vivo NEX S review

Performance

It's pretty clear vivo set out to create a fully decked-out flagship with the NEX S. Granted, there is a pretty valid argument to be made in defence of the NEX A and its more value-conscious approach to internals. Then again, if you really want to make a noticeable splash and leave a lasting impression on the industry, you can't really have inferior internals muddy-up your overall presentation.

Vivo is keeping things pretty safe with the NEX S. Under the hood there is a Snapdragon 845 chipset. It is paired with either 128GB or 256GB of storage and a whopping 8GB of RAM. Still gruesome overkill for a modern Android device in our view, but that's what a fully maxed-out configuration currently looks like. Coincidentally, we have the top-tier configuration in for review.

Starting with GeekBench and its pure CPU workloads, there are little to no surprises to observe. The Snapdragon 845 inside the NEX S appears to be adequately cooled and properly powered to maintain its expected levels of performance. In single-core runs, we see it only lose out to the Exynos 9810 inside the Galaxy S9+ and the chart-topping Apple A11 Bionic.

GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone X
  4256
• Apple iPhone 8 Plus
  4232
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  3771
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  2468
• vivo NEX S
  2466
• HTC U12+
  2456
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  2454
• OnePlus 6
  2450
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  2431
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  2199
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  1987
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  1934
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  1915
• Huawei P20 Pro
  1907
• LG V30
  1901
• Honor 10
  1894
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  1862
• Oppo R15 Pro
  1612

Multi-threaded runs leave the vivo NEX S actually leading the Snapdragon 845 pack, but not by much. Definitely not enough of a delta to notice with any real-world task.

GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone X
  10215
• Apple iPhone 8 Plus
  10037
• vivo NEX S
  9160
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  9158
• OnePlus 6
  9011
• HTC U12+
  9001
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  8883
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  8494
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  8466
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  8349
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  6784
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  6725
• Huawei P20 Pro
  6679
• Honor 10
  6591
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  6590
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  6428
• LG V30
  6365
• Oppo R15 Pro
  5809

The Geekbench 4 Compute test appears pretty similar, only with an even wider score gap. We have to wonder whether Geekbench isn't benefiting in some way from the ridiculous amounts of RAM, the vivo NEX S has at its disposal.

Geekbench 4 Compute

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  12564
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  12440
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  12360
• HTC U12+
  12338
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  8193
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  7709

This is clearly what is happening with AnTuTu 7. Not only is the amount of RAM considered as a part of the final score calculation, but the actual memory chips could potentially be a bit snappier as well. We are kind of running off assumptions here, as to the quality and source of the RAM modules, but, generally speaking, solid state RAM gets faster, as the individual chips grow in capacity.

AnTuTu 7

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  287081
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  270814
• OnePlus 6
  264200
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  264044
• HTC U12+
  263696
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  259244
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  246660
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  217298
• Huawei P20 Pro
  209884
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  209577
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  203119
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  201065
• Honor 10
  200440
• LG V30
  182374
• Oppo R15 Pro
  146526

Again, while this could partially explain the chart-topping AnTuTu score, the extra points don't really translate to a snappier real-world performance. Unless, your idea of "real-world" involves aimlessly crunching integrals on your phone.

BaseMark OS 2.0 is a bit less generous towards the NEX S. It should serve as a good illustration of our previous point. A few points more or less, here and there have little meaning outside isolated benchmark runs. The takeaway here is that the Snapdragon 845 inside the vivo is just as powerful as the same flagship Qualcomm chip found in its rivals.

The exact same logic applies to the Adreno 630 GPU as well.

