Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro vs Asus Pad (T3201)

84 out of 100
Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro
VS
74 out of 100
Asus Pad (T3201)

Here we compared two mid-range tablets: the 11.2-inch Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro (with Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite) that was released on September 25, 2025, against the Asus Pad (T3201), which is powered by MediaTek Dimensity 8300 and came out 10 months after. 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
Memory

Key differences

An overview of the main advantages of each tablet
Reasons to consider the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro
  • 2.4x better performance in AnTuTu Benchmark (3153K versus 1331K)
  • Newer Bluetooth version (v5.4)
  • Supports higher wattage charging (67W versus 45W)
  • Ability to record video in 4K resolution
  • Fingerprint scanner
  • Compatible with Wi-Fi 7 wireless networks
  • 25% higher pixel density (344 vs 275 PPI)
  • Much smaller footprint: 12% more compact case (67.6 vs 76.4 square inches)
Reasons to consider the Asus Pad (T3201)
  • Has a 1 inch larger screen size
  • Expandable storage via MicroSD card up to 1024GB
  • OLED display (versus competitor's IPS LCD)

Review

Evaluation of Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro and Asus Pad (T3201) crucial features
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.
NanoReview Score
Final comparison evaluation
Select your primary usage scenario to get a more accurate NanoReview Score
📱 Primary usage:

Value for money (Beta)

To get an accurate value-for-money index, update the default prices with actual prices from your country’s retailers (for the selected memory configs) and press the "Calculate" button.
Currency
8 / 128 GB
VS
8 / 128 GB
77.8
(Good)
Value Index
63.2
(Average)

Tests and specifications

Comparison table of technical specifications and tests
Tablet:
vs

Display

Type IPS LCD OLED
Size 11.2 inches 12.2 inches
Resolution 2136 x 3200 pixels 2800 x 1840 pixels
Aspect ratio 3:2 3:2
PPI 344 ppi 275 ppi
Refresh rate 144 Hz 144 Hz
Adaptive refresh rate Yes Yes
Max rated brightness 800 nits -
Max rated brightness in HDR - 2000 nits
HDR support Yes, Dolby Vision Yes, Dolby Vision
Touch sampling rate 360 Hz -
Screen protection Tempered glass Tempered glass
Screen-to-body ratio 85.7% 89.8%
Display features - DCI-P3 - DCI-P3
- DC Dimming
Display tests
RGB color space 99.8% -
PWM Not detected -
Response time 28 ms -
Contrast 2087:1 -
Screen space comparison
Pad (T3201)
12.2″ (3:2 ratio) = 68.7 in2
Pad 8 Pro
11.2″ (3:2 ratio) = 57.9 in2
~18% more screen space
Peak brightness test (auto)
798 nits
Sources: NotebookCheck [3]

Design and build

Height 251.22 mm (9.89 inches) 271.1 mm (10.67 inches)
Width 173.42 mm (6.83 inches) 182 mm (7.17 inches)
Thickness 5.75 mm (0.23 inches) 6.5 mm (0.26 inches)
Weight 485 g (17.11 oz) 520 g (18.34 oz)
Waterproof No No
Rear material Metal Metal
Frame material Metal Metal
Colors Gray, Blue, Green White
Fingerprint scanner Yes, in-button No
Area 436 cm2 (67.5 inches2) 493 cm2 (76.5 inches2)
Repairability Average (2.74/5) -
Drop resistance Very good (B) · 208 drops -
Visual size comparison
Screen-to-body ratio
85.7%
89.8%
Tablet Ranking (29th and 57th place)
Android Tablet Ranking (23rd and 42nd place)

Performance

Chipset specifications of Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro and Asus Pad (T3201)
SoC
Chipset Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite MediaTek Dimensity 8300
Max clock 4320 MHz 3350 MHz
CPU cores 8 (2 + 6) 8 (1 + 3 + 4)
Architecture - 6 cores at 3.53 GHz: Oryon (Phoenix M)
- 2 cores at 4.32 GHz: Oryon (Phoenix L)
- 4 cores at 2.2 GHz: Cortex-A510
- 3 cores at 3.2 GHz: Cortex-A715
- 1 core at 3.35 GHz: Cortex-A715
L3 cache 8 MB 4 MB
Manufacturing TSMC TSMC
Lithography process 3 nanometers 4 nanometers
Neural processor (NPU) Hexagon MediaTek APU 780
GPU
Graphics Adreno 830 Mali G615 MP6
GPU shading units 1536 768
GPU clock 1100 MHz 1400 MHz
FLOPS ~3379.2 GFLOPS ~2150.4 GFLOPS

