Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro review -Hz Flow AMOLED (Redmi Note 12 Pro Speed Edition)

The best smartphone in its price segment? Poco advertises nothing less than that as far as it concerns the X5 Pro. With a powerful Snapdragon chipset, flexible AMOLED display, and 108-MP camera, all the signs for our test of the Poco smartphone are good. But will this be enough for a purchase recommendation for the Poco smartphone?

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro smartphone test

Since the Poco X5 Pro is marketed internationally as Redmi Note 12 Pro Speed Edition, the many similarities to its Redmi Note 12 Pro sibling model are therefore not very surprising. But also in comparison to the processor, there are not many nominal changes aside from the SoC upgrade. The Snapdragon 778G smartphone is equipped with a large and fast 6.67-inch 120 Hz AMOLED display and uses the 1/1.52 inch Samsung ISOCELL HM2 sensor as the main camera.

The MSRP of the Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos certified Poco X5 Pro is 349.90 Euros (~$384) including 6 GB LPDDR4X RAM and 128 GB UFS 2.2 storage. The top version with 8 GB + 256 GB is offered for an MSRP of 399.90 € (~$439), although the prices have already dropped significantly below the 300-Euro mark (~$329) in some cases at the time of our test.

Display

6.67 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 395 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 256 GB

225 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio port, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, OTG, Miracast, IR Blaster

Networking

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n=Wi-Fi 4/ac=Wi-Fi 5/ax=Wi-Fi 6/), Bluetooth 5.2, 5G: n1/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/40/41/77/78; 4G: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/20/28/66(60 MHz), 38/40/41; 3G: 1/2/4/5/8; 2G: 850/900/1.800/1.900 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 162.91 x 76.03 (=0.31 x 6.41 x 2.99 in)

Battery

5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer

Charging

fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 12

Camera

Primary Camera: 108 MPix (f/1.9, 1/1.52″, 0.7µm) + 8 MP (f/2.2, 1/4″, 1.12µm) + 2 MP (f/2.4, macro)
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix (f/2.4, 1/3.06″ 1.0µm)

Additional features

Speakers: stereo, Keyboard: onscreen, case, USB cable, charger, info material , MIUI 14, 12 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0.99W/​kg head, 0.99W/​kg body, Widevine L1, fanless

Weight

181 g (= 6.38 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 131 g (= 4.62 oz / 0.29 pounds)

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

Rating

Date

Model

Weight

Drive

Size

Resolution

Best Price

85.4 %

04/2023

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L
181 g256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.67″2400×1080
82.5 %

07/2022

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
205 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.67″2400×1080
85.4 %

04/2023

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4
187 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.67″2400×1080
83.6 %

10/2022

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
155 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.30″2400×1080
83.4 %

06/2022

Samsung Galaxy A53
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4
189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50″2400×1080

The Poco X5 Pro is available in three colors: black, blue, and yellow. While the plastic back is matted, the large camera module keeps its dark gloss, causing fingerprints to collect quickly in this area. The quality of the workmanship and haptics is at a solid level for a midrange smartphone, but a Redmi Note 12 Pro with its glass back exudes a bit more quality.

Barely weighing 181 grams (~6.4 oz), not only is the midrange smartphone lighter than its predecessor, but with a case thickness of less than 8 mm (~0.3 in), it is also slimmer. This is made possible by the P-OLED materials of the Flow Display technology. Instead of layering the OLED components inside glass, the display components of the X5 Pro display are completely made of plastic. This allows for a more flexible OLED display, so it can also be made thinner.

The front of the Poco smartphone consists of scratchproof Gorilla Glass 5 that transitions evenly into the metal frame. The ratio between the display and case front is a good 87%. As its predecessor, the Poco X5 Pro also includes an IP certification according to IP53, offering splash water protection.

164.19 mm / 6.46 inch76.1 mm / 3 inch8.12 mm / 0.3197 inch205 g0.4519 lbs162.91 mm / 6.41 inch76.03 mm / 2.99 inch7.9 mm / 0.311 inch181 g0.399 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch76 mm / 2.99 inch7.9 mm / 0.311 inch187 g0.4123 lbs159.6 mm / 6.28 inch74.8 mm / 2.94 inch8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch189 g0.4167 lbs152.9 mm / 6.02 inch71.2 mm / 2.8 inch7.75 mm / 0.3051 inch155 g0.3417 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch105 mm / 4.13 inch1 mm / 0.03937 inch1.5 g0.00331 lbs

With Bluetooth 5.2, stereo speakers, an IR blaster, and NFC for contactless payments, as well as a 3.5 mm audio port, theX5 Pro offers a well-rounded equipment package for the midrange.Our test unit includes 256 GB of UFS 2.2 storage, but the actually available storage space is smaller at 224 GB, due to the operating system and several preinstalled apps. Those who need additional space for videos or photos can store them on external storage media such as USB sticks via USB OTG. The current X Pro series doesn’t allow you to expand the storage space by using a micoSD card.

