Xiaomi 17 brings Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 and 7,000 mAh battery

25 September 2025
It also brings four 50MP cameras, up to 16GB RAM and 100W charging.

Sort by:

  • G
  • Gusta
  • XTk
  • 28 Sep 2025

Aierlan, 27 Sep 2025Just checked out the Xiaomi 17 series today. I still much ... moreMaybe like last year. There's 1 variant of SD Elite which is 1 core CPU missing. It runs slower but cooler.

    Xiaomi manages to put a 7000 mAh battery in a 6.3-inch phone, but the iPhone, despite all that engineering, can only fit half that amount of battery...

      Aierlan, 27 Sep 2025This is the problem. You are are talking about 'confl... moremy bad if i wasnt clear but i was talking about the consequences of the conflict. I only care about results. And i've seen enough poor performances from xiaobai's reviews that line up with others to trust them.

      You do you bud but i prefer objective, repeatable measurements even if they might be colored by a conflict of interest. My point is that you cant fake it, the phone has to be capable of doing the task. What i'm asking you is what's wrong with that?

        Just checked out the Xiaomi 17 series today. I still much prefer this one over the pro model. The pro model seemed to run a good bit hotter. Not sure if it is the screen on the back causing this. The regular model just fits better in hand though with the camera bump in the corner.

          jiyen235, 27 Sep 2025reviewers who dont get samples dont do in depth testing, an... moreThis is the problem. You are are talking about 'conflict of interest' when you don't seem to understand what it means. That's why I posted the ai response to try and aid your understanding. There is a conflict of interest if you are taking money for the reviews. It doesn't necessarily mean you can't trust everything in the reviews but there is a conflict of interest. It's like if an auditor was auditing a company they had a substantial share ownership in and certifying that the accounts provide a true and fair view of the company and that there was no fraud. There would be a conflict of interest due to the auditor's financial interest in the company. This doesn't mean that they won't do their job properly but it increases the risk that they might overlook certain issues in the accounts. It's for this reason that an auditor would be prohibited from doing this. In this case maybe you don't think the conflict of insterest is likely to cause any problems but it is there. You will frequently see some reviewers (not all) glaze over the weaknesses or use very soft language to talk about them and wax lyrical about the strong points. Like I said, a conflict of interest doesn't mean that all reviewers will not be totally transparent but it does increase the risk.

            jiyen235, 27 Sep 2025reviewers who dont get samples dont do in depth testing, an... moreThis is the problem. You are are talking about 'conflict of interest' when you don't seem to understand what it means. That's why I posted the ai response to try and aid your understanding. There is a conflict of interest if you are taking money for the reviews. It doesn't necessarily mean you can't trust everything in the reviews but there is a conflict of interest. It's like if an auditor was auditing a company they had a substantial share ownership in and certifying that the accounts provide a true and fair view of the company and that there was no fraud. There would be a conflict of interest due to the auditor's financial interest in the company. This doesn't mean that they won't do their job properly but it increases the risk that they might overlook certain issues in the accounts. It's for this reason that an auditor would be prohibited from doing this. In this case maybe you don't think the conflict of insterest is likely to cause any problems but it is there. You will frequently see some reviewers (not all) glaze over the weaknesses or use very soft language to talk about them and wax lyrical about the strong points. Like I said, a conflict of interest doesn't mean that all reviewers will not be totally transparent but it does increase the risk

            You mention, 'Conflict of interest would be when we're getting video game benchmarks and the reviewer has, for example, cooled the phone with a cooler whereas other phones were run passively. That'd be an actual issue.' This is not the actual conflict of interest but rather the possible consequence of a conflict of interest. I'm not implying that that is actually happening because I simply don't know. All I'm saying is that we need to have a little scepticism when reviewers get paid for reviewers especially if they are given specific requirements by the manufacturers. I'll ask you a question. If you were making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from manufacturers would you be cautious about heavily critiquing them for fear of losing the gravy train?

              Aierlan, 27 Sep 2025Here's an answer from deepseek if you don't want ... morereviewers who dont get samples dont do in depth testing, and 90% of reviewers are paid as well by this metric.

              Again, my point is that the conflict of interest isnt necessarily affecting the target result of what i want the most and i also have camera comparisons that i can check with my own eyes. What's the point of using AI to further your point? AI can just give basic guidelines.

              Conflict of interest would be when we're getting video game benchmarks and the reviewer has, for example, cooled the phone with a cooler whereas other phones were run passively. That'd be an actual issue. Are you implying things like that are happening? I dont mind them hiding some data IF the other data is accurate. For example the temps and performance in Wuthering Waves is shown but not in Honkai or something.

                jiyen235, 27 Sep 2025but if the reviewer does battery tests, charging tests and ... moreHere's an answer from deepseek if you don't want to look it up yourself.The key is there is a conflict of interest.


                This is a central issue in modern tech journalism and consumer advocacy.

