Vivo X200 Pro vs Vivo X200
84
out of 100
VS
81
out of 100
Here we compared two flagship smartphones: the 6.78-inch Vivo X200 Pro (with MediaTek Dimensity 9400) that was released on October 14, 2024, against the Vivo X200, which is powered by the same chip. On this page, you will find tests, full specs, strengths, and weaknesses of each of the devices.
Select the amount of RAM to evaluate performance and value for money more precisely
Key differences
Reasons to consider the Vivo X200 Pro
- Shows 9% longer battery life (24:55 vs 22:51 hours)
- Handles wireless charging up to 30W
- Delivers 30% higher peak brightness (2049 against 1577 nits)
- The rear camera has a 3.7x optical zoom
- Ready for eSIM technology
Reasons to consider the Vivo X200
- Weighs 31 grams less
Review
Display
Screen quality, color accuracy, brightness
Camera
Photo and video recording quality
Performance
CPU and memory performance (apps, system)
Gaming
Capabilities for playing modern games
Battery
Battery life, charging type and speed
Connectivity
Networks, ports, data transmission
Scores with a red asterisk (*) are approximate and may change in the future as we gather more data.
Select your primary usage scenario to get a more accurate NanoReview Score
Value for money (Beta)
Tests and specifications
Comparison table of technical specifications and testsDisplay
| Type | AMOLED | AMOLED |
| Size | 6.78 inches | 6.67 inches |
| Resolution | 1260 x 2800 pixels | 1260 x 2800 pixels |
| Aspect ratio | 20:9 | 20:9 |
| PPI | 452 ppi | 460 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz |
| Adaptive refresh rate | Yes (1-120 Hz) | Yes (60-120 Hz) |
| Max rated brightness | 2000 nits | - |
| Max rated brightness in HDR | 4500 nits | 4500 nits |
| HDR support | Yes, Dolby Vision | Yes, Dolby Vision |
| Touch sampling rate | 300 Hz | 300 Hz |
| Screen protection | Armor Glass | Schott Xensation Alpha |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 90.1% | 89.6% |
| Display features | - DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC Dimming |
- DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC Dimming |
Peak brightness test (auto)
Design and build
| Height | 162.36 mm (6.39 inches) | 160.27 mm (6.31 inches) |
| Width | 75.92 mm (2.99 inches) | 74.81 mm (2.95 inches) |
| Thickness | 8.49 mm (0.33 inches) | 7.99 mm (0.31 inches) |
| Weight | 228 g (8.04 oz) | 197 g (6.95 oz) |
| Waterproof | IP69 | IP69 |
| Advanced cooling | Vapor chamber | Vapor chamber |
| Rear material | Glass | Glass |
| Frame material | Metal | Metal |
| Colors | White, Black, Gray, Blue | White, Black, Gray, Blue |
| Fingerprint scanner | Yes, in-display | Yes, in-display |
Screen-to-body ratio
Performance
| Chipset | MediaTek Dimensity 9400 | MediaTek Dimensity 9400 |
| Max clock | 3620 MHz | 3620 MHz |
| CPU cores | 8 (1 + 3 + 4) | 8 (1 + 3 + 4) |
| Architecture | - 4 cores at 2.4 GHz: Cortex-A720 - 3 cores at 3.3 GHz: Cortex-X4 - 1 core at 3.62 GHz: Cortex-X925 |
- 4 cores at 2.4 GHz: Cortex-A720 - 3 cores at 3.3 GHz: Cortex-X4 - 1 core at 3.62 GHz: Cortex-X925 |
| L3 cache | 12 MB | 12 MB |
| Manufacturing | TSMC | TSMC |
| Lithography process | 3 nanometers | 3 nanometers |
| Neural processor (NPU) | MediaTek NPU 890 | MediaTek NPU 890 |
| Graphics | Immortalis-G925 MC12 | Immortalis-G925 MC12 |
| GPU shading units | 1536 | 1536 |
| GPU clock | 1612 MHz | 1612 MHz |
| FLOPS | ~4952.1 GFLOPS | ~4952.1 GFLOPS |
Benchmarks
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
