Before leaving...

Thanks for your visite. If you like my work, you can support me with the following possibilities:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel
I post full test videos every month. By subscribing you will be notified of each new video, but the number of YouTube subscribers is important to obtain products to test.


Subscribe to my page on Facebook
I regularly post updates on Facebook, I also organize contests to win prizes. Here too, the number of fans is important to obtain material.


Use my links
I don't display ads on my site because I don't like it. My only source is from purchases you make from my links. I earn a meager commission on every purchase (about 2% on average), it costs you nothing and keeps me going. Here are some links to buy your products: == Aliexpress == Banggood

On this page:
Price Poco F4 GT
First configuration
CPU / GPU Performance
Benchmark Antutu/3DMark
Performance and cooling
Network performance
Wifi performance
GPS performance
Battery range
Photo camera test
Photo quality
Video quality
External audio quality
Audio quality (headphones)
Screen quality
Operating system
Test / Review conclusion
Questions answers

Follow me: rss feed
Receive notifications for new articles

Poco F4 GT: test / full review

Poco F4 GT: test / full review
Category: Smartphones

The race for ultimate performance seems to have restarted after a calmer period. I tested the Black Shark 4 Pro two months ago and at that time this phone represented the top of the pyramid with the Realme GT (among the phones I tested) but a newcomer will probably do them shadow and it is this time with the Poco brand that it will undoubtedly happen. [b][b] The F range at Poco represents the top of the range and the GT designation corresponds to a more efficient version designed for gamers and those who want to have the most efficient smartphone. On paper, this new Poco F4 GT really looks like a brute. It is equipped with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 CPU accompanied by an Adreno 730, it is the kind of phone that will set the bar very high and not only in terms of performance. I also see interesting things in terms of photography, gps, wifi, 5G...there are new things on every floor! [b][b]

Price drop

Goboo has a unique offer not to be missed, reduction of 140€ with the promo code GOBOO30015 [b] To enjoy it, click here [b][b][b]linkManufacturer web site:[b]linkSite where I have bought the Poco F4 GT:[b]

Structure of my tests

I test the phones according to a pre-established structure (see below) to provide you with as much information as possible. Unfortunately, this takes a long time. Some tests like network performance tests take several days and for photo tests I sometimes have to wait until the weather is suitable to take pictures in good conditions. I am therefore obliged to publish the tests step by step, so I invite you to come back if the test is not complete at the time of your visit.[b]
How are my tests different from others on the web?

- I usually buy the devices with my own money, so price is just as important as you are!
- I keep the devices for at least a few weeks (sometimes more) to see what they are worth in real conditions.
- I answer (when possible) your questions to help you decide before you buy
- no one pays me to do these reviews, so I'm completely neutral and independent...
- My pages are not filled with ads

POCO F5 : test / review
Unihertz Luna : test / review
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Pro: test / review
Redmi Note 11 : test / review
Redmi Note 11 Pro test / review
Redmi 10A: test and review
POCO M5 : test, review and price
POCO X5 5G : test / review
Xiaomi Redmi Note 12: test / review
Unihertz Tank : test / review

Price Poco F4 GT

The list below shows the prices for the Poco F4 GT from more than 50 sites around the world. If you are not satisfied with any price, you can subscribe to a price alert to be the first to be notified when the price drops.[b]bb
2023-09-24 18:12
269 EUR
Xia Poco F4 GT 128-8-5G BK Xiaomi Poco F4 GT 128G Stealth Black...
2023-09-24 17:21
353 EUR
POCO F4 GT 5G Smartphone+Kopfhörer,12+256GB Handy ohne Vertrag,6.67" 120Hz E4 AMOLED Display,64MP T...
2023-09-24 18:52
359 EUR
Poco F4 GT 5G + 4G LTE 128GB + 8GB Factory Unlocked 6.67" 120Hz 64Mp Triple Camera (Not Verizon Spri...
2023-09-24 18:01
376 EUR
POCO F4 Nebula Green 8GB RAM 256GB ROM...
2023-09-24 04:29
379 EUR
Xiaomi POCO F4 GT 5G LTE Smartphone 8GB+128GB 6.67'' AMOLED NFC 120W HyperCharge...
2023-09-24 14:20
379 EUR
helpThe above links are affiliate links from companies such as Amazon, Gearbest, Aliexpress,... If you appreciate my work, I would be grateful if you could purchase these products through these links. It costs you absolutely nothing but I get a small commission that allows me to buy the material I test. Thank you very much!


04/26/2022 Reception of the Poco F4 GT, the test will be able to start[b]

Why this phone?