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone 8 Plus
  85
• vivo NEX S
  83
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  83
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  83
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  82
• Apple iPhone X
  81
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  74
• OnePlus 6
  71
• Huawei P20 Pro
  66
• HTC U12+
  64
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  64
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  63
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  61
• LG V30
  60
• Honor 10
  57
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  51
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  46
• Oppo R15 Pro
  22

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  59
• Apple iPhone X
  59
• Apple iPhone 8 Plus
  59
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  59
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  59
• OnePlus 6
  59
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  57
• Huawei P20 Pro
  55
• Honor 10
  53
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  51
• HTC U12+
  50
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  45
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  42
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  37
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  36
• LG V30
  35
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  27
• Oppo R15 Pro
  19

Again, we see the NEX S perform identically to the similarly-equipped competition. Still, it is interesting to explain its apparent (even if often alphabetical) superiority in the on-screen tests, considering it seems to have a bigger resolution to drive.

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  61
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  61
• vivo NEX S
  60
• HTC U12+
  60
• OnePlus 6
  58
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  55
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  53
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  47
• Apple iPhone X
  44
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  43
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  42
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  42
• LG V30
  41
• Huawei P20 Pro
  40
• Honor 10
  37
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  34
• Oppo R15 Pro
  15

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  55
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  55
• OnePlus 6
  55
• Apple iPhone X
  51
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  51
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  50
• Huawei P20 Pro
  37
• Honor 10
  37
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  34
• HTC U12+
  33
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  24
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  23
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  21
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  20
• LG V30
  19
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  18
• Oppo R15 Pro
  12

Yes, indeed, the more hawk-eyed among you might have noticed that due to its very tall, 19.3:9 aspect ratio, the vivo NEX has a few more pixels to serve than the likes of other FullHD+ devices, like the Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S or the OnePlus 6.

That's just the problem with PR notations, like FullHD+. We have to wonder, what resolution actually merits some other nonsensical buzzword, like FullHD++. But, we digress and we definitely don't want to give anybody any bright ideas. In reality, for most of these benchmarks, the vivo NEX S is actually running with a small navigation bar on the side. Coincidentally, one just wide enough to compensate for the higher resolution.

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  35
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  35
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  35
• HTC U12+
  35
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  35
• OnePlus 6
  35
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  33
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  28
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  25
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  25
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  25
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  25
• LG V30
  24
• Huawei P20 Pro
  23
• Honor 10
  23
• Oppo R15 Pro
  9

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

• vivo NEX S
  34
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  34
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  33
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  33
• OnePlus 6
  33
• Huawei P20 Pro
  21
• Honor 10
  21
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  20
• HTC U12+
  20
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  15
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  14
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  13
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  13
• LG V30
  13
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  13
• Oppo R15 Pro
  7.6

This is a pretty normal situation to observe. And, like with the CPU, the takeaway here is that the Adreno 630 is performing as expected. Nothing more, nothing less.

Basemark X actually seems to give a more balanced report of the actual graphical prowess of the vivo NEX S.

Basemark X

Higher is better

• HTC U12+
  44390
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  44267
• OnePlus 6
  44229
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  44097
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  44013
• vivo NEX S
  43810
• Xiaomi Mi 8
  43285
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  42134
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  40890
• Huawei P20 Pro
  39945
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  39143
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  38476
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  37211
• LG V30
  36704
• Honor 10
  29435
• Oppo R15 Pro
  20693

And for the sake of thoroughness, here is a Basemark ES 3.1 run as well, stacked up against the competing Apple Metal API.

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone X
  1854
• Apple iPhone 8 Plus
  1644
• Samsung Galaxy S9+
  1481
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  1268
• vivo NEX S
  1208
• Xiaomi Mi MIx 2S
  1179
• Samsung Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon)
  1177
• HTC U12+
  1177
• Sony Xperia XZ2
  1176
• OnePlus 6
  1164
• Nokia 8 Sirocco
  876
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  875
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  874
• LG V30
  860
• Oppo R15 Pro
  352

Not much else to say about the vivo NEX S and its performance, really. It is just as potent as any other current top-dog, name-brand or not. Despite its overcrowded nature, Funtouch OS also doesn't appear to adversely affect performance in any way.

Come to think of it, that does make a lot of sense given vivo's overly strict measures against misbehaving apps and background activity. Raw performance definitely won't be an issue, but battling the OS to allow your apps to run properly, when and for as long as you want, might just be.