Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Vivo Nex Ultimate

Florian Wimmer (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 08/02/2018

The full broadside. A tela do Vivo Nex Ultimate cobre 91% da frente. Graças a todos os tipos de ideias inovadoras, isso funciona mesmo sem um entalhe. Esta análise irá dizer se o smartphone chinês de gama alta é adequado para a vida cotidiana, ou se é apenas uma peça de exibição.

Vivo Nex Ultimate (Nex Serie)
Processador
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 630
Memória
8192 MB 
Pantalha
6.59 polegadas 2.14:1, 2316 x 1080 pixel 388 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, Super AMOLED, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 235 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: 3,5mm-Audioport, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: super sonic, bússola, aceleração, giroscópio
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM 900/1800/1900 MHz;3G 850/900/1900/2100MHz; LTE (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28A/B28B), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.98 x 162 x 77
Bateria
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lítio-Polímero, Quick Charge 4
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix F/1.8, OIS, Dual-LED flash 5 MP F/2.4
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix F/2.0, extensível
Características adicionais
Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador rápido, cabo de carregamento, headset, Ferramenta SIM, Funtouch OS, designs, , Leitor de digitais atrás da tela, USB OTG, fone de ouvido piezo-electric, LTE Cat. 16 (1 GBit/s download, 150 MBit/s upload), fanless
peso
199 g
Preço
699 Euro

 

Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Vivo Nex Ultimate

Size comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
656 MBit/s ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
654 MBit/s ∼100% +25%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼93% +16%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
503 MBit/s ∼77% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=250)
187 MBit/s ∼29% -64%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
668 MBit/s ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
653 MBit/s ∼98% +25%
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼97% +24%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼92% +17%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼78%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=250)
182 MBit/s ∼27% -65%
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Overview
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Overview
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Forest
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Forest
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Bridge
GPS Vivo Nex Ultimate – Bridge

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
349.1
cd/m²
359
cd/m²
354
cd/m²
348
cd/m²
356
cd/m²
353
cd/m²
342
cd/m²
353
cd/m²
350
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 359 cd/m² Médio: 351.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.52 cd/m²
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 356 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.08 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
95.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.096
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.3
LG G7 ThinQ
IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Screen
45%
63%
32%
37%
Brightness middle
356
530
49%
974
174%
492
38%
430
21%
Brightness
352
536
52%
975
177%
463
32%
437
24%
Brightness Distribution
95
93
-2%
96
1%
90
-5%
87
-8%
Black Level *
0.49
0.59
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7.08
2.6
63%
5.4
24%
2.4
66%
2.3
68%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
14.1
5.1
64%
13.1
7%
6.2
56%
4.6
67%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.7
2.7
43%
5
-6%
4.5
4%
2.4
49%
Gamma
2.096 115%
2.04 118%
2.31 104%
2.25 107%
2.28 105%
CCT
7297 89%
6206 105%
7480 87%
6395 102%
6160 106%
Contrast
1988
834