I tested almost all Poco models released since 2020, some escaped me but this new Poco F4 GT could not escape me. Even if I'm not a hard core mobile gamer, this kind of phone interests me on many points. There is of course the performance, this first version of the new Snapdragon will undoubtedly explode all the scores. So I'm curious to see the influence of this performance on the cooling of the phone because it's often a problem with high-performance phones, I'm also curious to see the impact on the battery. [b][b] The performance is not the only interesting point, there is in particular the presence of the Sony IMX 686 photo sensor which was also used in the Poco F2 Pro and which I still use today because it is a very good photo sensor. I imagine Poco has made some improvements since the Poco F2 Pro was released 2 years ago. [b][b] For wifi, I was expecting a configuration with several antennas and for GPS it will be dual band. The phone is therefore very well equipped on many components.[b]


I received the Poco F4 GT in a closed box with a code, I thought the initiative was nice enough to discover this new phone. The Poco box is however quite classic, it uses the brand's usual color codes and contains the phone, a transparent soft silicone shell, a manual, a needle for the sim drawer, a USB C cable at a right angle and a 120W charger. [b]
Length : 162.5
Width : 76.7
Thickness : 8.5
Weight : 210
Jack output : No
USB Type : Type C

First configuration

Phones running MIUI all look the same and that's normal, but sometimes I notice a few small differences like with this new Poco. First there is the choice between the usual keyboard and the Google voice keyboard, this is the first time that MIUI has offered me this choice. Transferring data from the old phone is also different, Poco offers cable transfer first, I don't find that very convenient but I imagine it's a strategy not to put Google's cloud too much in the way before. However, I find that the Google cloud is much more practical for managing a backup than a cable system. [b]


The Poco F4 GT is a great phone but it's not the biggest or the biggest. It has a length quite similar to other phones using a 6.67 inch screen but on the other hand it is less thick than the Black Shark 4 Pro, it has more or less the same thickness as a Redmi Note 11. Poco has undoubtedly gained a few millimeters using a 4700 mAh battery instead of the usual 5000. [b][b]
The photo block on the back is well integrated into the back of the phone, it does not protrude too much and its design with a triangle on each side gives it the impression to be slimmer. Using the Sony IMX 686 as the main sensor avoids integration issues like what you can see on a Poco X4 Pro where the camera sensor comes out quite strong on the back.
The sim drawer is located at the top left of the phone and it is quite small, it can hold two sim cards, there is no SD indication on either side, so it cannot accommodate memory card. [b][b]
The Poco F4 GT has two external speakers and their shape is quite unusual, reminiscent of the use of triangles on the photo block on the back. The speakers are placed on the upper and lower edge of the phone and are at the same level on the right of the phone. This placement should in principle allow sound to travel without being blocked by the hand when playing with the phone.
The volume button is on the left side, this is an unusual place for this button except on gaming phones like this. The right side is occupied by the gamepads, so the volume button had to be put somewhere else and it's a good idea to put it there because it makes the volume accessible with the right thumb when you play.
Below is the usual USB C port, however there is no audio output jack on this phone and there is no adapter in the box. You will therefore have to either buy a USB to Jack adapter or use Bluetooth headphones. [b][b]
The back of the phone is made of aluminum and glass, it's a cold metallic feeling that dominates, there is really a difference in feeling between the gray area and area with lines and triangles. I guess this choice is also related to the heat dissipation of the phone. Even if the format of the phone is very classic, I find that this alternation of glass and aluminum is very successful, this Poco F4 GT has a less brutal appearance than the Black Shark 4 Pro. [b][b][b]


[b]The information below comes from the Device Info HW application. The application provides detailed technical information about the tested phone. The Poco F4 GT runs on a Qualcomm architecture which I will detail in the next paragraph but there are other interesting things that I noted from the technical specifications: [b] - 12 GB of base RAM in LPDDR5, large RAM capacity and fast memory [b] - Cirrus Logic CS35L41 amplifier [b] - dual frequency GPS [b] - 440 pixel density (1440 x 3200px resolution) [b] - the CPU temperatures seem high but I will test that specifically with the battery test [b] These are just a few examples but that show that this Poco is not just a copy of another Poco , I was expecting a great retraining exercise as they are used to doing by taking up elements from the Black Shark in particular, but this is not at all the case. This Poco is unique in the Poco range for now. [b][b][b]

CPU / GPU Performance

CPU : Snapdragon 8 Gen1
GPU : AdreNo 730
Memory (RAM) : 12Gb
Storage : 128 - 256 Gb
[b][b]The Poco F4 GT embeds a Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 CPU engraved in 4nm, this processor is the best for the moment. The Poco F4 GT is not the only one to use this CPU, there is also the Vivo X80 Pro, the Realme GT 2 Pro, the Samsung Galaxy S22+, the One Plus 10 Pro but a priori the Poco will be the cheapest of all these phones. This would allow Poco to once again claim the best price/performance positioning. [b][b] For the graphics part, this phone is equipped with an Adreno 730 GPU which also represents the top of the range in terms of performance, it is present in the same phones since it is part of of the same CPU/>GPU configuration. [b][b] The Poco is therefore likely to top my performance rankings and overtake the Black Shark 4 Pro for a lower price.[b]

