Huawei Mate 40 Pro review

Synthetic benchmarks

The Mate 40 Pro is the first phone we're seeing with a chipset made on a 5nm process - Apple's A14 may be official, but the handset's haven't shipped yet. The Mate's in-house Kirin 9000 has an integrated 5G modem, and that's a first - Apple's is external.

The Kirin 9000 has the usual CPU core count - 8 of them. In a new development for a Kirin, they're arranged in what's become Qualcomm's configuration of choice for the last two generations of high-end Snapdragons - 1+3+4. So you get one Cortex-A77 core capped at 3.13GHz, three more A77s running at up to 2.54GHz, and four A55s clocked as high as 2.04GHz.

You may note that the Kirin CPU is based on the previous core design, with A78 cores now official and likely to be found in the Exynos SoC for next year, with some derivative of them in the Snapdragon. Since we have neither the Exynos, nor the Snapdragon, however, we can't really compare.

What the Kirin and the Exynos will share is the GPU - Mali G78. We don't know how many cores Samsung will use but the Kirin here has all 24 allowed by Arm's design. However, they are clocked relatively low.

Mate 40 Pros will come in several memory configurations, ours here has 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage.

As before, the Mate 40 Pro has a Performance mode in the battery settings, which unlock its full potential - otherwise, it's a more modest performer. We tested in both modes, naturally and here come the numbers.

In GeekBench' multi-core CPU test, the Mate 40 Pro in Performance mode outperforms last year's iPhone 11 Pro Max by some 200 points (less than 6%), while the difference from the front-running Snapdragons of 2020 is more like 10%. In the single-core test, the Mate inches ahead of the Zenfone 7 Pro and its S865+, the ROG Phone 3 a bit behind, and the rest about 10-12% down from the Mate. The 11 Pro Max is in a different league in single-core performance, as is normally the case.

GeekBench 5.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  3704
• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  3503
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  3374
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  3357
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  3331
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  3302
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  3296
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  3275
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  3269
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  3248
• Huawei P40 Pro
  3197
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  3038
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  2703
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  2603

GeekBench 5.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  1332
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  1020
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  996
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  975
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  920
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  906
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  905
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  902
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  901
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  900
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  886
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  880
• Huawei P40 Pro
  780
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  779

The Mate 40 Pro posted the highest results we've seen in Antutu, topping our chart at 686K and change. The Mi 10 Ultra has somehow managed to pass the 600K mark by a lot, though still behind the Mate, while the rest of this year's flagship lineup are at or below 600K.

AnTuTu 8

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  686835
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  638497
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  602934
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  601858
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  595246
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  593717
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  573276
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  543986
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  531270
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  508760
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  500114
• Huawei P40 Pro
  496356
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  489371
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  484529

The Mali-G78 GPU in the Mate 40 Pro posts superb numbers in 3DMark, for both OpenGL and Vulcan based applications - it's a 20-30% advantage over the Snapdragon 865(+) devices of the day. The Mate's numbers do drop after a couple of runs to less extreme levels, but it maintains its lead.

3DMark SSE OpenGL ES 3.1 1440p

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  9168
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  7687
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  7645
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  7215
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  7159
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  7127
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  7073
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  6819
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  6735
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  6543
• Huawei P40 Pro
  6062
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  5988
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  5377
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro
  4432

3DMark SSE Vulkan 1440p

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  8401
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  7002
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  6605
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  6526
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  6431
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  6425
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  6354
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  6311
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  6248
• Huawei P40 Pro
  5637
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  5489
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  4782
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro
  4233

It's much of the same story in GFXBench, where the Mate 40 Pro leads the pack in the offscreen tests yet again.

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  120
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  117
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  97
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  92
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  90
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  89
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  87
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  86
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  86
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  86
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  85
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  85
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  80
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  76
• Huawei P40 Pro
  75

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  82
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  78
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  78
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  78
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  77
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  76
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  75
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  75
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  64
• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  60
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  56
• Huawei P40 Pro
  52
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  43
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  43
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  43

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  67
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  64
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  56
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  56
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  54
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  52
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  51
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  51
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  51
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  51
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  50
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  50
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  50
• Huawei P40 Pro
  44
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  42

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
  57
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  48
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  46
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  46
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  45
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  43
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  42
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  42
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  42
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  34
• Huawei P40 Pro
  31
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  25
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  25
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  25
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  24

Rendering for the Mate 40 Pro's high display resolution puts the Kirin 9000 at a slight disadvantage compared to the flagships that come with 1080p screens. That said, it does outperform by a wide margin all 2020 flagships which have 1440p displays.

If you are after the highest possible fps numbers in demanding titles, Huawei gives you the option of switching to one of the lower resolutions, like FHD+, for instance. In 1080p rendering, the Kirin 9000 is unmatched by any other Android device.

Aztek Vulkan High (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  31
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  29
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  27
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  26
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  21
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  20
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  17
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  17
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  17
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  17
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  14

Aztek OpenGL ES 3.1 High (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 40 Pro (perf. mode)
  32
• Asus ROG Phone 3 (144Hz)
  32
• Galaxy S20+ (120Hz, 1080p)
  32
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  31
• Asus Zenfone 7 Pro
  31
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 5G
  29
• Huawei Mate 40 Pro
  26
• Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Perf mode)
  26
• Galaxy S20+ (60Hz, 1440p)
  19
• Oppo Find X2 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  18
• OnePlus 8 Pro (120Hz, 1440p)
  17

Since it's our first encounter with this Kirin 9000, we gave it a bit a harder time than we do for established performers and ran some CPU throttling tests to see how it behaves under sustained load.

So, outside of Performance mode under full load on all 8 CPU cores, the Mate 40 Pro ran at full speed for about two minutes, then dropped to about 50% for a minute, then back to full speed for a minute, until eventually settling for a 1-minute-at-max-2-minutes-at-half pattern until we called it quits 30minutes into the test.

CPU throttling test, regular mode

We let the Mate cool down and flipped the toggle to go into Performance mode. Here, the phone maintained a performance within 8% of its peak numbers for about 22 minutes, at which point it did plummet to the 50% state for a minute, followed by 4 minutes of near-top performance and then back to 50% for a minute. That remained the pattern for about half an hour, followed by 8 minutes of near-peak results before the end of our one-hour test.

CPU throttling test, Performance mode

In any case this much variance in performance is hardly ideal. It would make more sense for the phone to drop to, say, 80% (or whatever is really feasible) of its maximum and then maintain that for as long as needed, as opposed to the peak-and-dip approach Huawei has taken. Then again, the P30 Pro we tested back in the day for a gaming-related article dropped to 60% and maintained that level indefinitely and the Mate 40 Pro way seems better.