Like that of theRedmi Note 12 Pro, theUSB-C connection of the sibling model from Poco only supports the 2.0 specification, which means that you cannot use it for wired image output with the midrange smartphone. In our copy test with a connected M2 SSD drive (Samsung 980 Pro), the transfer speed of the USB port is a low 32 MB/s. On the other hand, you can use wireless transfer of the display contents to external monitors via Miracast and watch video content from streaming services in HD quality thanks to Widevine L1.

Xiaomi combines the Android operating system with its inhouse MIUI user interface for Poco version 14. At the time of our test, the X5 Pro uses only Android 12 with the security patches from January 2023. Unfortunately, our questions to Poco Germany on the period of guaranteed upgrades remained unanswered. The Note 12 Pro sibling model is supposed to receive two large Android updates, and we can assume a similar support for the Poco smartphone. However, you should keep in mind that you already need one major OS upgrade to update the X5 Pro to the current Android 13, so that the next Android generation (Android 14) will probably be the end of the line for the X5 Pro.

In our view, the Chinese manufacturer unfortunately saves on expenses in the wrong place here, with Samsung, for example, showing that things can also be done better in the midrange in terms of software maintenance. A Galaxy A34receives four major updates and five years of software support. You probably cannot expect more than three years of security updates as in the predecessor for the Poco X5 Pro.

The integrated WLAN module of the X5 Pro supports Wi-Fi 6 and the protocols according to the IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax standards. In combination with our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router, the Poco achieves transfer rates of almost 1,000 Mbit/s when sending, which is very good in the midrange. Compared to the Wi-Fi 5 smartphones such as the Samsung Galaxy A53this turns out twice as high.

On the other hand, you have to accept some small compromises when using the mobile Internet. Even though the X5 Pro gives access to the 5G net, the built-in Snapdragon X53 modem only covers 13 LTE frequencies. For comparison, the Note 12 Pro sibling model can access 20 bands. With this, using the Poco smartphone when traveling can become problematic due to the limited frequency coverage.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

825 (790min – 837max) MBit/s ∼100% +2%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

805 (686min – 905max) MBit/s ∼98%

Average of class Smartphone
(34.8 – 1875, n=152, last 2 years)

634 MBit/s ∼77% -21%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

345 (328min – 351max) MBit/s ∼42% -57%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

343 (323min – 353max) MBit/s ∼42% -57%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

322 (124min – 352max) MBit/s ∼39% -60%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

977 (487min – 997max) MBit/s ∼100% 0%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

977 (487min – 997max) MBit/s ∼100%

Average of class Smartphone
(40.5 – 1810, n=153, last 2 years)

671 MBit/s ∼69% -31%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

358 (346min – 370max) MBit/s ∼37% -63%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

349 (317min – 362max) MBit/s ∼36% -64%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

269 (255min – 281max) MBit/s ∼28% -72%

050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900950Tooltip

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 642L; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø804 (686-905)

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø321 (124-352)

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 642L; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø960 (487-997)

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø349 (317-362)

The Poco X5 Pro determines its location via the main GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, and Beidou satellite systems but only in the single band. On the other hand, the signal strength is fairly high even indoors at an SNR value of more than 30, and the locating accuracy is also very high at 3 meters.

In order to evaluate the locating accuracy of the midrange smartphone in practice, we record a route in parallel with the Garmin Venu 2 for comparison. Even though we see some deviations in the recorded route details of the Poco smartphone, the route is often identical to that recorded by the Gamin smartwatch. At the end of the 10-km (~6.2 miles) test route, the difference between the recordings from the two devices is only 50 meters (~164 ft). The X5 Pro is therefore very well suited for everyday navigation tasks.

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro smartphone test

The Poco X5 Pro supports dual-SIM 5G with two Nano-SIM cards as well as the VoLTE standards and WLAN calls, but not an eSIM. The voice quality is very satisfactory, and voices are reproduced clearly. Our conversation partners describe the quality of the voice recordings with the X5 Pro with its two microphones as very clear. During a video conference using the stereo speakers, the voices are also clearly understandable and sufficiently loud.

The main camera of the X5 Pro is based on an “old acquaintance,” the Samsung HM2, which has already been used in the X4 Pro. The 108-MP main camera (f/1.9) records 12-MP pictures via 9-in-1 pixel binning but still doesn’t offer optical image stabilization, causing pictures to become blurry fairly quickly, particularly in the dark.

With a lot of light, the pictures impress with a very beautiful image sharpness and many details. We also like the dynamic of the pictures. However, colors are reproduced very bright with the Poco X5 Pro, appearing slightly unnatural particularly with green color tones such as in the meadow in our comparison pictures. Under low-light conditions, the Poco smartphone also quickly reaches its limits. On one hand, with its large open aperture, the pictures appear less dark than those of a Pixel 6a, and the noise level is also fairly low. On the other hand, the contours of the objects look very soft.