Benchmark Antutu/3DMark

Before receiving the phone I had seen Antutu scores that exceeded one million points and when testing mine I was surprised to see that I only reached 853016 points. The reason is very simple, I test the phones with Antutu v8 to keep a fair comparison with all the phones I tested and the score of 1 million was obtained with Antutu v9. Anyway, it's very high, it's 12% more than the Black Shark 4 Pro but what is very special is that on the graphics performance, this Poco is 146% better than the Black Shark! The Adreno 730 GPU is really far above anything I've tested so far, so it will delight all hard core gamers. [b][b] The temperature of the phone increased by 7°C during the test, it may seem like a lot but it is not felt in the fingers because of the liquid cooling system of the phone. [b][b]

Performance and cooling

To better gauge the performance, I pushed the phone to its maximum for several minutes and I I measured the computing power as well as the consumption in watts. For my first test the temperature of the room in which I did the test was around 23°C. After three minutes the phone froze with an English message saying overheating. So I let the phone cool and I did a second try by placing the phone in my fridge and there I was able to do the test until the end. I then made a third test at room temperature but leaving the back of the phone in the open air (the phone was placed on wood for the first test) and there I was also able to complete the test. [b][b] Results of my measurements: [b] Average CPU consumption at 100%: 10.67W [b] Average GPU consumption at 100%: 7.67W [b] Average FPU power consumption at 100%: 8.34W [b] Average screen power consumption: 1W [b][b] This phone is very power hungry! [b] I then compared the computing power of each unit and for the CPU I got a good performance but it is not extraordinary because it is about 50% more than a Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus. It's the GPU that pulls all the performance up because there I have a GPU almost 6x more efficient than a Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus. I'm comparing performance with the Redmi because it's the last phone I tested with this test protocol. The GPU performance is truly impressive. [b][b] And the temperature? Well, as I wrote at the beginning of the parameter, the phone went to sleep after my first test because it had failed to evacuate the heat properly. On my third test, the battery rose to 64.3°C with the back of the phone in contact with ambient air. It's absolutely huge and the phone was really hot but it didn't crash. Before you run off I still have to say that it's highly unlikely you'll be able to put the phone in this situation with a game. My PUBG test shows the phone was using less than 50% capacity, we is therefore very far from the 100% continuous of my test. Cooling with PUBG worked great. In any case, I clearly advise to leave the back in the open to avoid problems. [b][b][b]
Antutu score : 853016
Antutu CPU : 197186
Antutu GPU : 423092
Antutu UX : 104108
Antutu Mem : 128630
[b]Top 10 - performance ranking based on Antutu
1. Poco F5 - 910362
2. Poco F4 Gt - 853016
3. Realme Gt - 811858
4. Black Shark 4 Pro - 759986
5. Poco X4 Gt - 714577
6. Oppo Find X2 Pro - 605184
7. Oneplus 8t - 595000
8. Poco F3 - 589677
9. Xiaomi Mi 10t Pro - 581650
10. Oneplus 8 Pro - 579417

Number of smartphones in the ranking:155
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:2/155

Note: this ranking only contains the phones I tested as well as a few others that I added for reference.
[b]Gaming[b]To test the performance in game, I download the mobile PUBG game and evaluate the in-game experience, graphics level and depth of vision. This game is quite demanding and should help you evaluating the performance of a phone. This phone is designed for gamers so it was to be expected that the gaming experience would be good and it is indeed the case. I tested here PUBG Mobile in HD in Ultra mode and the gaming experience is perfectly smooth with 60 fps consistently. The level of graphics is superb, the depth of vision is excellent and during the game I did not feel a significant increase in the temperature of the phone.[b][b][b]

Network performance

This Poco F4 GT has excellent frequency coverage, it supports 13 5G frequencies and 19 4G frequencies. You can therefore use it everywhere in Europe.[b]
3G frequencies : B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B4 (1700/2100 AWS A-F), B5 (850), B6 (800), B8 (900), B19 (800)
4G frequencies : B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B3 (1800), B4 (1700/2100 AWS 1), B5 (850), B7 (2600), B8 (900), B12 (700), B13 (700), B17 (700), B20 (800), B26 (850), B28b (700), B28a (700), B38 (TDD 2600), B40 (TDD 2300), B41 (TDD 2500), B42 (TDD 3500
5G frequencies : n1 (2100), n3 (1800), n5 (850), n7 (2600), n8 (900), n28b (700), n28a (700), n38 (2600), n40 (2300), n41 (2500), n77 (3700), n78 (3500)
Bluetooth : Bluetooth 5.2 LE
Number measurements : 832
Average signal (reference) : -95.02
Average signal (telephone) : -93.09
Average deviation reference/telephone : -2.07
Min/Max signal (reference) : -90 / -99
Min/Max signal (phone) : -93 / -97
Choose your country to check if your phone is compatible:

The frequencies displayed below will allow you to see if this phone is compatible with your operator or if you will be able to use it in the country where you are going on vacation.

