vivo X300 Ultra 评测：2026 年最佳拍照智能手机，但缺点也出奇地多

Name: Vivo X300 Ultra
Brand: Vivo

用于打电话的蔡司摄像头。

vivo X300 Ultra 是 2026 年最好的高端拍照智能手机之一，甚至比 X300 Pro 更进一步。不过，我们的评测也揭示了这款著名的Galaxy S26 Ultra 替代品的一些意想不到的弱点。
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy) Published 05/12/2026 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
5G Android Smartphone Wi-Fi 7

关于 vivo X300 Ultra 的评价

与 Pro 机型一样，vivo X300 Ultra 的摄像头也比上一代产品有了明显的进步。不过，X300 Ultra 只能勉强取代上一代的顶级相机 X300 Pro。

尽管采用了新的色彩传感器，但原本出色的相机设置在色彩还原方面却表现出了令人惊讶的缺陷。

但这款 vivo 旗舰机型仍能让照片和视频爱好者物有所值。

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Test device courtesy of TradingShenzhen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

由于 DRAM 危机的影响，配备三个超大图像传感器的这款毫不妥协的设备似乎也付出了代价。Ultra 机型在多个方面都有所妥协，无论是扬声器还是专用拍照按键的缺失。

vivo X300 Ultra 在散热方面的定位似乎并不理想，因为发热量较大，而且有明显的节流现象。

尽管我们提出了一些批评意见，但 vivo 的这款旗舰手机仍然是一款出色的智能手机，与高端竞争产品不相上下。但除了摄像头外，它有时比 Find X9 Ultra 或Galaxy S26 Ultra 还差一些。

Pros

+ 出色的 LTPO OLED 面板

+ 强大的摄像头配置

+ 大容量电池和快速充电

+ 电池运行时间长

+ 强大的 SoC

Cons

- 摄像头色彩准确度差

- 扬声器效果一般

- 高发热量和系统芯片节流

- 闲置功耗高

vivo X300 Ultra 的定价和上市时间

vivo X300 Ultra 在欧洲计划推出的唯一存储选项（16 GB 内存和 1 TB 存储）的零售价高达 1,999 欧元。

我们收到了一款来自深圳贸易公司的进口机型，存储容量为 512 GB，售价不到 1,000 欧元。

$1,215.05
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, Unlocked Android Smartphone, 512GB, Privacy Display, Galaxy AI, AI Camera, Super Fast Charging 3.0, Durable Battery, 2026, US 1 Year Warranty, Black
$1,099.99
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, Unlocked Android Smartphone, 256GB, Privacy Display, Galaxy AI, AI Camera, Super Fast Charging 3.0, Durable Battery, 2026, US 1 Year Warranty, Cobalt Violet
$14.99
QUIETIP Magnetic Case for vivo X300 Ultra with Screen Protector,[Compatible with MagSafe] Translucent Matte Drop Protection Cover,Black

关于 vivo X300 Ultra 的评价
vivo X300 Ultra 的规格
构造边缘纤薄的防水旗舰手机
功能特点配备快速 USB 3.2 接口的 vivo 智能手机
软件：vivo X300 Ultra 预装Android 16
通信和全球导航卫星系统：配备 Wi-Fi 7 和 5G 功能的 vivo X300 Ultra
电话功能和语音质量X300 Ultra 支持双卡和 eSIM 卡
摄像头：配备索尼传感器和 OIS 的高端智能手机
配件和保修：Vivo X300 Ultra（含充电器和不含充电器
输入设备和操作：旗舰手机依靠超声波指纹识别
显示屏配备 OLED 大屏幕的 vivo X300 Ultra
性能配备高通公司高端芯片组的旗舰手机
排放：vivo X300 Ultra 的高废热和高节流性能
电池续航时间X300 Ultra 配有 XXL 电池
Notebookcheck 对 vivo X300 Ultra 的总体印象
潜在竞争对手比较

vivo X300 Ultra 的规格

Vivo X300 Ultra (X300 Series)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 8c/8t, 2 x 4.6 GHz Qualcomm Oryon Gen 3 Prime, 6 x 3.6 GHz Qualcomm Oryon Gen 3 Performance, Oryon v3

Graphics adapter

Qualcomm Adreno 840

Memory

16 GB

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

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

Released

03/23/2026

Weight

232 g

Price

1999 Euro

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

see all specifications

构造边缘纤薄的防水旗舰手机

vivo X300 Ultra 提供 IP69 和 IP68 认证，与其他同级旗舰设备类似，如小米 17 Ultra.