The ultrawide angle lens with a relatively narrow viewing angle of 120 degrees produces a decent image quality for this price range, but the 8-MP pictures aren’t really that enjoyable. The pictures show many irregularities and only offer a solid sharpness in the center of the image. Since there wasn’t any space for a telephoto lens left in the X5 Pro, enlargements are solely created digitally, and the results are correspondingly weak.

In contrast to that of theX4 Prothe video performance gives no larger reasons for complaint.Finally, the Poco midrange is also able to record videos in UHD resolution. If you want 60 fps, you can only use 1080p. The electronic stabilization of the 108-MP camera is decent, and in daylight conditions, movements are recorded solidly.

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.

wide anglewide angleLow LightUltraweitwinkelZoom 5x

click to load images

We analyze the color reproduction of the Samsung HM2 sensor under controlled light conditions compared to the actual reference colors. In addition to the smartphone-typical brightening, the X5 Pro shows large deviations in the green color tones of the ColorChecker passport, which isn’t much of a surprise considering the saturated comparison photos. However, the Poco smartphone shows only few color deviation outliers (>10) overall.

ColorChecker

13.2 ∆E

5.9 ∆E

12.5 ∆E

17.5 ∆E

9.8 ∆E

6.6 ∆E

5.5 ∆E

9.5 ∆E

8.3 ∆E

6.6 ∆E

6.9 ∆E

5.4 ∆E

8.5 ∆E

12.7 ∆E

10.9 ∆E

2.3 ∆E

6.7 ∆E

12.4 ∆E

8.2 ∆E

2.5 ∆E

5.7 ∆E

7.8 ∆E

2.6 ∆E

2.8 ∆E

ColorChecker Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro: 7.95 ∆E min: 2.32 – max: 17.55 ∆E
ColorChecker

28.6 ∆E

49.8 ∆E

38 ∆E

34.8 ∆E

42.8 ∆E

60.3 ∆E

49.6 ∆E

33 ∆E

34.5 ∆E

28 ∆E

62.1 ∆E

62.9 ∆E

29.1 ∆E

47.2 ∆E

30 ∆E

73 ∆E

39.6 ∆E

42.9 ∆E

75 ∆E

68.2 ∆E

50.7 ∆E

36.5 ∆E

23.9 ∆E

13.5 ∆E

ColorChecker Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro: 43.91 ∆E min: 13.46 – max: 75.02 ∆E
67-Watt charger of the Poco X5 Pro
67-Watt charger of the Poco X5 Pro

The box of the midrange smartphone includes a modular 67-Watt charger, a data and charging cable, a protective case, a SIM tool, and quick start instructions together with warranty information. The manufacturer doesn’t offer any particular accessories for the X5 Pro in its online shop.

Xiaomi offers a 12-month warranty for its smartphone in Germany.

The inputs on the large 6.67-inch Flow AMOLED dot display with a 240-Hz scan rate are implemented quickly and accurately up to the corners of the touchscreen. Xiaomi also equips itssmartphone midrange with an attractive vibration motor that offers very accurate haptic feedback in everyday operation.

The active fingerprint sensor in the on/off button is easy to reach and unlocks the X5 Pro very reliably and also fairly quickly. There is also the less secure 2D face recognition, which is based on a face unlock function via the front camera. In daylight conditions, this works similarly speedily.

Display of the subpixel grid
Display of the subpixel grid

The 6.67-inch AMOLED display of the Poco X5 Pro has a 2,400 x 1,080 pixel resolution and supports a maximum refresh rate up to 120 Hz. Those who want to conserve some battery life can also use the display in automatic mode. A refresh rate of 60 and 120 Hz is used here, which is also implemented well during our test.

In our brightness measurements, the OLED panel reaches 770 cd/m² on average with a full-area white display, which is satisfactory for this price class but less than in the Redmi Note 12 Pro. In the APL18 measurement that is more representative of everyday operation, it reaches 774 cd/m² in the image center.

Because of the OLED panel, PWM technology together with its display flickering is used to control the display brightness. We measure a constant 120 Hz with an even amplitude. However, the manufacturer speaks of a very high PWM frequency of 1920 Hz, which would be much more comfortable particularly for more sensitive users. In the end, we are unable to determine whether the difference here is due to our measurement equipment or such a mode that would be similar to automatic DC dimming was simply not active.

769
cd/m²
776
cd/m²
795
cd/m²
768
cd/m²
770
cd/m²
795
cd/m²
769
cd/m²
771
cd/m²
792
cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 795 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 778.3 cd/m² Minimum: 2.04 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 770 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.6 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.23

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.67
Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.67
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
OLED, 2400×1080, 6.67
Motorola Edge 30 Neo
pOLED, 2400×1080, 6.30
Samsung Galaxy A53
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.50
Screen