Signal 4G (from December 2020)[b]I decided to change the methodology for measuring the network because I noticed that the configuration of the mobile network changes over time. This makes it more difficult to compare phones because the conditions are no longer exactly the same.[b][b]To overcome this problem, I set up a device that captures 24 hours a day about ten parameters from the mobile network (ex: cell id, rssi, rsrq, snr, frequency,...). I then place the phone next to the device for 24 to 48 hours taking the same measurements so that I can compare them. [b][b] Overview of the phones tested with this methodology[b][b]
Phone tested:MeasurementsAvg signal (reference)Avg signal (phone)Min/Max (reference)Min/Max (phone)
Samsung Galaxy S10+457-93.06-97.39-89 / -98-97 / -99
Xiaomi Mi 9t Pro669-93.69-95.84-90 / -95-92 / -98
Poco F2 Pro1438-91.02-94.99-89 / -94-94 / -96
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5g1645-90.77-95.02- 88 / -98-95 / -100
Poco X3821-94.89-103.19-91 / -97.7-101 / -104
Umidigi Bison2343-92.71-96.46-90 / -99-94 / -102
Oukitel C211101-92.04-94.99-90 / -97-92 / -95
Poco M31116-92.09-91.74-88 / -98-90 / -99
Xiaomi Mi 10t Pro1071-90.61-94.03-88 / -94-94 / -96
Umidigi A9 Pro981-90.40-94.01-88 / -95-93 / -95
Redmi Note 9t1201-92.149-91.71-90 / -97-91 / -97
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10999-92.35-93.99-88 / -97-92 / -98
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro877-89.72-90.56- 88 / -92-89 / -95
Poco X3 Pro1876-91.45-92.91-90 / -94-90 / -96
Poco F31382-90.79-94.2-89 / -94-93 / -98
Oneplus Nord N100896-91.23-96.005-88 / - 99-96 / -99
Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite2875-91.36-91.49-87 / -96-90 / -96
Samsung Galaxy A521427-89.27-93.39-87 / -98-92 / -96
Doogee S96 Pro1259-94.2-91.21-90 / -102-88 / -95
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10s957-92.07-97.62-90 / -102-96 / -102
Poco M3 Pro1247-91.76-102.97-99 / -104-88 / -98
Realme Gt843-96.49-94.02-93 / -101- 92 / -96
F150 R20221002-92.4-105.1-90 / -97-98 / -110
Umidigi Bison Pro936-94.2-104.98-91 / -98-95 / -105
Redmi 102141-94.74-100.92-92 / -98-99 / -101
Tcl 10 Pro871-93.43-94.001-92 / -96-93 / -95
Poco M4 Pro570-93.71-96.78-91 / -98-95 / -99
Google Pixel 51444-91.02-97.02-90 / -94-97 / -101
Xiaomi 11t1576-92.305-92.003-90 / -96-92 / -93
Redmi Note 111223-92.5-91.32-92/-97-90 / -93
Black Shark 4 Pro2383-95.178-95.42-90 / -100-93 / -101
Redmi Note 11 Pro349-95.33-93-89 / -101-92 / -94
Poco M4 Pro 4g1202-90.85-88.95-87 / - 95-88 / -98
Tcl 30 Se567-92.11-92.85-88 / -98-99 / -93
Poco X4 Pro562-92.06-94.01-90 / -95-95 / -93
Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus 5g945-93.5-93.54-91 / -97-92 / -97
Poco F4 Gt832-95.02-93.09-90 / -99 -93 / -97
Oukitel Wp181351-95.94-92.92-91 / -97-92 / -97
Poco X4 Gt387-96.99-96.505-96 / -98-95 / -98
Poco F4524-95.78-95.04-93 / -99-94/-96
Oneplus Nord 2t1340-98.83-96.305-95 / -102-90 / -99
Redmi 10a707-89.026-97.97-87 / -91-97 / -103
Poco M5762-95.18-95.07-98 / -93-99 / -94
Unihertz Tank1426-91.21-93.97-90 / -95-89 / -96
Poco X5 5g2234-92.3-99.1-91 / -95- 100 / -98
Google Pixel 6a853-91.8-95-90 / -94-95 / -97
Redmi Note 121023-89.6-96.99-88 / -93-95 / -97
Redmi Note 12 Pro1576-91.96-94.93-89 / -96-93 / -95
Unihertz Luna1133-91.7-91.94-89 / -95-92 / -94
Poco F51321-91.69-95.05-90 / -97-94 / -97
[b][b]I performed 832 measurements to assess the network sensitivity of the Poco F4 GT and obtained an average signal of -95.02 dBm. Over the same period I obtained an average signal of -93.09 dBm with the probe, the difference is not very significant but will place the Poco F4 GT in the average and for a high-end phone it is a little shame.[b][b][b]Download/Upload speed[b]To test the download speed, I have identified some 4G cells offering good performance where I test all my devices several times to see what download and upload speed they can achieve.[b]Top 10 - speed ranking in download
1. Samsung Galaxy S20 D:351Mbps U: 20Mbps
2. Poco X3 D:232Mbps U: 55Mbps
3. Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5g D:223Mbps U: 52Mbps
4. Poco F2 Pro D:207Mbps U: 53Mbps
5. Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite D:153Mbps U: 68Mbps
6. Xiaomi Mi A3 D:150Mbps U: 60Mbps
7. Xiaomi Redmi Note 9s D:150Mbps U: 60Mbps
8. Xiaomi Mi 8 Lite D:149Mbps U: 60Mbps
9. Samsung Galaxy A21s D:147Mbps U: 51Mbps
10. Huawei Y6 2019 D:145Mbps U: 61Mbps