                In short, yes, receiving payment directly from the manufacturers of the products are reviewing is widely considered a significant conflict of interest.

                Here’s a detailed breakdown of why it's a conflict and the nuances involved.

                Why It's a Clear Conflict of Interest

                1. Compromised Objectivity: The primary duty of a reviewer is to provide an unbiased, honest assessment for their audience. When a reviewer's income is tied to the manufacturer, there is an inherent pressure—whether explicit or implied—to produce a favorable review to maintain that financial relationship. It becomes difficult to be critical of flaws.

                2. Erosion of Trust: The foundation of a reviewer's credibility is their audience's trust. If viewers or readers discover that a reviewer is being paid by the manufacturer, they will rightly question the authenticity of every positive comment. This undermines the reviewer's entire brand.

                3. Skewed Coverage: The conflict might not just affect the final score. It could lead a reviewer to:
                · Choose to review products only from paying manufacturers.
                · Soften or omit negative criticisms.
                · Highlight positive features disproportionately.
                · Avoid reviewing a competing product that is objectively better, to avoid embarrassing the paying client.

                The Nuance: Different Types of "Payment"

                It's important to distinguish between different scenarios, as the ethics and perception vary:

                Type of Payment/Relationship Is it a Conflict? Common Practice & Perception
                Direct payment for a positive review Extreme Conflict. Universally condemned and unethical. This is essentially payola or a bribed review.
                Payment for the review itself (e.g., a sponsored video) Significant Conflict. Highly problematic. The review is presented as editorial content but is actually an advertisement. Most ethical outlets and creators clearly label this as "Sponsored Content" or "Advertisement."
                Payment for production costs (e.g., travel to a launch event) Potential Conflict. A common industry practice, but one that requires careful management. Ethical reviewers disclose this funding and maintain that their opinions are their own. The risk is that access and hospitality can create a sense of obligation.

                Keeping the review unit (the phone itself) Minor Conflict (Debatable). Standard practice for most reviewers. The argument is that the value of the phone is the same for every manufacturer, so it doesn't create an unequal bias. However, some purists argue that receiving any valuable product creates a bias and that units should be returned after the review.
                Advertising revenue from manufacturers on the website/channel Structural Conflict. This is a very common and complex issue. A phone manufacturer might buy ads on a tech review site. While the reviewer's salary isn't directly paid by the manufacturer, the company's revenue is. Ethical outlets maintain a "firewall" between the advertising department and the editorial/review team to prevent influence.

                Best Practices for Ethical Reviewers

                To navigate these conflicts and maintain credibility, reputable reviewers and publications adhere to strict guidelines:

                1. Clear and Prominent Disclosure: The most important rule. Any form of payment, free product, or travel must be clearly disclosed to the audience. Common phrases include: "The manufacturer loaned us this device for review," or "Samsung paid for our travel to this event."
                2. Separation of Church and State: Maintaining a strict boundary between the editorial team (the reviewers) and the business/sales team. Advertisers should have no say in review scores or content.
                3. Returning Review Units: Some of the most respected reviewers (like Consumer Reports) buy their own products or return review units after testing to eliminate any perception of being "bought."
                4. Adherence to a Strict Ethics Policy: Reputable publications have public-facing ethics policies that outline their rules regarding conflicts of interest.

                Conclusion

                So, to answer your question directly: Yes, a phone reviewer receiving payment from the manufacturer is a fundamental conflict of interest. It directly challenges the core principles of impartiality and trust that legitimate reviewing is built upon.

                As a consumer, you should be highly skeptical of any review where such a financial relationship exists and is not transparently disclosed. Look for reviewers who are clear about their funding sources and have a track record of being critical even of products from companies that might support them in other ways (e.g., through advertising).

                  Aierlan, 27 Sep 2025Of course there is a conflict of interest when payment is a... morebut if the reviewer does battery tests, charging tests and performance tests in games im interested in, and has the temperature results as well, what's the problem in that? Where's the issue arising from conflicts of interest?

                  I can look at others for camera reviews, i look at xiaobai for hardware/performance reviews. Yet to find another one that does as comprehensive stuff as them and in such a rapid manner.

                    jiyen235, 27 Sep 2025when everyone is paid, i'd rather see the objective te... moreOf course there is a conflict of interest when payment is accepted from manufacturers. You can say you don't care about it but you can't really deny there is a conflict of interest there. Ask deepseek, chatgpt or your favored ai whether there is a conflict of interest if phone reviewers accept payment from the manufactuers and check the response.

                    Nowadays many of them will do reviews of one aspect of the phone that the manufacturer specifically asks them to review a few weeks to a week before the launch event. In these they are only told to focus on the strongest aspect of the phone. If the phone is marketed on performance then they will be told specifically to focus on that, if being marketed on battery they will be told to focus on that, if focusing on screen protection and build quality they will be instructed what type of tests to do by the manufacturers. I've seen this many times where all reviewers are performing the exact same drop tests or water resistance tests (both Chinese and Western reviewers). This is at the specific request of the manufacturers. The manufacturers then typically use comments from these chosen reviewers in their launch events (at least in China. I don't watch global launch events).