Compute Score (GPU)
| Compute Score (GPU) | 21444 | 23954 |
| Single-core score | 2686 | 2693 |
| Multi-core score | 8366 | 8706 |
AnTuTu Benchmark 11
| CPU | 900074 | 849678 |
| GPU | 972096 | 932204 |
| Memory | 345330 | 352736 |
| UX | 607687 | 592804 |
| Total score | 2825187 | 2727422 |
| Samples | [22 tests] | [7 tests] |
3DMark Steel Nomad Light
| Stability | 61% | 64% |
| Graphics test | 18 FPS | 18 FPS |
| Graphics score | 2371 | 2369 |
3DMark Solar Bay
| Graphics test | 40 FPS | 40 FPS |
| Section 1 | 44 FPS | 43 FPS |
| Section 2 | 41 FPS | 40 FPS |
| Section 3 | 34 FPS | 35 FPS |
| Graphics score | 10432 | 10403 |
3DMark Wild Life Extreme
| Stability | 65% | - |
| Graphics test | 36 FPS | - |
| Graphics score | 6122 | - |
PCMark 3.0
| Web score | 13701 | 13478 |
| Video editing | 5803 | 5647 |
| Photo editing | 35653 | 28707 |
| Data manipulation | 13567 | 11877 |
| Writing score | 23556 | 23394 |
AnTuTu 11 Ranking List (119th and 122nd place)
Recent User Tests
Vivo X200 Pro
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-08-01 -> Dlack | AnTuTu | 2847396 |
| 📘 2026-08-01 (Dlack) | AnTuTu | 2847396 |
| 📘 2026-07-31 (Xarvis) | GeekBench GPU | 23591 |
| 📘 2026-07-31 (Xarvis) | GeekBench CPU | 2432 / 8113 |
| 📘 2026-07-31 (Xarvis) | AnTuTu | 2775367 |
Vivo X200
| Date | Benchmark | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 📘 2026-07-12 (AKZ4R) | AnTuTu | 2759839 |
| 📘 2025-12-27 (Losty) | AnTuTu | 2661708 |
| 📘 2025-12-01 (Nguyeen) | AnTuTu | 2844416 |
| 📘 2025-11-08 (Mahi) | AnTuTu | 2628512 |
| 📘 2025-11-04 (Palazz9rt_ hype) | AnTuTu | 2653518 |
Memory
| RAM size | 12 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |
| Memory clock | 5333 MHz | 5333 MHz |
| Channels | 4 | 4 |
| Storage size | 256 GB | 256 GB |
| Storage type | UFS 4.0 | UFS 4.0 |
| Memory card | No | No |
Software
| Operating system | Android 15 (Can be upgraded to Android 16) | Android 15 (Can be upgraded to Android 16) |
| ROM | Funtouch OS 16 | Funtouch OS 16 |
| OS updates | 3 years | 3 years |
| Security updates | 3 years | 3 years |
Battery
| Capacity | 6000 mAh | 5800 mAh |
| Max charge power | 90 W | 90 W |
| Battery type | Silicon-Carbon (Si/C) | Silicon-Carbon (Si/C) |
| Replaceable | No | No |
| Wireless charging | Yes (30 W) | No |
| Reverse charging | Yes | Yes |
| Bypass charging | Yes | Yes |
| Fast charging | Yes (73% in 30 min) | Yes (78% in 30 min) |
| Full charging time | 0:46 hr | 0:39 hr |
| Web browsing | 12:47 hr | 10:06 hr |
| Watching video | 16:41 hr | 15:50 hr |
| Gaming | 07:44 hr | 07:21 hr |
| Standby | 85 hr | 88 hr |
General battery life
Main camera
| Matrix | 50 megapixels | 50 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 8192 x 6144 | 8192 x 6144 |
| Zoom | Optical, 3.7x | Optical, 3x |
| Flash | Dual LED | Dual LED |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| 8K video recording | Up to 30FPS | No |
| 4K video recording | Up to 120FPS | Up to 60FPS |
| 1080p video recording | Up to 60FPS | Up to 60FPS |
| Slow motion | 240 FPS (1080p) | 240 FPS (1080p) |
| Angle of widest lens | 119° | 119° |
| Lenses | 1) Standard: 50 MP 2) Telephoto: 200 MP 3) Ultrawide: 50 MP |
1) Standard: 50 MP 2) Telephoto: 50 MP 3) Ultrawide: 50 MP |
| Camera features | - Bokeh mode - Pro mode |
- Bokeh mode - Pro mode |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/1.6 | f/1.6 |
| Focal length | 23 mm | 23 mm |
| Sensor | Sony LYT-818 | Sony IMX921 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.28" (≈ 0.78 inch) | 1/1.56" (≈ 0.64 inch) |