Number of smartphones in the ranking:30
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:0/30

Note: the theoretical maximum speed of a telephone is often limited by the configuration of the mobile network and the congestion of the network at the time of the measurement. So maybe you could get a higher speed on another network

Wifi performance

To test a phone's ability to receive the network properly, I take measurements near my router and then remotely (and always at the same place). This gives me an average in dBm where a value of -90 dBm indicates poorer performance than a value at -30 dBm.[b]
Wifi frequencies : 802.11a , 802.11b , 802.11g , 802.11n , 802.11n 5GHz , 802.11ac, WiFi 6 (802.11ax)
Download speed : 866
Signal / close : -20
Signal / distant : -58
Wifi signal[b]I measured an average signal of -20 dBM near the router (in 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz), it's not an extraordinary signal level, it's average while I expected this phone be very sensitive to wifi. From a distance I have a signal of -58 dBm, this signal level is good but is not where I expected either. It shouldn't be felt too much on a daily basis because this signal level isn't bad, but given the configuration of this phone, I expected a better score.[b][b]Top 10 - wifi sensitivity ranking
1. Poco F2 Pro -11dBm
2. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro -12dBm
3. Realme Gt -12dBm
4. Redmi Note 12 Pro -13dBm
5. Samsung Galaxy A21s -13dBm
6. Redmi Note 11 Pro -13dBm
7. Poco F5 -14dBm
8. Oneplus Nord N100 -15dBm
9. Poco X3 Pro -15dBm
10. Poco F3 -15dBm

Number of smartphones in the ranking:74
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:39/74

[b]Download/Upload speed[b]To test the speed in Wifi, I connect to my router in 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz (if available) and use the Ookla application to measure the speed.[b]Top 10 - wifi download speed ranking
1. Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus 5g 866Mbps
2. Redmi Note 12 Pro 866Mbps
3. Poco F4 866Mbps
4. Google Pixel 6a 866Mbps
5. Poco F4 Gt 866Mbps
6. Poco X4 Gt 866Mbps
7. Oneplus Nord 2t 866Mbps
8. Black Shark 4 Pro 866Mbps
9. Poco F5 866Mbps
10. Poco M4 Pro 4g 433Mbps

Number of smartphones in the ranking:72
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:5/72

Note: I have a 400Mbps line and a modem capable of delivering higher speed, but I can never be sure how much bandwidth is available when doing a test.

GPS performance

[b]To test the accuracy of the GPS signal, I use two positioning applications to evaluate the difference between the actual position and the position indicated by the phone. This test is done outdoors with nothing to obstruct the signal. An accuracy level of up to 3 meters can easily be corrected by an application (e.g. Google Maps).[b][b] The Poco F4 GT is equipped with a dual-frequency GPS chip, so it can access more signals and establish positioning faster. When I first launched the GPS, I actually got a quality signal quite quickly with an accuracy level that came in at 3 meters like all Snapdragon chips. This level of precision can be corrected by your GPS application such as Google Maps. I detected the following frequencies: L1/L5 GPS, L1 Glonass, E1/E5a Galileo, B1/B1C/B2a Baidu.[b][b]Top 10 - GPS accuracy ranking
1. Poco M5 1m
2. Poco X4 Gt 1m
3. Unihertz Tank 1m
4. Oukitel C21 1m
5. Redmi 9a 1m
6. Redmi 10a 1m
7. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10s 1m
8. Doogee S96 Pro 1m
9. Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 1m
10. Umidigi Bison Pro 1m

Number of smartphones in the ranking:44
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:24/44

Note: An accuracy of 3 meters or less can easily be corrected by a good GPS application. Phone performance also plays a role in how fast your display updates, so good accuracy could be compromised by too slow a display.

Battery range

To test battery life I developed an application that measures the battery level minute by minute until the battery is empty. This application consumes about ten percent of the phone's resources and I do a test with 100 brightness. This test aims to reproduce a contemplative use of a phone (e.g. surfing the internet, reading articles, spending time on social networks). These results are not valid for intensive gaming/streaming use.
Capacity : 4700
Fast charge : Yes
W max : 120
Range (100% brightness) : 365.00
Range (50% brightness) : 1082
Charging time : 38
Discharge speed (100%) : 0.27
Discharge score (100%) : 12.88
Discharge speed (50%) : 0.09
Discharge score (50%) : 4.34
Charging speed : 2.63
Charging score : 123.68
From March 2020, I replaced my subjective battery test with a technical test to better measure the real behaviour of the battery. Now I test the autonomy and charging time under absolutely identical conditions. I perform several measurements, so this test alone takes several days during which I cannot use the phone for anything else.