6%

32%

1%

-6%

Brightness middle

770

687

-11%

938

22%

984

28%

718

-7%

Brightness

778

694

-11%

939

21%

992

28%

730

-6%

Brightness Distribution

97

96

-1%

96

-1%

98

1%

92

-5%

Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *

1.6

1.2

25%

0.9

44%

1.6

-0%

1.62

-1%

Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *

3.3

4

-21%

1.6

52%

3.8

-15%

4.21

-28%

Greyscale dE 2000 *

2.2

1

55%

1

55%

3

-36%

2

9%

Gamma

2.23 99%

2.16 102%

2.25 98%

2.14 103%

2.156 102%

CCT

6882 94%

6496 100%

6350 102%

6518 100 %

6545 99%

* … 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 120 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 120 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 120 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18986 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Series of measurements at a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

We evaluate the color calibration of the AMOLED panel using the Calman analysis software. In the default settings (Standard profile), the sRGB color space is targeted and almost covered completely. In the Vivid profile, we also determine only small deviations from the larger DCI-P3 color space. There are hardly any noticeable differences in the separate colors. The DeltaE values we measure show a very low deviation in the colors (<2). The display of the grayscale also only reveals a small deviation that remains within the target range (<3).

Like theXiaomi high endthe Poco X5 Pro offers three color profiles and also an “Adjusted” mode where you can adjust the color temperature as well as single parameters such as the saturation or color space.

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
1.32 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.6325 ms rise
↘ 0.69 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.4 ms).
Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.57 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.7425 ms rise
↘ 0.827 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.5 ms).

The midrange smartphone proves itself to be well-equipped for outdoor use, even if the reflections can be annoying. Due to the high brightness and powerful contrast, the contents remain sufficiently readable even in direct sunlight. You should keep in mind, however, that the maximum brightness without activated brightness sensor is only 494 cd/m².

The viewing angle stability is very good, but there is a noticeable loss in brightness from very steep viewing angles. While you can hardly see any changes in the colors, the display then looks slightly cooler.

Poco X5 Pro viewing angles
Poco X5 Pro viewing angles

In the Poco X5 Pro, aSnapdragon 778G integrates eight cores arranged in two clusters and the Adreno 642Lgraphics unit. Thanks to the inhouse RAM expansion technology, up to 5 GB of available ROM storage can be converted into virtual working memory, allowing you to expand the internal RAM up to a maximum of 13 GB in this way.

In our CPU benchmark package, the Poco smartphone places slightly ahead of the Note 12 Pro sibling model, which uses the Mediatek Dimensity 1080. Particularly in the multi score of Geekbench, the Snapdragon 778G should be considered more powerful due to the additional ARM Cortex A78 cores. Overall, the results are significantly above the performance level of the predecessor.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core
Average of class Smartphone
(119 – 1885, n=246, last 2 years)

798 Points ∼100% +1%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

789 Points ∼99%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(765 – 791, n=11)

781 Points ∼98% -1%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

765 Points ∼96% -3%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

740 Points ∼93% -6%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

694 Points ∼87% -12%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

666 Points ∼83% -16%

Multi-Core
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

2987 Points ∼100%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(2785 – 3000, n=11)

2882 Points ∼96% -4%

Average of class Smartphone
(472 – 5538, n=246, last 2 years)

2556 Points ∼86% -14%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

2038 Points ∼68% -32%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

2035 Points ∼68% -32%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

1928 Points ∼65% -35%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

1878 Points ∼63% -37%

Geekbench 6
Single-Core
Average of class Smartphone
(188 – 2531, n=31, last 2 years)

1247 Points ∼100% +22%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

1022 Points ∼82%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G

1022 Points ∼82% 0%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

968 Points ∼78% -5%

Multi-Core
Average of class Smartphone
(512 – 6460, n=31, last 2 years)

3359 Points ∼100% +12%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

2987 Points ∼89%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G

2987 Points ∼89% 0%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

2201 Points ∼66% -26%

Antutu v9 – Total Score
Average of class Smartphone
(111952 – 1322448, n=162, last 2 years)

640653 Points ∼100% +19%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

540593 Points ∼84%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(438254 – 540593, n=11)

501252 Points ∼78% -7%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

409976 Points ∼64% -24%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

404846 Points ∼63% -25%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

383847 Points ∼60% -29%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

Points ∼0% -100%

PCMark for Android – Work 3.0
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

12699 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

11763 Points ∼93% -7%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(9330 – 13296, n=10)

11553 Points ∼91% -9%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

11470 Points ∼90% -10%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

10571 Points ∼83% -17%

Average of class Smartphone
(4436 – 19783, n=230, last 2 years)

10452 Points ∼82% -18%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

9741 Points ∼77% -23%

CrossMark – Overall
Average of class Smartphone
(226 – 1356, n=119, last 2 years)

793 Points ∼100% +8%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

734 Points ∼93%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

665 Points ∼84% -9%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(621 – 734, n=5)

663 Points ∼84% -10%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

604 Points ∼76% -18%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

579 Points ∼73% -21%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

574 Points ∼72% -22%

BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average of class Smartphone
(411 – 9585, n=162, last 2 years)

5028 Points ∼100% +10%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

4576 Points ∼91%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(4079 – 5002, n=11)

4549 Points ∼90% -1%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

4189 Points ∼83% -8%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

3822 Points ∼76% -16%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

3794 Points ∼75% -17%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

3626 Points ∼72% -21%

System
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

9876 Points ∼100%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(8751 – 10816, n=11)

9736 Points ∼99% -1%

Average of class Smartphone
(2083 – 19657, n=162, last 2 years)