| Pixel size | 1.22 micron | 1 micron |
| Autofocus | Laser autofocus | Laser autofocus |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 200 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.7 | f/2.6 |
| Focal length | 85 mm | 70 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung ISOCELL HP9 | Sony IMX882 |
| Sensor size | 1/1.4" (≈ 0.71 inch) | 1/1.95" (≈ 0.51 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.56 micron | 0.7 micron |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Image resolution | 50 MP | 50 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.0 | f/2.0 |
| Focal length | 15 mm | 15 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung S5KJN1 | Samsung ISOCELL S5KJN1 |
| Sensor size | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) | 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.64 micron | 0.64 micron |
| Stabilization | Digital | Digital |
Selfie camera
| Megapixels | 32 megapixels | 32 megapixels |
| Image resolution | 6528 x 4896 | 6528 x 4896 |
| Aperture | f/2.0 | f/2.0 |
| Focal length | 20 mm | 25 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung S5KKD1 | Samsung KD1 |
| Sensor size | 1/3.42" (≈ 0.29 inch) | 1/3.42" (≈ 0.29 inch) |
| Pixel size | 0.64 micron | 0.64 micron |
| Autofocus | No | No |
| Stabilization | Digital | Digital |
| Video resolution | 2160p (4K) at 60 FPS | 2160p (4K) at 60 FPS |
| Depth sensor (TOF 3D) | No | No |
Connectivity
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 7 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be) | Wi-Fi 7 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be) |
| Wi-Fi features | - Dual Band - Wi-Fi MiMO - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot - Wi-Fi Display |
- Dual Band - Wi-Fi MiMO - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot - Wi-Fi Display |
| Bluetooth version | 5.4 | 5.4 |
| Bluetooth features | LE | LE |
| USB type | USB Type-C | USB Type-C |
| USB version | 3.2 | 2 |
| USB features | - Charging - USB-Storage mode - OTG |
- Charging - USB-Storage mode - OTG |
| DisplayPort | Yes | Yes |
| GPS | GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC | GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC |
| NFC* | Yes | Yes |
| Infrared port | Yes | Yes |
| Number of SIM* | 2 | 2 |
| Type of SIM card | Nano | Nano |
| Multi SIM mode | Standby | Standby |
| eSIM support* | Yes | No |
| Hybrid slot | No | No |
| 5G support | Yes | Yes |
Sound
| Speakers | Stereo | Stereo |
| Headphone audio jack | No | No |
| FM radio | No | No |
| Dolby Atmos | No | No |
Other
| Category | Flagship | Flagship |
| Announced | October 2024 | October 2024 |
| Release date | October 2024 | October 2024 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $847 | $549 |
| Successor | - Vivo X300 Pro | - Vivo X300 |
| Sensors | - Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
- Proximity sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient light sensor - Compass - Fingerprint |
| Bundled charger | Yes, 90 W | Not included |
Further details
Notes on X200 Pro:
- The black model is thinner (8.2 mm) and lighter (223g).
*Disclaimer! NFC, GSM network support, and some other specs can be different depending on the country.
Conclusion
These smartphones have a lot in common, but we would recommend the Vivo X200 Pro. It has a better camera, battery life, and connectivity.
Cast your vote
Total votes: 400