Battery life - methodology
To test the battery life, I measure the battery consumption every minute in strictly identical conditions to be able to compare phones and also to allow you to evaluate your phone in the same conditions. I rule out any influence of applications that could interfere with the measurement. The autonomy is not linear, the battery sometimes discharges much faster at the end. This is a frustrating phenomenon but with my measurements, you will know if you need to find a charger quickly.

Battery life
The battery of the Poco F4 GT has a capacity of 4700 mAh and has discharged from 100% to 1% in 365.00 minutes with 100% brightness, it has discharged from 100% to 1% in 1082 minutes with 50% brightness. I obtain in this way an average discharge speed of 0.27% per minute with 100% luminosity and 0.09% per minute with 50% luminosity, the consumption is therefore 12.88 mA per minute with 100% luminosity and 4.34 with 50% luminosity. To be able to compare the efficiency of the phone and its influence on the battery, you have to compare the 12.88 (or 50%) score with that of other smartphones, the figure should be as low as possible.

Charging time - methodology
To test the charging time, I always use the same charger with the same cable. I measure the charging time minute by minute to see the evolution of the charge as well as the charging speed. The charging speed of a battery is not linear, it is often faster at the beginning and slower at the end. The charger is compatible with fast charging.

Charging time
The battery of the Poco F4 GT has a capacity of 4700 mAh and has been charged from 1% to 100% in 38 minutes. This gives me an average charging speed of 2.63% per minute and therefore an increase of 123.68 mA per minute. To compare the performance of the Poco F4 GT compared to other phones, you should use the 123.68 per minute score, this score should be as high as possible.

Important note: the charging speed is not always linear, the graph below gives you an indication of the battery behaviour.

The following table lists the phones tested with the technical battery test, they are ranked in order of efficiency. A higher battery capacity should logically result in a higher battery life but it is not always the case and it does not give any indication of the efficiency of a phone.

SmartphoneCapacity (mAh)Battery life (minutes)Efficiency ScoreBattery life (minutes) / 50%Efficiency Score / 50%Charging time.Score charging
Honor 9x4000770.005.191333.003.00151.0026.49
Nokia 5.34000549.007.291096.003.65199.0020.10
Samsung Galaxy S204000565.007.081217.003.29136.0029.41
Oukitel C214000497.008.051324.003.02167.0023.95
Google Pixel 54080773.005.281559.002.6281.0050.37
Umidigi A9 Pro4150552.007.521562.002.66112.0037.05
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5g4160749.005.551541.002.70163.0025.52
Realme 64300704.006.111104.003.89162.0026.54
Google Pixel 6a44105348.2619352.2811139.73
Samsung Galaxy A524500652.006.901239.003.63165.0027.27
Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus 5g4500525.008.5712113.7224187.50
Realme Gt4500574.007.841057.004.2687.0051.72
Tcl 10 Pro4500465.009.68889.005.06133.0033.83
Poco F44500554.008.1211413.949845.92
Black Shark 4 Pro4500425.0010.59937.004.8029.00155.17
Oneplus Nord 2t45006936.4914923.0212137.19
Poco F34520657.006.881840.002.46122.0037.05
Poco F4 Gt4700365.0012.8810824.3438123.68
Poco F2 Pro47001150.004.091536.003.06180.0026.11
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10s5000636.007.861556.003.21161.0031.06
Poco M3 Pro5000657.007.611647.003.04131.0038.17
Poco X4 Pro5000643.007.7813613.677467.57
Umidigi Bison Pro5000610.008.201632.003.06255.0019.61
Redmi 105000664.007.531684.002.97165.0030.30
Poco M4 Pro5000634.007.891600.003.13123.0040.65
Xiaomi 11t5000476.0010.501204.004.1597.0051.55
Redmi Note 115000592.008.451 376.003.6369.0072.46
Oneplus Nord N1005000808.006.191278.003.91663.007.54
Xiaomi Redmi Note 105000691.007.241728.002.89193.0025.91
Poco X5 5g500049310.1410584.7322821.93
Motorola G8 Power5000912.005.482792.001.79311.0016.08
Redmi Note 12 Pro50006188.0912943.8612041.67
Redmi Note 1250006377.8515173.308161.73
Samsung Galaxy A21s5000729.006.861283.003.90166.0030.12
Redmi Note 9t5000766.006.532054.002.43148.0033.78
Redmi 9a5000694.007.201902.002.63195.0025.64
Redmi 9c5000656.007.621915.002.61170.0029.41
Redmi 10a50006827.3318202.7516330.67
Umidigi Bison5000550.009.091471.003.40238.0021.01
Tcl 30 Se50006507.691 225.004.0817229.07
Poco M4 Pro 4g5000723.006.921 500.003.3377.0064.94
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro5020625.008.031557.003.22213.0023.57
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9s5020663.007.571876.002.68224.0022.41
Xiaomi Redmi Note 95020650.007.721808.002.78162.0030.99
Poco X4 Gt5080726.007.0015383.3011344.96
Umidigi F25150927.005.561854.002.78299.0017.22
Poco X35160653.007.901654.003.12181.0028.51
Poco X3 Pro5160648.007.961688.003.06138.0037.39
Doogee S58 Pro5180845.006.131908.002.71177.0029.27
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite5260827.006.361609.003.27208.0025.29
Ulefone Armor 7e5500768.007.161140.004.82179.0030.73
Poco M36000842.007.131898.003.16217.0027.65
Doogee S96 Pro6350929.006.841405.004.52424.0014.98
F150 R20228300879.009.441498.005.54243.0034.16
Oukitel Wp18125002 733.004.5728594.3736234.53

