Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G review

A Snapdragon 888 in all markets

A cutting-edge device of the Z Fold3's caliber kind of demands a top-tier chipset. It just seems like the most obvious fit. When you are paying EUR 1800 or so for a phone, you expect the very best. This was the case with the Z Fold2 and is also very similar to the Z Fold3. Following in its predecessor's footsteps, the Z Fold3 only has one chipset option - the Snapdragon 888 on every market. There is no Exynos variant.

Short of the further boosted Snapdragon 888+, this is pretty much the cream of the crop Qualcomm currently has to offer - one prime Kryo 680 core, at up to 2.84 GHz, three more "big" Kryo 680 ones, clocking up to 2.42 GHz and four "small" Kryo 680 ones, at up to 1.8 GHz. Also part of the chipset - an Adreno 660 GPU and a full set of truly modern connectivity options, including 5G support for both Sub-6 and mmWave, the newest Wi-Fi 6e and Bluetooth 5.2. You can get the Z Fold3 with either 265GB or 512GB of UFS 3.1 storage. We have the smaller variant. Both get 12GB of RAM.

It is a truly decked-out setup, but with one major caveat - heat management. The unfortunate reality is that the Z Fold3 struggles with heat management and quickly loses performance due to thermal-throttling with prolonged loads just like its predecessor. The Snapdragon 888 chipset is really power-hungry and tends to run hot. On top of that, we have to consider the fact that despite reaching up to 16mm in thickness when closed, the body on the Z Fold3 is actually very thin at just 6.4 mm on each side. Even thinner than last year's model. And inside that space, Samsung had to fit cutting edge hardware and a lot of it - two different displays, two separate batteries, and a total of three cameras, to name just a few things. There is also the complex and big mmWave antenna setup.

Things quickly add up, with the main takeaway being that the performance curve on the Snapdragon 888 inside the Z Fold3 is tuned quite conservatively. The chip quickly drops its maximum CPU clocks when things get toasty.

This is easy to notice even with consecutive benchmark runs, which made the whole benchmarking process that extra bit more complicated since we cooled the Z Fold3 between each run. For the highest possible scores in bursty benchmark runs, we also made sure to enable the Enhanced processing toggle that Samsung has hidden away inside its battery management menu. It basically tunes the Snapdragon 888's behavior a bit more aggressively, making it clock higher for longer while it can, at the inevitable expense of less performance in the longer run.

Let's kick things off with some straightforward, CPU-only runs in GeekBench. The Z Fold3 is in fairly decent shape in these tests, though it is clearly underperforming in both single and multi-core tests.

GeekBench 5 (single-core)

Higher is better

• Realme GT 5G
  1139
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  1130
• OnePlus 9
  1129
• Asus ROG Phone 5 Ultimate
  1128
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  1128
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  1126
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  1109
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  1095
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  1095
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  988
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  979
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  967
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  959
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  950
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  906
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  901
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  880
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  813
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  537

The latter seems to be particularly hard for the Z Fold3 and particularly its thermal management to handle. It makes sense - more cores engaged equals more total heat. Even though the Z Fold3 gets outpaced by the Z Flip3 in this particular scenario, it still holds its own. Though, its CPU performance does seem to come closer to traditional Snapdragon 865 devices, rather than properly-cooled Snapdragon 888 ones.

GeekBench 5 (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Asus ROG Phone 5 Ultimate
  3728
• OnePlus 9
  3629
• Realme GT 5G
  3555
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  3515
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  3486
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  3441
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  3296
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  3294
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  3248
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  3244
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  3239
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  3239
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  3191
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  2715
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  2690
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  2621
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  2614
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  2603
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  1627

AnTuTu seems to be quite favorable towards the Z Fold3. It is a compound benchmark that takes into account multiple performance and hardware factors, like resolution, memory and storage, to name a few. Still, we do, once again, get better scores from traditional form-factor devices with older hardware, for what that's worth.

AnTuTu 8

Higher is better

• OnePlus 9
  715196
• Asus ROG Phone 5 Ultimate
  708579
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  708156
• Realme GT 5G
  703986
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  688720
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  657273
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  638497
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  635918
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  625966
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  607423
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  605819
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  596866
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  571312
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  566786
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  564907
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  562403
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  543986
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  524692
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  508760
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  279342

AnTuTu 9

Higher is better

• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  823354
• Realme GT 5G
  810433
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  794016
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  752218
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  749132
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  724906
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  682223
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  680671
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  333668

Since it has graphics components to its testing, AnTuTu is where we start to get into the general "weirdness" of the Z Fold3's graphical behavior. Between its two unconventionally proportioned displays, their ability to refresh at up to 120Hz, but only if Samsung's adaptive refresh rate algorithms and the app play together nicely, performance is a bit chaotic and all over the place. Unfortunately, this is the case with real-world GPU loads, like actual games, as well, since you can never be quite sure how any given game is coping with the resolution, aspect and adaptive screen refresh rate.