                      Aierlan, 26 Sep 2025Yeah, they have some objective tests but when you are paid ... morewhen everyone is paid, i'd rather see the objective tests than the subjective ones. And based on his tests i dont really see any issues of conflict of interest.

                        Aierlan, 26 Sep 2025I'm talking about a 70-75mm periscope like OPPO and Vi... moreI am not arguing here ;-) The 70mm - 75mm range with a 10cm (or less) focus distance and a better sensor than the JN5.

                        I am just whining here. The form factor for the 15 / 17 is prefect. I am a outdoor person, I cannot afford to lug one of those huge bricks around. So I had hoped that Xiaomi improves on the 15, rather than go all out on "we want to beat Apple at their own game". They were so close. Just use a JN5 for the ultrawide, add AF to the ultrawide, and upgrade the tele to a bigger sensor. Now they go all backward. The 17 Ultra is rumored to pick up JN5 for the short tele.

                        With the 60mm vs. 70mm - 75mm. Maybe somebody can explain to me why Xiaomi did not do that (given that the Pro went all out with 5x). Is it the turnover point for the digital zoom off the main camera that dictates that distance to be optimal, or is it the physical sensor size (sensor to lens distance in a given packed) that limits that ?


                          GrumpyOldPizza, 26 Sep 2025Why would you want a periscope lens ? It has a much worse F... moreI'm talking about a 70-75mm periscope like OPPO and Vivo have. They use a much better 1/1.95" sensor which is better for portraits. Also i think 70mm is a better focal length and these periscopes outperform the old Xiaomi 15, particularly indoors in weaker lighting for portraits. The periscope on the Vivo x200 and x200 pro mini does support macros. I also don't like the 5x periscopes on the pro models. Also they perform much better with a 2x crop to around 6x compared to the 2x crop on the Xiaomi 15 to around 5x

                            Anonymous, 26 Sep 2025iPhone clone (with added ads as bonus)Only weaklings and non-tech users are crying about ads whatsoever. Yes, Xiaomi has ads in there but with switch to turn them off manually. Is it hard? Nope from me. After few clicks blocking ads, nothing pop up anymore. That's all..and..Xiaomi not for weak heart. You can buy other brands..no issue at all..please get away 😂😂😂

                              jiyen235, 26 Sep 2025xiaobai's objective evaluation and mr vincent zhong�... moreYeah, they have some objective tests but when you are paid by manufacturers of course it affects objectivity.

                                • ?
                                • Anonymous
                                • XS%
                                • 26 Sep 2025

                                Anonymous, 26 Sep 2025Doubtful. Xiaomi doesn't even play in Apple's big... moreIt's doable. Huawei already did that once.

                                  Aierlan, 26 Sep 2025Will be interesting to see how the 40nm Omnivision OV50Q ma... moreWhy would you want a periscope lens ? It has a much worse F-stop (usually f/2.8 to f/3.0 compared to the f/2.0 on the Xiaomi 17), and you go from 10cm minimal focal distance to 30cm.

                                  So you lose macro capability and portraits in the 60mm to 90mm range.

                                  While it's all fine and dandy in the spec war to tout a 5x zoom, in practice that is not that usable. Compared to the Pixel 10 Pro the Xiaomi 15 is holding up quite well at 5x zoom. If you go to 10x / 15x your problem is more an more the ISP fighting your natural shake of the phone. At which point you put the phone on the tripod, and could have picked the Xiaomi 15 Ultra (or the upcoming 17 Ultra).

                                  Not saying all this 30x or 100x zoom is totally useless, but it feels a lot like a party trick.

                                    Aierlan, 26 Sep 2025the ultrawide is also using a slightly smaller sensor accor... moreThe 0.7x (Xiaomi 17) vs 0.6x (Xiaomi 15) would be explained by the different sensor.

                                    Kind of a missed opportunity. Upgrading the ultrawide a to JN5 and the tele to a 0.8u sensor (while keeping 2.6x and 10cm macro) would have been nice.


                                      • F
                                      • FansNotWorshippers
                                      • Kx1
                                      • 26 Sep 2025

                                      pl2rts, 26 Sep 2025Where are the ads in the phone ? I go trough settings and d... moreThe ads is depend on the marketshare

                                        • F
                                        • FansNotWorshippers
                                        • Kx1
                                        • 26 Sep 2025

                                        Anonymous, 25 Sep 2025Xiaomi brand (not redmi, not poco) Doesn't have ads a... moreIt depend on the markets you know. Even my old M21 doesnt have ads, meanwhile my supervisor at work using xiaomi 15 pro as a daily driver and the ads still insane and it is permanent because of the HyperOS. Ads or not its still depend on the market share.

                                          1 of 5