helpHow to read these figures?
The battery capacity is an important element in determining the autonomy of a phone but it is not the only factor. A phone with a large battery may have a shorter battery life if it consumes more power. If I had to take an example from everyday life, I would use the universe of the car. If a car has a large fuel tank, it should be able to drive a longer distance unless its average fuel consumption is higher. The battery efficiency score works the same way, it should be as low as possible and represents the energy consumption of the phone. These differences in efficiency are often related to the brightness of the screen, large bright screens will tend to consume more energy and even if they have a large battery, their range will be shorter.

In summary While performing my load tests, I noticed that this phone was really power hungry and logically that must have affected the battery test as well. This is indeed the case, I got a battery life of 365 minutes with the screen on at 100% and 1092 minutes with the screen on at 50%. This autonomy score is one of the lowest among the phones I've tested in recent months. The screen consumes more energy than the average, it is undoubtedly its higher resolution which is the cause but the brightness also plays a role because at 100%, the consumption of the screen is 3 times higher than at 50%.
[b][b] 120W charging is fast and can charge the phone from 0-100% after about 30 minutes, it's a good score but not the best. The Black Shark 4 Pro and the Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus do better. The graph shows that the charging speed is very fast at the beginning and then I observe a break after 8 minutes where the speed slows down and then a new break towards 90% of the battery.
[b][b] Autonomy will undoubtedly be one of the weaknesses of this phone because when you buy a phone of this type it is to use it and unfortunately it is quite energy intensive. If you use it reasonably you will probably be able to last the day, but if you play for several hours, you will always need to have a charger at hand.[b]

Photo camera test

To test the quality of photos produced by a phone, I do a technical test (resolution, sharpness, chromatic aberration,...) in studio (identical conditions) to evaluate the technical part objectively. From the second half of 2020, I built my own laboratory to take completely objective technical measurements. I then take pictures in real conditions to see how the camera performs. I then evaluate these photos according to my criteria but I publish the photos so that you can evaluate the result according to your criteria.[b]


Selfie / resolution : 20
Selfie / sensor : Sony IMX 596
Resolution : 64
Sensor : Sony IMX 686
The Poco F4 GT uses a Sony IMX 686 as its main sensor, it's a good sensor but it's not a very recent sensor. This sensor was already present in the Poco F2 Pro two years ago and some Huawei models used it before the Poco F2 Pro. For a phone of this price level, I expected something newer although, I repeat, this sensor is a good sensor. I still use the Poco F2 Pro today because it uses this sensor. [b][b] The secondary sensor (ultra wide angle) is an Omnivision OV8856 sensor, I haven't tested this sensor yet. The selfie sensor is a Sony IMX 586, here again it's not a very recent sensor but it's still a good sensor all the same. [b][b]