8759 Points ∼89% -11%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

7950 Points ∼80% -20%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

7736 Points ∼78% -22%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

7157 Points ∼72% -28%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

6684 Points ∼68% -32%

Memory
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

5938 Points ∼100% +8%

Average of class Smartphone
(670 – 11617, n=162, last 2 years)

5543 Points ∼93% +1%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

5488 Points ∼92%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(3956 – 6372, n=11)

4968 Points ∼84% -9%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

4593 Points ∼77% -16%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

4452 Points ∼75% -19%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

3855 Points ∼65% -30%

Graphics
Average of class Smartphone
(697 – 29649, n=162, last 2 years)

10688 Points ∼100% +61%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(6594 – 6783, n=11)

6686 Points ∼63% +1%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

6632 Points ∼62%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

5178 Points ∼48% -22%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

5093 Points ∼48% -23%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

4401 Points ∼41% -34%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

4375 Points ∼41% -34%

Web
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

1521 Points ∼100% +23%

Average of class Smartphone
(10 – 2392, n=162, last 2 years)

1442 Points ∼95% +16%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

1378 Points ∼91% +11%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(1155 – 1534, n=11)

1336 Points ∼88% +8%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

1283 Points ∼84% +4%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

1239 Points ∼81%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

1210 Points ∼80% -2%

UL Procyon AI Inference – Overall Score
Average of class Smartphone
(207 – 84787, n=106, last 2 years)

23632 Points ∼100% +19%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192

21997 Points ∼93% +11%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192

19875 Points ∼84%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
(7622 – 19875, n=5)

12471 Points ∼53% -37%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144

7638 Points ∼32% -62%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192

7617 Points ∼32% -62%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144

4239 Points ∼18% -79%

We see a similar picture in the graphics tests, but the benchmark values are even further apart here. In theGFXBench and 3DMark measurements, the Poco X5 Pro places about 20 to 25%, at times even 40%, ahead of theNote 12 Pro sibling model.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

681 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

632 Points ∼93% -7%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

621 Points ∼91% -9%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

371 Points ∼54% -46%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

354 Points ∼52% -48%

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

687 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

643 Points ∼94% -6%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

636 Points ∼93% -7%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

362 Points ∼53% -47%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

361 Points ∼53% -47%

3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2434 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2287 Points ∼94% -6%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

2275 Points ∼93% -7%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

1227 Points ∼50% -50%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

1206 Points ∼50% -50%

3DMark / Wild Life Score
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2465 Points ∼100%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

2293 Points ∼93% -7%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2273 Points ∼92% -8%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

1292 Points ∼52% -48%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

1208 Points ∼49% -51%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2763 Points ∼100% +10%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2736 Points ∼99% +9%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2701 Points ∼98% +7%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

2689 Points ∼97% +7%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2521 Points ∼91%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

5311 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4198 Points ∼79% -21%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

3902 Points ∼73% -27%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2731 Points ∼51% -49%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2692 Points ∼51% -49%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4276 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

3784 Points ∼88% -12%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

3546 Points ∼83% -17%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2738 Points ∼64% -36%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2694 Points ∼63% -37%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4897 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4411 Points ∼90% -10%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

3512 Points ∼72% -28%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

3241 Points ∼66% -34%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

3097 Points ∼63% -37%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

5563 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4387 Points ∼79% -21%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

3982 Points ∼72% -28%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2998 Points ∼54% -46%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

2967 Points ∼53% -47%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

5341 Points ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

4362 Points ∼82% -18%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

3746 Points ∼70% -30%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

3092 Points ∼58% -42%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

3024 Points ∼57% -43%

GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

69 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

58 fps ∼84% -16%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

56 fps ∼81% -19%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

42 fps ∼61% -39%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

42 fps ∼61% -39%

GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

78 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

69 fps ∼88% -12%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

61 fps ∼78% -22%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

47 fps ∼60% -40%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

47 fps ∼60% -40%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

49 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

40 fps ∼82% -18%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

35 fps ∼71% -29%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

31 fps ∼63% -37%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

30 fps ∼61% -39%

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

58 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

46 fps ∼79% -21%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

38 fps ∼66% -34%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

35 fps ∼60% -40%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

34 fps ∼59% -41%

GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

29 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

22 fps ∼76% -24%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

20 fps ∼69% -31%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

17 fps ∼59% -41%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

17 fps ∼59% -41%

GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

34 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

27 fps ∼79% -21%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

23 fps ∼68% -32%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

20 fps ∼59% -41%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

19 fps ∼56% -44%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

19 fps ∼100%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

15 fps ∼79% -21%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

14 fps ∼74% -26%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

12 fps ∼63% -37%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

12 fps ∼63% -37%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

13 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

12 fps ∼92% -8%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

10 fps ∼77% -23%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

8.2 fps ∼63% -37%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

8.1 fps ∼62% -38%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

30 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

27 fps ∼90% -10%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

23 fps ∼77% -23%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

20 fps ∼67% -33%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

19 fps ∼63% -37%

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

35 fps ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

29 fps ∼83% -17%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

26 fps ∼74% -26%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

22 fps ∼63% -37%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

21 fps ∼60% -40%

The Xiaomi smartphone similarly shows no weaknesses in the browser speeds, although it is not dominating in the benchmark results anymore. However, websites are still rendered quickly and can be scrolled smoothly.

