 3 – Score 3.0 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Chrome 146) |
45.5 runs/min |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra (Chrome 143) |
31.4 runs/min |
| Vivo X200 Ultra (Chrome 137) |
22.6 runs/min |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (14.4 – 31.4, n=7) |
21.5 runs/min |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) |
17.9 runs/min |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.06 – 56.5, n=80, last 2 years) |
14.3 runs/min |
| WebXPRT 4 – Overall | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra (Chrome 143) |
262 Points |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (102 – 278, n=10) |
169.7 Points |
| Vivo X200 Ultra (Chrome 137) |
150 Points |
| Average of class Smartphone (56 – 278, n=89, last 2 years) |
132.8 Points |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) |
129 Points |
| Octane V2 – Total Score | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra (Chrome 143) |
118347 Points +4% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra (Chrome 147) |
114123 Points |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Chrome 146) |
105762 Points -7% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra (Chrome 137) |
91563 Points -20% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (39303 – 126661, n=16) |
79121 Points -31% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) |
74649 Points -35% |
| Average of class Smartphone (6015 – 160221, n=129, last 2 years) |
51046 Points -55% |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 – Total | |
| Average of class Smartphone (216 – 2718, n=118, last 2 years) |
864 ms * -193% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) |
503.8 ms * -71% |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (284 – 1014, n=20) |
494 ms * -67% |
| Vivo X200 Ultra |
417.65 ms * -41% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra (Chrome 143) |
295.6 ms * -0% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra (Chrome 147) |
295.2 ms * |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Chrome 146) |
283.6 ms * +4% |
* … smaller is better
| Vivo X300 Ultra | Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra | Xiaomi 17 Ultra | Vivo X200 Ultra | Oppo Find X9 Pro | Average 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 |
3% |
46% |
20% |
-17% |
24% |
-17% |
|
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) |
2143.53 |
3626.09 69% |
3987.92 86% |
3358.64 57% |
3219.8 50% |
3616 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(1440 – 4366, n=50) 69% |
2279 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(270 – 4370, n=176, last 2 years) 6% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) |
2352.64 |
1658.91 -29% |
3974.23 69% |
2998.87 27% |
1239.76 -47% |
3225 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(339 – 4118, n=50) 37% |
1980 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(152.2 – 4113, n=176, last 2 years) -16% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) |
365.12 |
513.44 41% |
547.56 50% |
462.41 27% |
367.54 1% |
414 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(279 – 614, n=50) 13% |
319 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(47.6 – 614, n=176, last 2 years) -13% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) |
661.37 |
207.16 -69% |
524.05 -21% |
459.33 -31% |
176.98 -73% |
498 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(48.2 – 1071, n=50) -25% |
366 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(13.1 – 1071, n=176, last 2 years) -45% |
The surface temperatures of the X300 Ultra rise sharply under load to a level that can become quite uncomfortable.
The waste heat also seems to be problematic on the inside, as the Vivo smartphone’s consistency is not particularly high in the 3DMark stress tests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 54.8 °C = 131 F Average: 53 °C = 127 F |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum: 51.3 °C = 124 F Average: 47.5 °C = 118 F |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Power Supply (max.) 44.2 °C = 112 F | Room Temperature 21 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 53 °C / 127 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 54.8 °C / 131 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 51.3 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.8 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
99.6 % +64% |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
67.4 % +11% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60.8 % |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
59.9 % -1% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
51.4 % -15% |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
73 % +21% |
| Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
60.4 % |
| Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash |
57.8 % -4% |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash |
54 % -11% |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash |
38.7 % -36% |
Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.14.3: Ø31.2 (25.6-42.4) %
Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.4.1: Ø33 (23.2-40.1) %
Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø110.7 (91.8-151.1) %
Vivo X200 Ultra Adreno 830, SD 8 Elite, 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø118.9 (85.9-143.5) %
The stereo speakers provide a decent sound output. The sound is characterized by mid and high frequencies, although our measurements show a dip in the super tweeters. Bass is barely perceptible.