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 117.9 Hz ≤ 15 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 117.9 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 117.9 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8821 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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 0.8 (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 (25.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41.4 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
229991 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
173997 Points ∼76% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ
223464 Points ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
162183 Points ∼70% -29%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 230642, n=8)
218695 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 230642, n=347)
70029 Points ∼30% -70%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
201210 Points ∼70% -30%
LG G7 ThinQ
256276 Points ∼90% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
266601 Points ∼93% -7%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (255739 - 290397, n=9)
268933 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (25692 - 290397, n=115)
102443 Points ∼36% -64%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5096 Points ∼62% -33%
LG G7 ThinQ
7717 Points ∼93% +2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
8078 Points ∼98% +7%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7580 - 8601, n=9)
8119 Points ∼98% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (2399 - 8601, n=203)
4444 Points ∼54% -41%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6084 Points ∼63% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ
9503 Points ∼99% +19%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
9179 Points ∼95% +15%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼100% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 10264, n=7)
9353 Points ∼97% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (2516 - 10264, n=367)
4676 Points ∼49% -42%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
1009 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1235 Points ∼89% +22%
LG G7 ThinQ
1374 Points ∼99% +36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
1234 Points ∼89% +22%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼100% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1437, n=8)
1302 Points ∼94% +29%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1682, n=443)
671 Points ∼48% -33%
Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7887 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6121 Points ∼77% -22%
LG G7 ThinQ
7906 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
7918 Points ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 7957, n=8)
7660 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 9248, n=443)
1501 Points ∼19% -81%
Memory (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4798 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3095 Points ∼65% -35%
LG G7 ThinQ
3744 Points ∼78% -22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3012 Points ∼63% -37%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 4798, n=8)
3325 Points ∼69% -31%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=443)
1123 Points ∼23% -77%
System (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8252 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5308 Points ∼64% -36%
LG G7 ThinQ
8070 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
5792 Points ∼70% -30%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5792 - 8435, n=8)
7768 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 10281, n=443)
2243 Points ∼27% -73%
Overall (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4213 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3338 Points ∼77% -21%
LG G7 ThinQ
4257 Points ∼99% +1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3614 Points ∼84% -14%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3489 - 4308, n=8)
3975 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 4308, n=446)
1133 Points ∼26% -73%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
8310 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (12493 - 14362, n=5)
13643 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14362, n=140)
3809 Points ∼28% -72%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6744 Points ∼74% -26%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
8937 Points ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8437 - 9136, n=7)
8682 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 10558, n=187)
3956 Points ∼43% -57%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2028 Points ∼82% -18%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2456 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2429 - 2464, n=7)
2449 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4265, n=188)
1170 Points ∼47% -53%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2346 Points ∼68% -28%
LG G7 ThinQ
3255 Points ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2606 Points ∼76% -20%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2606 - 3669, n=8)
3309 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1765 - 3669, n=292)
1549 Points ∼45% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2661 Points ∼51% -49%
LG G7 ThinQ
5006 Points ∼96% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
5181 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5220, n=8)
4945 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (721 - 5220, n=292)
1051 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2584 Points ∼55% -44%
LG G7 ThinQ
4471 Points ∼96% -2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
4248 Points ∼91% -7%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3419 - 4732, n=8)
4436 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (830 - 4732, n=300)
1008 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2342 Points ∼68% -17%
LG G7 ThinQ
3150 Points ∼91% +12%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
2159 Points ∼63% -23%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3642, n=8)
3063 Points ∼89% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (524 - 3642, n=323)
1453 Points ∼42% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3928 Points ∼48% -52%
LG G7 ThinQ
7633 Points ∼92% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
6630 Points ∼80% -19%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=8)
7613 Points ∼92% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (1257 - 8312, n=323)
1421 Points ∼17% -83%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3414 Points ∼54% -41%
LG G7 ThinQ
5799 Points ∼92% +1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
4540 Points ∼72% -21%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4540 - 6378, n=8)
5704 Points ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1344 - 6378, n=331)
1224 Points ∼19% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
22829 Points ∼66% -34%
LG G7 ThinQ
27817 Points ∼80% -20%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
30245 Points ∼87% -13%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (27817 - 36494, n=8)
33075 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (735 - 36494, n=478)
12142 Points ∼35% -65%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
36807 Points ∼45% -54%
LG G7 ThinQ
80534 Points ∼99% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
76078 Points ∼94% -5%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (76078 - 82423, n=8)
80265 Points ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2396 - 113380, n=478)
15567 Points ∼19% -81%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
32399 Points ∼52% -48%
LG G7 ThinQ
56669 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
56913 Points ∼91% -8%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (56669 - 63084, n=8)
60837 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2841 - 64405, n=479)
13461 Points ∼22% -78%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
105 fps ∼70% -30%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
150 fps ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 151, n=8)
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 177, n=504)
26.9 fps ∼18% -82%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
59 fps ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (59 - 60, n=7)
59.9 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=507)
23.5 fps ∼39% -61%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
51 fps ∼61% -39%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
74 fps ∼89% -11%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (66 - 83, n=7)
76.3 fps ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (1.6 - 88.2, n=427)
14.3 fps ∼17% -83%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
38 fps ∼64% -36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
59 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 59, n=7)
55.4 fps ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=429)
14.5 fps ∼25% -75%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
42 fps ∼70% -30%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (39 - 60.9, n=8)
57 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (9.7 - 60, n=290)
12.5 fps ∼21% -79%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
23 fps ∼42% -58%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
55 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼98% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (31 - 55, n=7)
51.1 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 110, n=292)
12.6 fps ∼23% -77%
GFXBench 4.0
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
35 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 35, n=7)
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (5.5 - 35, n=221)
8.45 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
13 fps ∼38% -61%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
34 fps ∼100% +3%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼94% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 34, n=7)
30.9 fps ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (5.2 - 50, n=224)
7.78 fps ∼23% -76%