Jetstream 2 – Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (16.9 – 282, n=163, last 2 years)

83.5 Points ∼100% +25%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (58.8 – 86.8, n=11)

75.1 Points ∼90% +12%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo (Chrome 106)

72.259 Points ∼87% +8%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

71.873 Points ∼86% +7%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro (Chrome 111)

66.879 Points ∼80%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro (Chrome 103)

64.534 Points ∼77% -4%

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)

63.5 Points ∼76% -5%

Speedometer 2.0 – Result
Average of class Smartphone (13.3 – 375, n=151, last 2 years)

78.4 runs/min ∼100% +41%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

62.9 runs/min ∼80% +13%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (52.5 – 61.5, n=9)

56.2 runs/min ∼72% +1%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro (Chrome 111)

55.8 runs/min ∼71%

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Burning 101)

51.24 runs/min ∼65% -8%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro (Chrome 103)

42.4 runs/min ∼54% -24%

WebXPRT 4 – Overall Score
Average of class Smartphone (25 – 202, n=77, last 2 years)

92.4 Points ∼100% +44%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo (chrome 106)

75 Points ∼81% +17%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (64 – 74, n=4)

71.3 Points ∼77% +11%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

71 Points ∼77% +11%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro (Chrome 103)

65 Points ∼70% +2%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro (Chrome 111)

64 Points ∼69%

WebXPRT 3 – —
Average of class Smartphone (28 – 292, n=146, last 2 years)

109.5 Points ∼100%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (93 – 131, n=10)

107 Points ∼98%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

102 Points ∼93%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro

94 Points ∼86%

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)

69 Points ∼63%

Octane V2 – Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

31662 Points ∼100% +24%

Average of class Smartphone (4633 – 74261, n=193, last 2 years)

28953 Points ∼91% +14%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo (chrome 106)

27593 Points ∼87% +8%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (23915 – 31915, n=11)

27285 Points ∼86% +7%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro (Chrome 111)

25439 Points ∼80%

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)

24159 Points ∼76% -5%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro (Chrome 103)

22938 Points ∼72% -10%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 – Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 – 10797, n=168, last 2 years)

2060 ms * ∼100% -18%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro (Chrome 103)

1982.32 ms * ∼96% -14%

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)

1920.3 ms * ∼93% -10%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G (Chrome 111)

1766.4 ms * ∼86% -1%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro (Chrome 111)

1742.9 ms * ∼85%

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (1323 – 1893, n=11)

1620 ms * ∼79% +7%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo (chrome 106)

1501.9 ms * ∼73% +14%

* … smaller is better

In terms of the storage speed, the UFS storage of the Poco X5 Pro delivers a good performance. Particularly when writing, the results in AndroBench are very good and almost twice as high compared to theX4 Pro.

Xiaomi Poco X5 ProXiaomi Poco X4 ProXiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5GMotorola Edge 30 NeoSamsung Galaxy A53Average 256 GB UFS 2.2 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5

-43%

-4%

-40%

-30%

-11%

-13%

Sequential Read 256KB

1008.77

303.4

-70%

1008.8

0%

498.82

-51%

510.1

-49%

931 ?(514 – 1009, n=8)

-8%

1124 ?(90.5 – 3867, n=239, last 2 years)

11%

Sequential Write 256KB

878.9

483.33

-45%

865.59

-2%

469.52

-47%

486.7

-45%

727 ?(369 – 879, n=8)

-17%

692 ?(13.6 – 3062, n=239, last 2 years)

-21%

Random Read 4KB

244.85

193.45

-21%

241.83

-1%

180.19

-26%

229.9

-6%

229 ?(193.4 – 277, n=8)

-6%

200 ?(22.2 – 543, n=239, last 2 years)

-18%

Random Write 4KB

267.41

173.03

-35%

234.21

-12%

169.19

-37%

210.8

-21%

237 ?(175.1 – 301, n=8)

-11%

207 ?(13 – 572, n=240, last 2 years)

-23%

Those who want to play some games from the Play Store with their smartphone can definitely use the Poco X5 Pro to do that. Accompanied by 8 GB of working memory, the Adreno 642Lis able to reach good values in our measurements with the app from GameBench.

At medium details (HD mode), the frame rates for PUBG mobile remain constant at 40 fps. If we reduce the graphics details in the test, the graphics unit reaches a constant 60 frames per second. Less demanding games such as Armajet are able to use the full 120 Hz of the OLED panel, at least sometimes. However, after a short time period, the frame rate drops to about 70 fps. The Note 12 Pro remains more constant here.