Benchmarks

Benchmark comparison of Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro and Asus Pad (T3201)
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core)
Pad 8 Pro +117%
3028
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core)
Pad 8 Pro +122%
9557
Compute Score (GPU)
Pad 8 Pro +157%
24482
Compute Score (GPU) 24482 9511
Single-core score 3028 1396
Multi-core score 9557 4296
Sources: Geekbench [3], [4]
AnTuTu Benchmark 11
Pad 8 Pro +137%
3153053
1331667
CPU 950473 367218
GPU 1169909 492839
Memory 360775 234854
UX 671896 236756
Total score 3153053 1331667
Samples [7 tests] Less than 3
3DMark Steel Nomad Light
Graphics test 18 FPS -
Graphics score 2476 -
3DMark Solar Bay
Graphics test 44 FPS -
Section 1 49 FPS -
Section 2 44 FPS -
Section 3 37 FPS -
Graphics score 11483 -
Sources: 3DMark [5]
PCMark 3.0
Web score 20463 -
Video editing 8142 -
Photo editing 35214 -
Data manipulation 16669 -
Writing score 20187 -

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro
DateBenchmarkResult
📘 2026-10-25 (iZenPlays)AnTuTu 123575321
📘 2026-09-18 (Ровный Вась на районе)AnTuTu 123372673
📘 2026-09-14 (Jopher Gayeta)AnTuTu 123170305
📘 2026-08-13 (Zei)Geekbench 6 CPU3028 / 9557
📘 2026-08-13 (Zei)AnTuTu 113206291
Asus Pad (T3201)
No benchmark results yet

Memory

Configuration
RAM
RAM size 8 GB 8 GB
Memory type LPDDR5X LPDDR5X
Memory clock 5300 MHz -
Channels 4 4
Storage
Storage size 128 GB 128 GB
Storage type UFS 4.1 UFS 3.1
Memory card No MicroSD
Memory card max size - Up to 1024 GB

Software

Operating system Android 16 Android 16
ROM HyperOS 3 -
OS size 50 GB -
OS updates 5 years -
Security updates - 3 years

Battery

Capacity 9200 mAh 9000 mAh
Max charge power 67 W 45 W
Battery type Li-Po Li-Po
Replaceable No No
Wireless charging No No
Reverse charging Yes Yes
Bypass charging - No
Fast charging Yes (52% in 30 min) Yes (50% in 30 min)
Full charging time 1:17 hr -
Battery cycles 1000 cycles -
Battery life tests
Web browsing 08:46 hr -
Watching video 12:31 hr -
Gaming 07:23 hr -
Standby 175 hr -
General battery life
27:53 hr

Main camera

Matrix 50 megapixels 13 megapixels
Image resolution 8160 x 6144 -
Zoom Digital Digital
Flash LED LED
Stabilization Digital Digital
8K video recording No No
4K video recording Up to 60FPS No
1080p video recording Up to 60FPS Up to 30FPS
Slow motion - No
Lenses 1) Standard: 50 MP
1) Standard: 13 MP
Camera features - Bokeh mode -
Standard lens
Image resolution 50 MP 13 MP
Aperture f/1.8 -
Sensor Samsung S5KJN1 -
Sensor size 1/2.76" (≈ 0.36 inch) -
Pixel size 0.64 micron -
Autofocus Phase autofocus Phase autofocus
Stabilization Digital Digital

Selfie camera

Megapixels 32 megapixels 5 megapixels
Image resolution 6528 x 4896 -
Aperture f/2.2 -
Sensor Omnivision OV32D -
Sensor size 1/3.6" (≈ 0.28 inch) -
Pixel size 0.61 micron -
Autofocus No No
Stabilization Digital No
Video resolution 1080p (Full HD) at 30 FPS 1080p (Full HD) at 30 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 6E (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax)
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 5.3
Bluetooth features LE LE
USB type USB Type-C USB Type-C
USB version 3.2 3.0
USB features - Charging
- USB-Storage mode
- OTG
- Charging
- USB-Storage mode
- OTG
DisplayPort Yes Yes, DP 1.4
NFC* No No
Infrared port Yes No
Network
Type of SIM card No No
eSIM support* No No
Hybrid slot - No
5G support No No

Sound

Speakers 4.0 4.0
Headphone audio jack No No
FM radio No No
Dolby Atmos Yes Yes
Speakers test
Max loudness
86.3 dB

Other

Category Mid-range Mid-range
Announced September 2025 July 2026
Release date September 2025 August 2026
Launch price (MSRP) $499 $480
Sensors - Proximity sensor
- Gyroscope
- Accelerometer
- Ambient light sensor
- Compass
- Fingerprint
- Proximity sensor
- Gyroscope
- Accelerometer
Bundled charger Yes, 67 W Yes, 45 W
*Disclaimer! NFC, GSM network support, and some other specs can be different depending on the country.

Conclusion

After analyzing all the data, we think that the Xiaomi Pad 8 Pro is definitely a better buy.

Cast your vote

So, which tablet would you choose?
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Total votes: < 1

User opinions

You can share your opinion or ask a question in the comments below
🌐 Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!