Legend

 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
88.081 Points ∼100% +291%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
87.695 Points ∼100% +290%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
69.765 Points ∼79% +210%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
69.57 Points ∼79% +209%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 89.5, n=9)
68.8 Points ∼78% +206%
Average of class Smartphone (11 - 224, n=362)
33.6 Points ∼38% +49%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼26%
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼100% +327%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
16720 Points ∼98% +319%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 17131, n=9)
14671 Points ∼86% +268%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
14491 Points ∼85% +263%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
13265 Points ∼78% +232%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 35255, n=498)
5005 Points ∼29% +25%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼23%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (718 - 59466, n=517)
11893 ms * ∼100% -6%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼94%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2287 - 11204, n=9)
3437 ms * ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
2868 ms * ∼24% +74%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
2484.1 ms * ∼21% +78%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% +78%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
1876.8 ms * ∼16% +83%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +163%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +163%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=9)
236 Points ∼94% +146%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158)
228 Points ∼90% +138%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
159 Points ∼63% +66%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=246)
99.4 Points ∼39% +4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
96 Points ∼38%

* ... smaller is better

Vivo Nex UltimateSamsung Galaxy Note 8LG G7 ThinQXiaomi Mi Mix 2SOnePlus 6Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-8%
122%
0%
0%
-62%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.27 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
44 (3.4 - 87.1, n=280)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
67.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.3 (8.2 - 96.5, n=280)
Random Write 4KB
22.1
14.55
-34%
23.26
5%
128.36
481%
21.8
-1%
22.1
0%
13.5 (0.14 - 164, n=556)
-39%
Random Read 4KB
126.7
122.48
-3%
110.46
-13%
135.14
7%
137
8%
127
0%
34.6 (1.59 - 173, n=556)
-73%
Sequential Write 256KB
228.4
205.85
-10%
176.45
-23%
208.1
-9%
201.4
-12%
228
0%
72.5 (2.99 - 228, n=556)
-68%
Sequential Read 256KB
687.2
796.96
16%
695.15
1%
756.07
10%
725.6
6%
687
0%
212 (12.1 - 832, n=556)
-69%
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 min60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high30 fps
 very low29 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 44.8 °C41 °C39 °C 
 45.9 °C40.8 °C40.1 °C 
 45.2 °C41.1 °C39 °C 
Máximo: 45.9 °C
Médio: 41.9 °C
39.8 °C41.1 °C42.1 °C
40.2 °C41.2 °C43.6 °C
39.8 °C41.5 °C42.8 °C
Máximo: 43.6 °C
Médio: 41.3 °C
alimentação elétrica  41.2 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2025.625.72527.128.13125.428.84025.225.35031.733.76322.823.4802122.910019.524.512517.729.616016.842.220016.751.825015.252.431514.253.540013.660.150013.457.763012.762.780012.364.5100011.866.5125011.963.1160011.368.7200011.374.2250011.376.4315011.275.1400011.465.3500011.162.2630011.363.5800011.468.71000011.466.51250011.448.61600011.536.2SPL68.759.950.12482.5N20.312.96.60.548.5median 11.8Vivo Nex Ultimatemedian 62.7Delta1.68.531.631.325.427.225.326.132.925.133.624.531.62628.4242728.220.828.22234.521.348.320.852.321.257.619.460.119.563.917.767.117.965.517.868.617.372.117.474.616.776.217.278.418.281.117.977.417.672.817.775.417.877.917.970.918.167.118.258.13086.91.369.1median 17.9Samsung Galaxy Note 8median 67.11.310.7hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 83% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy Note 8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 32% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.4 / 0.6 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt
Carga midlight 3.7 / 7.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
8%
-24%
-26%
7%
-15%
-2%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.73
19%
1.16
-29%
0.75
17%
0.6
33%
0.765 (0.42 - 1.16, n=8)
15%
0.869 (0.2 - 3.4, n=583)
3%
Idle Average *
1.5
1.44
4%
1.98
-32%
2.25
-50%
1
33%
1.77 (1 - 2.25, n=8)
-18%
1.698 (0.6 - 6.2, n=582)
-13%
Idle Maximum *
1.7
1.53
10%
2.07
-22%
2.26
-33%
1.6
6%
1.991 (1.57 - 2.3, n=8)
-17%
1.954 (0.74 - 6.6, n=583)
-15%
Load Average *
3.7
4.56
-23%
4.51
-22%
4.89
-32%
4.3
-16%
4.75 (3.7 - 6.25, n=8)
-28%
3.98 (0.8 - 10.8, n=577)
-8%
Load Maximum *
7.2
5.09
29%
8.3
-15%
9.6
-33%
8.6
-19%
9.04 (7.2 - 10.2, n=8)
-26%
5.61 (1.2 - 14.2, n=577)
22%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
32h 05min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
17h 06min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
18h 53min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 23min
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
-29%
-12%
-16%
-10%
Reader / Idle
1925
1134
-41%
1662
-14%
1678
-13%
1806
-6%
H.264
1133
662
-42%
908
-20%
718
-37%
791
-30%
WiFi v1.3
1026
474
-54%
591
-42%
716
-30%
762
-26%
Load
203
246
21%
260
28%
239
18%
246
21%