0102030405060708090100110120Tooltip

In everyday operation, the Poco X5 Pro keeps a very good handle on the surface temperatures of the case. The Wild Life stress tests of 3DMark also reveal only minimal throttling of the system performance for theQualcomm SoC. However, we are still able to detect a reduction in the frame rates under high loads (gaming), for example in Armajet.

32.8 °C
91 F
31.7 °C
89 F
31.3 °C
88 F
32.6 °C
91 F
32.4 °C
90 F
30.6 °C
87 F
30.4 °C
87 F
30.8 °C
87 F
31.3 °C
88 F
Maximum: 32.8 °C=91 F
Average: 31.5 °C=89 F
30.1 °C
86 F
31.2 °C
88 F
31.5 °C
89 F
29.7 °C
85 F
30 °C
86 F
32 °C
90 F
29.9 °C
86 F
29.9 °C
86 F
31.6 °C
89 F
Maximum: 32 °C=90 F
Average: 30.7 °C=87 F

Power Supply (max.)  26.5 °C=80 F | Room Temperature 20.5 °C=69 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 32.6 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.6 °C / 91 F.

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

99.6 % ∼100% +1%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.5 % ∼100% +1%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.5 % ∼100% +1%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.5 % ∼100% +1%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.4 % ∼100% 0%

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99 % ∼99%

Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.7 % ∼100%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.6 % ∼100% 0%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.2 % ∼99% -1%

Motorola Edge 30 Neo
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99 % ∼99% -1%

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash

99.1 % ∼99% -1%

Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

97.8 % ∼98% -2%

01234567891011121314Tooltip

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø4.09 (4.08-4.1)

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø2.15 (2.14-2.16)

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø3.79 (3.79-3.8)

Motorola Edge 30 Neo Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.0.2: Ø2.15 (2.14-2.16)

Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø3.81 (3.75-3.84)

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø14.6 (14.6-14.7)

Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.25 (7.24-7.28)

Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 1080, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.7 (13.6-13.7)

Motorola Edge 30 Neo Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.2 (7.19-7.22)

Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.7 (13.7-13.7)

At more than 90 dB, the dual speaker system of the Poco X5 Pro can get very loud, and thanks to the stereo sound and even mids and highs, it also sounds attractive for a midrange smartphone. Even though the two speakers lack bass, you can still hear some slight bass in the sound spectrum.

Headphones can be connected via the audio port. In our measurements, the signal-to-noise level is at a very good 91 dBFS, so the 3.5-mm audio port offers a very low-noise connection and high signal quality. Those who prefer to use Bluetooth for a wireless connection can then also use many audio codecs such as SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX adaptive, LDAC, and LHDC.

dB(A)0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2029.632.2253028.33124.525.44025.8365037.537.46325.234.88020.233.910020.43412517.541.116014.447.920014.348.625015.252.131511.954.240013.55750012.166.563012.467.380011.771.2100011.878.9125011.479.6160012.378.4200012.274.9250012.178.3315012.282.4400012.982.7500013.479630013.279.2800012.978.21000013.676.61250013.469.31600013.264.7SPL24.890.8N0.683.5median 12.9median 71.2Delta0.811.95338.644.538.433.728.833.434.535.837.630.128.621.323.52121.516.327.714.738.212.94514.351.21353.110.857.112.362.713.566.519.571.61578.514.177.914.97611.976.612.87615.472.616.573.216.767.517.272.31865.117.963.817.658.518.351.82886.10.962.1median 15median 65.12.111.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Poco X5 ProSamsung Galaxy A53

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

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.8 dB)
Bass 100 – 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass – on average 24.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 – 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids – on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 – 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs – on average 8.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 25% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A53 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 – 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass – on average 25.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 – 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids – on average 8.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 – 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs – on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 59% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 75% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

The Poco X5 Pro has a 5,000-mAh battery that can be charged at up to 67 watts with a wired connection. Fortunately, a sufficiently fast charger is also included in the box. Using the inhouse “Turbo Charging” fast-charging technology, it takes about 45 minutes for a full recharge. Wireless charging is not supported, but the Poco smartphone can be used as a power bank with 5 watts.

The power consumption is inconspicuous. Particularly during idle operation, other comparable smartphones consume more power than the Poco X5 Pro.

