Android
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)
On the leaderboard as “Vivo X300 Pro 卫星通信版”
Total score
40,322
#3 of 5 on the board · #2 on Android
Six sectionsdashed: the 6,000 reference
Against the referencebest verified run
6,000 points: a Snapdragon 8 Elite phone, as it ships
Strongest: Everyday UX at 1.68× the reference. Weakest: LLM at 0.32×.
- Verified runs
- 1
- Against the reference
- 1.12× of 36,000
- Best run
- 10 Nov 2026
- App version
- 2.0.4
Every test of the best run
The raw measurements behind the score, as the server recorded them.
CPU8,610
Math7,759
- Throughput
- 1,900 ops/s
JSON & XML9,949
- Throughput
- 1,073 ops/s
Compression & crypto7,133
- Throughput
- 690 ops/s
Multi-core9,980
- Throughput
- 8,322 ops/s
Memory9,839
RAM8,355
- Read
- 51.1 GB/s
- Write
- 52.6 GB/s
- Copy
- 27.1 GB/s
- Latency
- 155 ns
Storage6,719
- Sequential read
- 1,708 MB/s
- Sequential write
- 1,332 MB/s
- Random read (4 KB)
- 45,475 IOPS
- Random write (4 KB)
- 13,433 IOPS
- Reads
- direct I/O
Database16,968
- Insert
- 27,449 tx/s
- Update
- 182,899 tx/s
- Query
- 31,932 /s
GPU5,978
Lake Valley2,765
- Average
- 59.7 fps
- 1% low
- 52.4 fps
Neon City4,758
- Average
- 20.9 fps
- 1% low
- 17.5 fps
Neon City RT10,680
- Average
- 23.8 fps
- 1% low
- 19.6 fps
Everyday UX10,050
Web browsing6,751
- Layout
- 5,290
- Canvas
- 2,887
- CSS
- 612
- SVG
- 2,721
- JavaScript
- 3,419 ops/s
Web scrolling64,156
- Speed held
- 712,129 px/s
- Frames dropped
- 0.0 %
Photo gallery8,428
- JPEG
- 140 MP/s
- WebP
- 125 MP/s
- AVIF
- 186 MP/s
Photo editing4,759
- Editing chain
- 315 MP/s
Video playback6,655
- 4K60 H.264
- 320 fps · hardware
- 4K60 HEVC
- 358 fps · hardware
- 4K60 VP9
- 323 fps · hardware
- 4K60 AV1
- 279 fps · hardware
- 8K30 HEVC
- 104 fps · hardware
- 8K30 AV1
- 77.3 fps · hardware
Video export11,348
- 4K60 H.264
- 225 fps · 40.0 dB · hardware
- 4K60 HEVC
- 280 fps · 42.5 dB · hardware
- 4K60 AV1
- no encoder
- 8K30 HEVC
- 75.3 fps · 46.7 dB · hardware
QR scanning7,825
- ZXing
- 733 scans/s
- ML Kit
- 91.4 scans/s
AI3,933
CPU7,803
- Classify
- 398 inferences/s
- Detect
- 25.2 inferences/s
- Segment
- 8.24 inferences/s
- Upscale
- 3.42 inferences/s
- Depth
- 57.6 inferences/s
- Sound
- 2,305 inferences/s
GPU1,556
- Classify
- 115 inferences/s
- Detect
- 25.7 inferences/s
- Segment
- 11.0 inferences/s
- Upscale
- 32.6 inferences/s
- Depth
- 38.8 inferences/s
- Sound
- 271 inferences/s
NPU2,440
- Runtime
- MediaTek NeuroPilot
- Classify
- 994 inferences/s
- Detect
- 76.5 inferences/s
- Segment
- 91.3 inferences/s
- Upscale
- 252 inferences/s
- Depth
- 369 inferences/s
- Sound
- 1,248 inferences/s
LLM1,912
Prompt (prefill)630
- CPU
- 38.1 tok/s
- GPU
- 23.1 tok/s
Reply (decode)5,802
- CPU
- 16.7 tok/s
- GPU
- 13.6 tok/s
Run
- GPU used
- Mali-G1-Ultra MC12
- Free memory at start
- 8.3 GB
Under sustained load
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition) holds 69.2% of its baseline speed through a 5-minute stress test on every core. That is #30 of 34 devices on the same test.
Throughput ribbonrun #1095 · Android 17
- Held
- 69.2% of full speed
- Peak
- 1.44 GIPS
- Second half
- 1.08 GIPS
- Test
- 5 min every core
- Fastest sample
- 1.44 GIPS
- Second-half average
- 1.08 GIPS
- Lowest 5-second average
- 63%
- First under 90%
- 0:05 into the run
- Hottest state reported
- Serious
- Samples
- 291
Compare it
The closest devices on the board, head to head.
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE34,132
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)40,322
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition) scores 18% higher overall
HONOR 600 Pro49,080
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)40,322
HONOR 600 Pro scores 22% higher overall
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)40,322
vs
Xiaomi 17T23,022
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition) scores 75% higher overall
PC (12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700KF)134,594
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)40,322
PC (12th Gen Intel Core i7-12700KF) scores 234% higher overall
Google Pixel 968.6%
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)69.2%
Dead heat: both hold their speed equally well
Google Pixel 572.5%
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)69.2%
Google Pixel 5 holds its speed better under sustained load
iPhone 16e73.5%
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)69.2%
iPhone 16e holds its speed better under sustained load
iPhone SE (3rd Gen)74.3%
vs
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)69.2%
iPhone SE (3rd Gen) holds its speed better under sustained load
Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)69.2%
vs
Xiaomi POCO X7 Pro74.7%
Xiaomi POCO X7 Pro holds its speed better under sustained load
Have a Vivo X300 Pro (Satellite Edition)?
Run it yourself and see how your unit compares with this one. Clean runs join the board.