我们的黑色版本厚度为 8.2 毫米，比其他颜色的版本略薄，重量为 232 克，但这款 vivo 旗舰手机仍不失轻巧。所有版本的旗舰手机都拥有 90.3% 的高效屏占比。

边框由哑光铝合金制成，正面和背面则覆盖了公司自制的铠甲玻璃。背面强大的摄像头模块让 X300 Ultra 看起来有点头重脚轻，但在实际使用中我们并不觉得这很恼人。

尺寸比较

Vivo X200 Ultra Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Xiaomi 17 Ultra Vivo X300 Ultra Oppo Find X9 Pro DIN A6 ❌

功能特点配备快速 USB 3.2 接口的 vivo 智能手机

在欧洲上市的版本配备了快速 UFS 4.1 内存和 LPDDR5X Ultra Pro 内存，而在中国上市的较小内存版本（256 GB、512 GB）则采用 LPDDR5X Ultra 标准。

X300 Ultra 的 USB 端口支持快速 3.2 标准，包括图像输出和 OTG 支持。此外还集成了一个 NFC 芯片和一个红外触发器。

这款 vivo 手机没有配备超宽带无线技术。

软件：vivo X300 Ultra 预装Android 16

vivo 的 X300 Ultra 依靠自己的 OriginOS，在测试时基于Android 16，中文版支持包括德语在内的多种语言。

根据制造商的说法，Android 更新将持续五年，安全补丁将持续七年。

有趣的是，vivo 还为中国市场宣传了这一更新保证，这在中国市场是相当少见的。

可持续性

vivo X300 Ultra 的外包装没有明显的塑料，但包装盒采用了收缩包装。目前尚未提供有关可持续性的信息。

通信和全球导航卫星系统：配备 Wi-Fi 7 和 5G 功能的 vivo X300 Ultra

无论是来自中国还是欧洲，X300 Ultra 的频率范围都很广，可适用于所有手机标准。不过，如果要使用 eSIM 卡，则必须使用全球机型。

此外，蓝牙 6.0 仅在软件方面支持全球版本；出于监管原因，中国版本仅包含 5.4 版本。

WLAN 支持现代 Wi-Fi 7，包括快速的 6 GHz 频段。在测试中，我们获得了极高的传输速度，峰值接近 2,000 Mbps。

Networking
Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be
iperf3 transmit GT-BE19000 WiFi7	1458 (min: 1179) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive GT-BE19000 WiFi7	1829 (min: 1562) MBit/s ∼98%
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%
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	1053 (min: 459) MBit/s ∼66%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1262 (min: 508) MBit/s ∼68%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1487 (min: 719) MBit/s ∼88%
iperf3 transmit GT-BE19000 WiFi7	1406 (min: 1354) MBit/s ∼96%
iperf3 receive GT-BE19000 WiFi7	1857 (min: 1791) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	699 (min: 52.5) MBit/s ∼73%
iperf3 receive AXE11000	744 (min: 52.2) MBit/s ∼47%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1279 (min: 508) MBit/s ∼69%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1402 (min: 451) MBit/s ∼83%
iperf3 transmit GT-BE19000 WiFi7	928 (min: 341) MBit/s ∼64%
iperf3 receive GT-BE19000 WiFi7	1206 (min: 343) MBit/s ∼65%

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1813 (911-1876)

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz: Ø922 (721-1081)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1618 (1324-1681)

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz: Ø1697 (1513-1771)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø930 (475-968)

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 transmit AXE11000: Ø959 (636-1165)

Vivo X200 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000: Ø644 (520-871)

Oppo Find X9 Pro 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø932 (738-1248)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø925 (879-939)

Xiaomi 17 Ultra Wi-Fi 7; iperf3 receive AXE11000: Ø1595 (953-1768)

Vivo X200 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000: Ø1561 (1441-1609)