Pro

+ Muito armazenamento
+ Excelente duração da bateria
+ Software perfeitamente traduzido
+ Instalação de aplicativos do Google sem complicações
+ Exibição em tela cheia real
+ Tecnologia inovadora de leitor de digitais e câmera frontal
+ Câmera se desempenha bem com pouca luz
+ Alto desempenho

Contra

- Sem slot microSD
- Wi-Fi relativamente lento
- Afogamento do SoC sob carga
- Tela escura
- Relativamente pesado
- A carcaça não é de qualidade top
- Aplicativo do teclado parcialmente em chinês
- Asistente de voz virtual somente em chinês
- Leitor de digitais um pouco lento e impreciso
In review: Vivo Nex Ultimate. Review device courtesy of:
In review: Vivo Nex Ultimate. Review device courtesy of:
tradingshenzhen.com

O Vivo Nex Ultimate é um smartphone fascinante: Primeiro, mostra a tecnologia dos próximos anos. Em segundo lugar, mostra que os fabricantes chineses podem fornecer um sistema operacional bem traduzido e adaptações para o mercado ocidental. E há tantas coisas para ver: a câmera frontal que se estende, deslizando para fora com um som futurista, o leitor de impressões digitais e o alto-falante, ambos escondidos atrás da tela, e a carcaça, brilhando em todas as cores do arco-íris. Além disso, o dispositivo oferece alto desempenho e boas câmeras.

Com todo o fascínio pelo dispositivo, você não deve ignorar que não obterá um smartphone perfeito por um preço de 699 Euros (~$820): A carcaça parece elegante, mas é feito com material que se sente ordinário, o Wi-Fi é mais lento do que em outros aparelhos de última geração e o GPS poderia funcionar com mais precisão. O alto-falante está não é o melhor: O SoC oferece alto desempenho, no entanto, será afogado de forma considerável sob uso intenso. A tela é um pouco escura e mostra algumas oscilações em baixos níveis de brilho. O leitor de digitais demora um pouco para detectar um dedo, se é que é capaz de reconhecê-lo.

Sem marcos, equipado com a mais recente tecnologia e muito elegante: Este é o Vivo Nex Ultimate. Não é perfeito, mas uma verdadeira recomendação para os entusiastas da tecnologia e para aqueles que querem ser originais.

No entanto, a duração da bateria é simplesmente incrível: Após 17 horas de navegação na rede Wi-Fi contínua sem precisar de uma tomada elétrica, você pode perdoar o smartphone em algumas coisas. Portanto, podemos recomendar o Vivo Nex Ultimate para qualquer um que possa viver com algumas deficiências menores e esteja procurando um smartphone que se destaque na multidão e tenha recursos inovadores. 

Vivo Nex Ultimate - 07/23/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
79%
Teclado
66 / 75 → 88%
Mouse
96%
Conectividade
41 / 60 → 68%
Peso
88%
Bateria
100%
Pantalha
81%
Desempenho do jogos
62 / 63 → 98%
Desempenho da aplicação
63 / 70 → 90%
Temperatura
85%
Ruído
100%
Audio
62 / 91 → 68%
Camera
84%
Médio
77%
87%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Vivo Nex Ultimate
Florian Wimmer, 2018-08- 2 (Update: 2018-08- 7)