For the sake of thoroughness, we ran all of the graphical benchmarks a few times on both the main and the cover screen, with the 120Hz adaptive "smooth" mode enabled and cooling the Z Fold3 down after each run. Starting with GFX Bench, we have a few observations to make.

GFX Manhattan ES 3.0 (offscreen 1080p)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  174
• Realme GT 5G
  171
• OnePlus 9
  168
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  160
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  150
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  142
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  142
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  136
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  129
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  128
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  128
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  127
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  126
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  125
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  123
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  116
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  102
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  100
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  39

GFX Manhattan ES 3.0 (onscreen)

Higher is better

• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  135
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  117
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  114
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  108
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  107
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  104
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  98
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  96
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  88
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  86
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  84
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  67
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  64
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  60
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  60
• OnePlus 9
  60
• Realme GT 5G
  60
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  59
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  35

In a huge surprise to nobody, the 1768 x 2208 resolution of the main display on the Z Fold3 is torturing the GPU quite a bit. Also, there are probably some optimization issues that still need to be ironed out on the software side of things since we can clearly see the Adreno 660 outpaced by lesser hardware in off-screen runs, which should not be dependent on actual display resolution or aspect ratio.

More concerning still, the Z Fold2 has an identical resolution and its lesser Adreno 650 is also managing better fps numbers.

GFX Manhattan ES 3.1 (offscreen 1080p)

Higher is better

• OnePlus 9
  119
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  116
• Realme GT 5G
  112
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  111
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  111
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  109
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  94
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  91
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  91
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  89
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  88
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  86
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  86
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  86
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  81
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  80
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  71
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  71
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  29

GFX Manhattan ES 3.1 (onscreen)

Higher is better

• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  101
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  91
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  86
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  79
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  78
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  77
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  76
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  71
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  61
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  60
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  60
• OnePlus 9
  60
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  60
• Realme GT 5G
  60
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  58
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  53
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  40
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  40
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  26

Another observation worth making is that looking at the easiest OpenGL ES 3.0 Manhattan runs, we still keep around, we can see the main display and its adaptive refresh rate are allowing for frame rates above 60, even if the Z Fold3 only managed a few frames more than that. In contrast, GFXBench is clearly not playing well with the adaptive refresh rate on the cover screen, where it is clearly capped at 60Hz, despite the setting and is managing to saturate that refresh rate with 60fps rendering.

GFX Car Chase ES 3.1 (offscreen 1080p)

Higher is better

• OnePlus 9
  70
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  69
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  69
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  68
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  66
• Realme GT 5G
  65
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  57
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  55
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  55
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  55
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  55
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  54
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  52
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  51
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  50
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  50
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  50
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  48
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  17

GFX Car Chase ES 3.1 (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  60
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  59
• OnePlus 9
  58
• Realme GT 5G
  55
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  54
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  51
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  46
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  46
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  45
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  44
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  42
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  42
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  40
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  38
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  34
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  33
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  33
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  24
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  15

This kind of inconsistency in behavior is unfortunately not limited to benchmarking app. Certain games might behave fine on, say, the main display of the Z Fold3, 120Hz, and all while failing in some way on the cover screen, or vice-versa. Some might be borked on both displays together.

To the Z Fold3's credit, however, when a game does work properly on its main display, the experience is on a whole other level, much more akin to playing on a tablet than a phone. The extra screen size is just part of what makes the experience special. In fact, the 22.5:18 aspect ratio of the 7.6-inch foldable OLED results in a much taller image rendered by complying game engines, which frequently makes using on-screen controls a lot more pleasurable, since you are not covering as much of the actual gameplay.

Once we move on to harder GPU test runs, we start to see the advantages the lower resolution of the 6.2 inches, 832 x 2268-pixel cover screen brings about. Or, more accurately put, we get to see just how "extra-handicapped" the main display on the Z Fold3 in graphics rendering performance.