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco X4 Pro
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Edge 30 Neo
4020 mAh
Samsung G Galaxy A53
5000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G
Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption

-11%

-28%

-1%

-22%

-42%

-16%

Idle Minimum *

0.97

1.01

-4%

0.99

-2%

0.9

7%

0.9

7%

1.106 ?(0.78 – 2.5, n=10)

-14%

0.876 ?(0.12 – 2.5, n=172, last 2 years)

10%

Idle Average *

1.13

1.73

-53%

2.03

-80%

1.55

-37%

1.3

-15%

2.07 ?(1.13 – 5, n=10)

-83%

1.503 ?(0.65 – 3.6, n=172, last 2 years)

-33%

Idle Maximum *

1.44

1.79

-24%

2.08

-44%

1.56

-8%

1.6

-11%

2.32 ?(1.44 – 5.6, n=10)

-61%

1.708 ?(0.69 – 3.7, n=172, last 2 years)

-19%

Load Average *

3.26

3.05

6%

3.97

-22%

2.82

13%

5.7

-75%

4.17 ?(3.23 – 7.8, n=10)

-28%

4.22 ?(2.1 – 7.74, n=172, last 2 years)

-29%

Load Maximum *

6.29

4.91

22%

5.85

7%

4.97

21%

7.3

-16%

7.81 ?(6.29 – 14, n=10)

-24%

7.01 ?(3.56 – 11.9, n=172, last 2 years)

-11%

* … smaller is better

In our two realistic battery tests that are run at an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m² for easy comparison, the Poco X5 Pro reaches an attractive battery life at a fixed 120-Hz display refresh rate.

In our WLAN test, the midrange smartphone manages to last for almost 14 hours, and in the constant video loop with a deactivated WLAN module, it even lasts again 4 hours longer. Compared to the predecessor, this is a slight battery life increase of 3 to 5%. On the other hand, under load, the lights go out after about 5 hours.

Battery Runtime

Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)21h 37min
WiFi Websurfing13h 47min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p17h 47min
Load (maximum brightness)5h 11min

Pros

+ beautiful OLED display

+ long battery life

+ good perfomance

+ charger included

+ extensive equipment (3.5 mm audio port, NFC, HDR10+, …)

Cons

a lot of plastic and the case isn’t waterproof

software support

only few LTE frequencies

Testing the Poco X5 Pro. Test unit provided by NBB.com (notebooksbilliger.de)
Testing the Poco X5 Pro. Test unit provided by NBB.com (notebooksbilliger.de)

For a relatively affordable midrange smartphone – with prices starting around 290 Euros (~$318) at the time of our test – thePoco X5 Pro brings almost everything that a price conscious buyer could expect: powerful hardware, fast communication modules, and extensive equipment.

Those who can get along with less SoC power will find an interesting alternative in the Note 12 Pro, since the sibling model offers a better main camera and slightly higher case quality. With its plastic case, unfortunately the latter is not one of the strengths of the Poco X5 Pro.

The Poco X5 Pro is a great 300-Euro smartphone for those who don’t like updates. However, owners of a X3 Pro would surely have wished for a better SoC, since nothing much has changed in the last two generations of the X Pro series in terms of the performance.

Unfortunately, the Chinese manufacturer has saved on the software or to be exact, its support. Only two large Android updates for a smartphone that is still delivered with Android 12 aren’t really up to the current standards anymore. In the same way, the long intervals between security updates don’t belong in the midrange anymore. Here Samsung shows how things can be done better with its Galaxy A34.

Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro– 04/17/2023 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Connectivity

53 /7076%

Games Performance

50 /6478%

Application Performance

84 /8698%

Smartphone – Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of 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.

Pricecompare

> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News> Reviews> Xiaomi Poco X5 Pro review – Light 5G smartphone with 108 MP and 120-Hz Flow AMOLED (Redmi Note 12 Pro Speed Edition)

Marcus Herbrich, 2023-04-22 (Update: 2023-04-22)

Note: This article have been indexed to our site. We do not claim legitimacy, ownership or copyright of any of the content above. To see the article at original source Click Here

Related Posts
Maximum confusion about Samsung's new fan smartphone thumbnail

Maximum confusion about Samsung's new fan smartphone

via Onleaks/Voice Für diesen Herbst hatte Samsung eigentlich ein weiteres Smartphone geplant, doch der Nachfolger des Fan-Bestsellers bleibt auf der Strecke. Immer mehr Quellen und sogar offizielle Stellen bestätigen, dass es Probleme mit der Produktion gibt und der Marktstart womöglich komplett auf Eis gelegt ist. Samsung läuft die Zeit davon. Zuletzt hieß es, dass das…
Read More

JD.com, Baidu invest $400 million in elevator ad firm Xinchao

(image credit: Xinchao Media) JD.com and Baidu have jointly invested $400 million in elevator advertising firm Xinchao Media Group. Why it matters: The two Chinese tech giants are returning investors in the Chengdu-based media company. The deal is a major external investment for JD following a management reshuffle. In May, Hu Zhengwei, the former executive…
Read More
DSU Romania Ce Trebuie sa Faci daca trec printr-o Forma Grava a COVID-19 thumbnail

DSU Romania Ce Trebuie sa Faci daca trec printr-o Forma Grava a COVID-19

DSU transmite o atentionare foarte importanta pentru romanii din toata tara, iar asta pentru ca le spune cum trebuie sa actioneze daca trec printr-o forma grava a COVID-19, prima masura trebuind sa fie apelarea serviciului unic de urgenta 112. “Creșterea capacității de testare și testarea în special a persoanelor cu posibilitate crescută de a fi…
Read More
Index Of News
Total
0
Share