Oppo Find X9 Pro 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø1461 (1265-1701)

Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 transmit GT-BE19000 WiFi7: Ø1458 (1179-1553)

Vivo X300 Ultra 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be; iperf3 receive GT-BE19000 WiFi7: Ø1829 (1562-1984)

三频连接可用于卫星定位。在一次短途骑行中，我们将 vivo X300 Ultra 与 Garmin Venu 2 进行了比较，X300 Ultra 几乎没有出现明显的误差，非常适合执行导航任务。

电话功能和语音质量X300 Ultra 支持双卡和 eSIM 卡

vivo 手机支持双卡双待，有两个 nano SIM 卡。全球版本还支持两个 eSIM 卡，可与实体 SIM 卡结合使用。

与小米 15T一样，vivo X300 Ultra 也配备了对讲机功能。这样就可以与其他兼容的 vivo 设备拨打电话或交换信息。兼容的 vivo 设备通过远距离蓝牙连接，无需蜂窝服务。

摄像头：配备索尼传感器和 OIS 的高端智能手机

与蔡司的合作自然在 X300 Ultra 上再次发挥作用。vivo 手机的摄像头硬件在智能手机中堪称一流。

三颗摄像头均采用大尺寸传感器，索尼 LYT-901 主摄像头为 1/1.12 英寸，索尼 LYT-818 超广角摄像头为 1/1.28 英寸，ISOCELL HP0 长焦传感器为 1/1.4 英寸。

相比之下，iPhone iPhone 171/1.55 英寸传感器的主摄像头明显小于 X300 Ultra 的最小传感器。

vivo 手机的全新 20000 万像素主摄像头拍摄的 1200 万像素照片非常吸引人，我们非常喜欢它的对焦和图像锐度。此外还采用了新的像素分档标准，可拍摄出 2500 万像素的照片，细节更丰富。

低光模式也受益于目前智能手机上最好的拍照算法和改进的内部图像芯片 VS1+。

相比之下 Apple iPhone 17 Provivo X300 Ultra 采用了 35 mm 的超长焦距，这非常合理，因为超广角也能带来非常令人信服的效果，在画质方面可以与主摄像头相媲美。

这同样适用于使用具有 3.7 倍光学放大倍率的全新 200 万像素摄像头进行变焦。与 X200 Ultra需要更小的光圈，但得益于高分辨率和传感器裁剪，即使在 10 倍光圈下拍摄的照片也非常细腻，几乎不会过度锐化。

这是否意味着 vivo 已经实现了智能手机中的最佳设置？遗憾的是，并非如此。

vivo X300 Ultra 的新色彩感应摄像头有 12 个色彩通道，但还不能令人信服。它本应使色彩更加自然，但我们测量到的偏差非常大，而且对于一款高端智能手机来说，色彩的提亮非常明显。

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 Low light Ultra-wide angle

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

配件和保修：Vivo X300 Ultra（含充电器和不含充电器

交货范围包括一条 USB 线、一个保护盖和一个 100 W 的中国版电源适配器。深圳贸易公司还为该国使用的插座提供了一个欧盟适配器。

vivo 再次为其旗舰产品提供了包括蔡司长焦镜头在内的摄影套件，价格约为 490 欧元。

保修保修期保修期为 12 个月。就我们从深圳贸易公司购买的测试设备而言，如果需要保修，也可以将 vivo 手机寄往德国的收货地址。

输入设备和操作：旗舰手机依靠超声波指纹识别

通过触摸屏的输入可以快速实现，振动电机还能提供一流的反馈。

由于采用了 3D 超声波传感器，指纹识别速度快，可靠性高。

显示屏配备 OLED 大屏幕的 vivo X300 Ultra

vivo 手机的 6.82 英寸 OLED 显示屏分辨率高达 1,440p，刷新率从 1 Hz 到 144 Hz 不等。

在测量中，我们没有达到广告宣传的 4500 尼特峰值亮度，但在 HDR 内容中非常接近。

在护眼方面，X300 Ultra 采用高频 PWM 调光，刷新率为 1-120 Hz 时最高可达 2,160 Hz，144 Hz 时最高可达 2,592 Hz。不过，110 Hz 时的基本闪烁率相当低。