GFX Aztek Vulkan High (onscreen)

Higher is better

• OnePlus 9
  43
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  43
• Realme GT 5G
  38
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  34
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  34
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  33
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  31
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  30
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  29
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  25
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  25
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  24
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  22
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  20
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  18
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  16
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  10

GFX Aztek ES 3.1 High (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  49
• OnePlus 9
  40
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  40
• Realme GT 5G
  39
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  36
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  34
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  33
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  33
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  33
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  31
• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  30
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  25
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  23
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  23
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  22
• Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+
  16
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  10

On a slightly more positive note, running off-screen graphics tests with the Z Fold3 closed and open doesn't really make much of a difference, which is the expected behavior. If some difference does arise, it can be attributed to statistical error or perhaps worse heat dissipation while the phone is closed.

GFX Aztek Vulkan High (offscreen 1440p)

Higher is better

• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  31
• OnePlus 9
  30
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  29
• Realme GT 5G
  29
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  28
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  25
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  23
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  22
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  20
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  19
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  19
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  7

GFX Aztek ES 3.1 High (offscreen 1440p)

Higher is better

• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  28
• Realme GT 5G
  28
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  27
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  27
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  25
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  22
• OnePlus 9
  22
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  22
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  20
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  20
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  17
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  7

In our experience, 3DMark tends to offer consistent and nicely comparable results. Unfortunately, even it didn't manage function quite properly on the Z Fold3.

3DMark SSE Vulkan 1.0 (offscreen 1440p)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  6605
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  6431
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  6248
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  6139
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  5879
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  5738
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  4611
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  2395

The Slingshot Extreme Vulkan 1.0 run, in particular, was quite weird since it claimed that while running on the main display it managed to max out the test, yet still provided a very low score while running on the cover screen. Mind you, by definition, these 3DMark tests are supposed to render their frames at a fixed resolution off-screen and then display them, which should take resolution and other display weirdness out of the equation. Since that is obviously not the case, we can only circle back to our theory that there are still some rendering issues to be ironed out on the Z Fold3.

On the plus side, in the other two 3DMark runs, we get nice and tings scores, regardless of which display we run the app on. Not particularly impressive results, mind you, but that's in line with the overall trend.

3DMark SSE ES 3.1 (offscreen 1440p)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy S20 FE
  7215
• Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
  7073
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G
  7035
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold2 5G (cover display)
  6984
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G
  6543
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  6137
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  6052
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  2517

3DMark Wild Life Vulkan 1.1 (offscreen 1440p)

Higher is better

• Realme GT 5G
  5872
• Sony Xperia 1 III
  5807
• Asus ROG Phone 5 Ultimate
  5745
• Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
  5676
• OnePlus 9
  5667
• ZTE nubia Red Magic 6R
  5667
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
  5635
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (cover display)
  5563
• Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  5547
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
  5261
• Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G
  4236
• Realme X7 Max 5G
  4216
• Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
  4194
• Samsung Galaxy A72
  1031

Just to reiterate once again, between its combination of odd displays, with unconventional resolutions and aspect ratios and Samsung's adaptive refresh rate tech, that now has to juggle up to 120Hz on both panels, the Z Fold3 clearly has issues with graphics rendering performance. On top of that, the foldable suffers from its thermal dissipation and management limitations, which also makes it underperform in the CPU department. It is clearly not making anywhere near the most out of the performance the Snapdragon 888 is capable of.

Then again, if Samsung had decided to pair the Z Fold3 with a better-balanced, lower-tier chipset, it would have been pretty hard to explain to most buyers who would then have to pay likely the same or a very similar exorbitant price tag and not even get a flagship chipset.

Plus, there are other potential downsides to such a theoretical downsizing, like sacrificing some extra chipset features or perhaps even an inability to power certain aspects of the Z Fold3's exclusive experience, like two odd panels, with up to 120Hz refresh rate. The topic is definitely wide open for discussion, but at the end of the day, for better or worse, the Z Fold3 is sort of stuck managing a Snapdragon 888 on top of everything else it has on its plate.

Thermal management

Of course, we couldn't just make claims on the Z Fold3's thermal management without providing the numbers to back it up. For that, we turned to the excellent CPU Throttling test app, with a lengthy 20-thread, 60-minute stress test. This was done with the Z Fold3 in its fully open state, pre-cooled down to room temperature and with the Enhanced Processing toggle off, so as not to mess with the default scheduler and performance curve and behavior.

CPU Throttling test

To Samsung's credit, the graph didn't show any really jarring, sudden dips, which is what you don't want to see, since those typically result in stutters while gaming. The overall performance loss, however, is massive and starts appearing as early as 5 minutes into stress testing. Granted, this is not a realistic real-world load, but then again, an actual game would also be stressing the GPU as well. Bottom line - heat is a major issue for the Z Fold3.