| Vivo X300 Ultra 6600 mAh |
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 5000 mAh |
Xiaomi 17 Ultra 6800 mAh |
Vivo X200 Ultra 6000 mAh |
Oppo Find X9 Pro 7500 mAh |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 |
Average of class Smartphone |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption |
-24% |
-6% |
-124% |
5% |
-18% |
-17% |
|
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) |
0.57 |
0.56 2% |
0.8 -40% |
1.6 -181% |
0.6 -5% |
0.882 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.52 – 1.4, n=18) -55% |
0.903 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.39 – 1.7, n=138, last 2 years) -58% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) |
1.1 |
1.18 -7% |
1.1 -0% |
2.9 -164% |
1 9% |
1.373 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.74 – 2.28, n=18) -25% |
1.477 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.7 – 4.36, n=138, last 2 years) -34% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) |
1.26 |
1.33 -6% |
1.2 5% |
3.7 -194% |
1.3 -3% |
1.586 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.75 – 2.34, n=18) -26% |
1.679 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(0.75 – 4.46, n=138, last 2 years) -33% |
| Load Average * (Watt) |
8.6 |
14.91 -73% |
6.1 29% |
10.6 -23% |
6.9 20% |
8.01 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(4.2 – 12, n=14) 7% |
6.64 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(2.9 – 14.9, n=90, last 2 years) 23% |
| Load Maximum * (Watt) |
12.4 |
16.58 -34% |
15.3 -23% |
19.5 -57% |
11.9 4% |
11.4 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(6.97 – 15.3, n=14) 8% |
10.5 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(4.5 – 22, n=90, last 2 years) 15% |
* … smaller is better
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø11.2 (8.59-12.4) Watt
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø9.66 (1.309-16.6) Watt
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø4.86 (4.54-5.27) Watt
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.853 (0.784-1.211) Watt
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø12.3 (12.2-12.4) Watt
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø12.9 (3.12-16.7) Watt
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø4.86 (4.54-5.27) Watt
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.853 (0.784-1.211) Watt
The X300 Ultra performs convincingly with good run times in our WLAN battery test at an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m².
However, the phone is a long way off from the endurance of a Find X9 Pro with a 7,500 mAh battery.
Battery Runtime
| WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 147) | 22h 59min | |
The Vivo X300 Ultra offers photo and video enthusiasts one of the best, rather possibly the best camera package in a 2026 smartphone.
Vivo X300 Ultra – 05/15/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich
Connectivity
67 / 69 → 97%
Games Performance
45 / 55 → 81%
Application Performance
95 / 85 → 100%
Smartphone – Weighted Average
CO2 Emissions
No Data
Materials
45%
Packaging
80%
Power Use
92.5%
Repairability
40%
Software Updates
89%
Total Sustainability Score: 57.8%
|
Image |
Model / Review |
Price |
Weight |
Drive |
Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. 89.1%
|
Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x |
List Price: 1999€ | 232 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.82″ 3168×1440 510 PPI LTPO OLED |
|
2. 89.8%
|
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x |
List Price: 1449€ | 214 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.90″ 3120×1440 498 PPI Dynamic AMOLED 2X |
|
3. 90.4%
|
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x |
Amazon: 1. $1,290.00 XIAOMI 17 Ultra Ai 5G (Compa… 2. $1,177.64 XIAOMI 17 Ultra Ai 5G (Compa… 3. $1,275.00 XIAOMI 17 Ultra Ai 5G (Compa… List Price: 950€ |
224 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.90″ 2608×1200 416 PPI AMOLED |
|
4. 88.3%
|
Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 830 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 1024 GB UFS 4.x |
Amazon: 1. $1,033.31 Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, Un… 2. $1,049.00 OnePlus 15, 16GB RAM + 512GB… 3. $757.27 Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, 25… List Price: 890€ |
229 g | 1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.82″ 3168×1440 510 PPI AMOLED |
|
5. 87.7%
|
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x |
Amazon: 1. $1,909.00 OPPO Find X9 Pro Dual-SIM 51… 2. $1,949.00 OPPO Find X9 Ultra Dual-SIM … 3. $1,049.00 OnePlus 15, 16GB RAM + 512GB… List Price: 1299€ |
224 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.78″ 2772×1272 450 PPI LTPO AMOLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this 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. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
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 Ngoc Duy – Editorial Assistant – 876407 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, 2026-05-12 (Update: 2026-10- 5)