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 Ø4.74}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1.9 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.98}
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.251
CCT: 6552 K

	Vivo X300 Ultra LTPO OLED, 3168x1440, 6.8"	Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3120x1440, 6.9"	Xiaomi 17 Ultra AMOLED, 2608x1200, 6.9"	Vivo X200 Ultra AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.8"	Oppo Find X9 Pro LTPO AMOLED, 2772x1272, 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 | HDR Peak Brightness

Display / APL18 Peak Brightness
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	3528 cd/m² +64%
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	2713 cd/m² +26%
Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	2154 cd/m²

Display / HDR Peak Brightness
Vivo X300 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	4020 cd/m²
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	3648 cd/m² -9%
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5 f. Galaxy, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	2975 cd/m² -26%

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 7867 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

固定缩放级别和不同亮度设置下的测量系列（最低亮度下的振幅曲线看起来很平，但这是缩放造成的。信息框显示的是最小亮度下的振幅放大图）

我们使用 Xrite 光谱仪和 Portrait Displays 公司的 Calman Ultimate 分析软件进行的色彩分析表明，vivo 手机的 OLED 屏幕存在轻微偏差。

我们在 "专业 "色彩模式下取得了最佳效果。

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
0.9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 (19.9 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.6 ms rise
1.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 5 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31.2 ms).

性能配备高通公司高端芯片组的旗舰手机

Ultra 机型搭载了高通公司的最新旗舰芯片，不同于 X300 Pro使用的是联发科 Dimensity 9500SoC 芯片。

骁龙 8 骁龙 8 第五代精英版的速度明显快于骁龙 8 精英的 vivo X200 Ultra但在 Geekbench 中，vivo 旗舰机型的单核心数值略低。

Geekbench 6.6
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=17)	3649 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 - 3883, n=195, last 2 years)	1838 Points -47%
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 (9979 - 12383, n=17)	11068 Points +3%
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 - 11811, n=195, last 2 years)	5462 Points -49%

Antutu v10 - Total Score
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	2981365 Points
Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384	2845517 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (2390211 - 3269237, n=6)	2662560 Points
Average of class Smartphone (264891 - 3269237, n=114, last 2 years)	1505440 Points

PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9790 - 28557, n=10)	20571 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=156, last 2 years)	15202 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=12)	2381 Points -8%
Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite, Adreno 830, 16384	2162 Points -16%
Average of class Smartphone (376 - 2856, n=111, last 2 years)	1212 Points -53%

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=11)	12909 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=128, last 2 years)	7825 Points
System
Xiaomi 17 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384	20567 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9356 - 21153, n=11)	17687 Points
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288	17435 Points
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	15554 Points
Average of class Smartphone (4117 - 21153, n=128, last 2 years)	11462 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=11)	15952 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=128, last 2 years)	8955 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
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	48863 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (9859 - 61797, n=11)	47619 Points
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, Adreno 840, 12288	47299 Points
Average of class Smartphone (1046 - 384996, n=128, last 2 years)	27010 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=11)	2185 Points
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	2109 Points
Average of class Smartphone (1062 - 2587, n=128, last 2 years)	1728 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 - 24002, n=8)	21107 Points
Average of class Smartphone (3769 - 81594, n=115, last 2 years)	20788 Points
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	16866 Points

AImark - Score v3.x
Average of class Smartphone (293 - 307528, n=93, last 2 years)	17855 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=6)	1699 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 of class Smartphone (80 - 5210, n=100, last 2 years)	698 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (511 - 843, n=15)	651 Points -8%
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 - 36297, n=100, last 2 years)	2813 Points +297%
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 (486 - 843, n=15)	634 Points -11%
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	176 Points -75%
Quantized NPU 1.7
Average of class Smartphone (133 - 49889, n=100, last 2 years)	4164 Points +157%
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=15)	1445 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=7)	15992 Points
Average of class Smartphone (55.6 - 22780, n=80, last 2 years)	5331 Points
Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 16384	765 Points

GPU 基准测试也显示了类似的情况。图形处理器 Adreno 840虽然在 GFXBench 高级测试中超过了 120 帧/秒，但对于高帧率游戏来说已经足够了。

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%

Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Chrome 146)	422.954 Points +3%
Vivo X300 Ultra (Chrome 147)	409.023 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (70.1 - 409, n=9)	182.9 Points -55%
Average of class Smartphone (59.7 - 423, n=130, last 2 years)	158.8 Points -61%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result 2.0
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (Chrome 146)	733 runs/min
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (229 - 624, n=4)	512 runs/min
Average of class Smartphone (49.3 - 733, n=96, last 2 years)	243 runs/min

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 - 45.5, n=108, last 2 years)	15 runs/min

WebXPRT 4 - Overall
Xiaomi 17 Ultra (Chrome 143)	262 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (102 - 278, n=9)	175.2 Points
Vivo X200 Ultra (Chrome 137)	150 Points
Average of class Smartphone (56 - 306, n=116, last 2 years)	140.9 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 (47984 - 126661, n=10)	87023 Points -24%
Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141)	74649 Points -35%
Average of class Smartphone (2800 - 126661, n=160, last 2 years)	51219 Points -55%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Average of class Smartphone (257 - 28190, n=138, last 2 years)	1081 ms * -266%
Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141)	503.8 ms * -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (284 - 799, n=14)	448 ms * -52%
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%	23%	-19%
Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s)	2143.53	3626.09 69%	3987.92 86%	3358.64 57%	3219.8 50%	3670 ?(1954 - 4366, n=34) 71%	2229 ?(270 - 4370, n=179, last 2 years) 4%
Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s)	2352.64	1658.91 -29%	3974.23 69%	2998.87 27%	1239.76 -47%	3185 ?(339 - 4113, n=34) 35%	1910 ?(103.2 - 4113, n=179, last 2 years) -19%
Random Read 4KB (MB/s)	365.12	513.44 41%	547.56 50%	462.41 27%	367.54 1%	406 ?(279 - 614, n=34) 11%	306 ?(47.6 - 614, n=179, last 2 years) -16%
Random Write 4KB (MB/s)	661.37	207.16 -69%	524.05 -21%	459.33 -31%	176.98 -73%	498 ?(48.2 - 1071, n=34) -25%	362 ?(13.1 - 1071, n=179, last 2 years) -45%

排放：vivo X300 Ultra 的高废热和高节流性能

温度

在负载情况下，X300 Ultra 的表面温度会急剧上升，达到令人相当不舒服的程度。

在 3DMark 压力测试中，vivo 智能手机的稳定性并不是特别高，因此内部的废热似乎也存在问题。

Max. Load

Idle


53.6 °C	54.6 °C	51.9 °C
54.5 °C	54.7 °C	50.5 °C
54.8 °C	54.4 °C	48.1 °C

Maximum: 54.8 °C
Average: 53 °C


48.6 °C	50.1 °C	40.9 °C
49.5 °C	51 °C	43.9 °C
48.6 °C	51.3 °C	43.9 °C

Maximum: 51.3 °C
Average: 47.5 °C

Power Supply (max.) 44.2 °C | Room Temperature 21 °C | 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 32.9 °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 35.2 °C / 95 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 °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 32.9 °C / 91 F.

3DMark 压力测试

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)

扬声器

立体声扬声器提供了不错的声音输出。声音的特点是中频和高频，不过我们的测量显示超高音扬声器的声音有所下降。低音几乎感觉不到。

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

Vivo X300 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.7% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (17.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

电池续航时间X300 Ultra 配有 XXL 电池

能源消耗

vivo X300 Ultra 的电池容量为 6,600 mAh，通过 USB-C 接口充电功率可达 100 W，无线充电功率可达 40 W。

与 X200 Ultra 一样，闲置模式下的耗电量明显较高，但 X300 Ultra 的耗电量更高。

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.1 / 0.2 Watt
Idle	3.5 / 4.5 / 4.8 Watt
Load	8.6 / 12.4 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	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		25%	47%	7%	52%	43%	47%
Idle Minimum * (Watt)	3.5	0.56 84%	0.8 77%	1.6 54%	0.6 83%	1.054 ?(0.58 - 3.5, n=11) 70%	0.887 ?(0.4 - 3.5, n=142, last 2 years) 75%
Idle Average * (Watt)	4.5	1.18 74%	1.1 76%	2.9 36%	1 78%	1.593 ?(0.74 - 4.5, n=11) 65%	1.477 ?(0.7 - 4.5, n=142, last 2 years) 67%
Idle Maximum * (Watt)	4.8	1.33 72%	1.2 75%	3.7 23%	1.3 73%	1.807 ?(0.75 - 4.8, n=11) 62%	1.664 ?(0.75 - 4.8, n=142, last 2 years) 65%
Load Average * (Watt)	8.6	14.91 -73%	6.1 29%	10.6 -23%	6.9 20%	7.66 ?(4.2 - 11.4, n=9) 11%	6.78 ?(2.9 - 14.9, n=112, last 2 years) 21%
Load Maximum * (Watt)	12.4	16.58 -34%	15.3 -23%	19.5 -57%	11.9 4%	11.3 ?(8.9 - 15.3, n=9) 9%	11.3 ?(4.75 - 22, n=112, last 2 years) 9%

* ... smaller is better

耗电量：Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø11.2 (8.59-12.4)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Geekbench 5.5 Power Consumption 150cd: Ø9.66 (1.309-16.6)

Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø4.86 (4.54-5.27)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.853 (0.784-1.211)

功耗：GFXbench (150 cd/m²)

Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø12.3 (12.2-12.4)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø12.9 (3.12-16.7)

Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø4.86 (4.54-5.27)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø0.853 (0.784-1.211)

电池运行时间

在我们的 WLAN 电池测试中，X300 Ultra 在调整显示亮度为 150 cd/m² 时表现出色，运行时间长，令人信服。

不过，这款手机的续航能力与 Find X9 Pro7500 毫安时电池的续航能力相去甚远。

Battery Runtime


WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 147)		22h 59min

	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
Battery runtime
WiFi v1.3 (h)	23	17.9 -22%	25.9 13%	23.3 1%	34.3 49%

Notebookcheck 对 vivo X300 Ultra 的总体印象

vivo X300 Ultra 为照片和视频爱好者提供了 2026 年智能手机中最好的，甚至可能是最棒的摄像头组合之一。

Back to the verdict

Vivo X300 Ultra - 05/06/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis

91%

Keyboard

67 / 75 → 90%

Pointing Device

96%

Connectivity

66 / 69 → 96%

Weight

88%

Battery

93%

Display

92%

Games Performance

45 / 55 → 81%

Application Performance

95 / 85 → 100%

AI Performance

45%

Temperature

76%

Noise

100%

Audio

73 / 90 → 81%

Camera

90%

Average

73%

89%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

CO2 Emissions
No Data

Materials
45%

Packaging
80%

Power Use
92.5%

Repairability
52%

Software Updates
93.3%

Total Sustainability Score: 60.5%

潜在竞争对手比较

Image	Model / Review	Price	Weight	Drive	Display
1. 88.9%	Vivo X300 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB	Amazon: List Price: 1999€	232 g	512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	6.82" 3168x1440 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	Amazon: List Price: 1449€	214 g	256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.90" 3120x1440 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	Amazon: 1. $452.50 XIAOMI Redmi Note 15 Pro+ Pl... 2. $1,215.05 Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, Un... 3. $769.00 XIAOMI 15T PRO Ai 5G (Compat... List Price: 950€	224 g	512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	6.90" 2608x1200 416 PPI AMOLED
4. 88.3%	Vivo X200 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 830 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 1024 GB	Amazon: 1. $15.99 AKABEILA 3 Pack Screen Prote... 2. $18.99 NEEWER X200 Ultra Case, Prot... 3. $649.00 Google Pixel 10 Pro - Unlock... List Price: 890€	229 g	1 TB UFS 4.0 Flash	6.82" 3168x1440 510 PPI AMOLED
5. 87.7%	Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB	Amazon: 1. $948.47 OnePlus 15, 16GB RAM + 512GB... 2. $949.99 OnePlus 15, 16GB RAM + 512GB... 3. $649.00 Google Pixel 10 Pro - Unlock... List Price: 1299€	224 g	512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash	6.78" 2772x1272 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.

Please share our article, every link counts!