Photo quality

Photo quality (indoor/studio)[b]The studio test is carried out under the same conditions so that the results can be compared on an equal basis. I calibrate my lighting for each test to obtain the same brightness and colour temperature. This test is a preliminary analysis of the technical qualities of a camera. Most phones fail this test, so you should also read the results of the other tests in the following paragraphs.[b][b] Sony IMX 686 / 64 Mpix
I took the photo above in manual mode to show what this camera is capable of. I know this sensor well because I have been using it for 2 years on the Poco f2 Pro. In manual mode, you can get great shots even under artificial light. In automatic mode, the result is less good, the choice of shutter speed is not the best, but fortunately this problem does not occur for outdoor photos. If I look at my other criteria, I would say that the sharpness is good, the colors are close to reality and there are no major flaws to notice. [b][b]
The last time I tested the IMX 686 was before I used this photo with the tickets, so I'm glad to discover that this good old IMX 686 still holds up very well today against more recent sensors. Sharpness is good and fairly even, the photo is brighter than what I'm used to seeing (I was in auto mode though) and colors look decent. Omnivision OV8856
This kind of sensor never produces photos of extraordinary quality but I am sometimes positively surprised, this is unfortunately not the case for this one . The photo is distorted but that's normal, but the colors are really weird. It looks like the character on the right is sick, the color of his face and the yellow tint on the whole of the photo is very strongly deviated from reality. The sharpness is not very good and it degrades quite quickly, there is also digital noise even though the photo was taken at ISO 56. [b][b]
Here it's the same observation, the sharpness is not very good, it deteriorates quickly. The exposure time is a little too fast and some colors are no longer very natural. This Omnivision sensor therefore produces lower quality photos than the Sony IMX 355 which is usually used as a secondary sensor. [b][b]Photo: technical test[b]I was inspired by industrial technical tests to create my own technical test to evaluate the technical quality of a camera. This test is an objective assessment of a camera's ability to render a scene correctly. [b][b]I test the following elements:[b]- centre sharpness, peripheral sharpness[b]- colour fidelity based on 24 reference colours[b]- level of chromatic aberration[b]- dynamic range (ability to capture dark and light areas without loss)[b]- distortion[b][b]The technical evaluation may differ from the subjective evaluation as the feeling of a photo will be influenced by the processing provided by each manufacturer.[b][b] Sony IMX 686 / 64 Mpix
I took the photo above in manual mode to show what this camera is capable of. I know this sensor well because I have been using it for 2 years on the Poco f2 Pro. In manual mode, you can get great shots even under artificial light. In automatic mode, the result is less good, the choice of shutter speed is not the best, but fortunately this problem does not occur for outdoor photos. If I look at my other criteria, I would say that the sharpness is good, the colors are close to reality and there are no major flaws to notice. [b][b]
The last time I tested the IMX 686 was before I used this photo with the tickets, so I'm glad to discover that this good old IMX 686 still holds up very well today against more recent sensors. Sharpness is good and fairly even, the photo is brighter than what I'm used to seeing (I was in auto mode though) and colors look decent. Omnivision OV8856
This kind of sensor never produces photos of extraordinary quality but I am sometimes positively surprised, this is unfortunately not the case for this one . The photo is distorted but that's normal, but the colors are really weird. It looks like the character on the right is sick, the color of his face and the yellow tint on the whole of the photo is very strongly deviated from reality. The sharpness is not very good and it degrades quite quickly, there is also digital noise even though the photo was taken at ISO 56. [b][b]
Here it's the same observation, the sharpness is not very good, it deteriorates quickly. The exposure time is a little too fast and some colors are no longer very natural. This Omnivision sensor therefore produces lower quality photos than the Sony IMX 355 which is usually used as a secondary sensor. [b][b]Outdoor photo quality[b] Sony IMX 686
The photos taken by the Sony IMX 686 are quite bright in the sun and the colors are very saturated to the point that I thought I left the AI or HDR mode work for all photos. I always do some tests in AI or HDR but for most photos, I deactivate these modes to avoid making photos that are too surreal and after checking, the AI and HDR modes were indeed deactivated. Most of the photos in the following gallery almost all have colors that are too bright. I didn't have this problem with the Poco F2 Pro which uses the same camera. The sharpness processing is a bit too aggressive because I see a white outline appearing on certain areas indicating an artificial sharpening processing but this is not visible when looking at the photos on the phone. The dynamic range is good because unless I point the camera towards the sun, I don't have the sky turning white when the landscape dominates the photo. I do not find the same behavior observed on the Poco F2 Pro and to see if the processing is related to the photo application, I used Gcam to take photos at the same time and compare the type of processing (see next paragraph) Photos taken with the Poco app: Photos taken with the Gcam app: You will find photos taken with the Sony IMX 686 and the ultra wide angle sensor in the same photo gallery. The difference is obvious, the slightly distorted and highly saturated photos come from the ultra wide angle sensor (Omnivision). The processing of the photos taken by the Sony IMX 686 is still quite different from what I saw with the main application, the colors here are much less saturated and are sometimes quite strange (dominant green tone). I would have to play with the many parameters of the application to try to achieve a more correct result, but it shows that the processing plays a big role and that unfortunately the processing of the photos goes too far. [b][b] Omnivision OV8856
I had not yet had the opportunity to test this sensor in another phone, so it was a discovery and I find that the result is quite interesting. We find the usual defects of this kind of sensor with insufficient sharpness, distortion, chromatic aberration, ... but overall I find that the photo is quite pretty if you don't look at it on a big screen . This sensor does not reach the level of the Sony IMX 355 usually used at Xiaomi / Poco but we are getting closer. [b][b][b][b]Test photo / night[b]Not yet available / tested[b][b][b]

Video quality

Stabilisation[b]Not yet available / tested[b][b]Video normale conditionsNot yet available / tested[b][b]Video low light[b]Not yet available / tested[b][b]

External audio quality

[b]This test is intended to give you an overview of the volume and sound quality during calls and when listening to music through the external speakers. [b][b] The Poco F4 GT uses a high-end Qualcomm audio chip, so the sound has undergone a whole series of optimizations such as an extended frequency range, streaming in 24 bits and optimizations to limit latency as much as possible. The sound quality produced by the Poco F4 GT is therefore above average, it is the same type of sound as for the Black Shark 4 Pro which probably uses the same components but with different speakers. The bass and treble sounds are therefore well represented, the volume is a little above average and I do not notice any distortion problems. [b][b] The sound quality for calls is good, there is clearly an optimization here because I had just tested another phone on the same network and the sound produced by this phone was quite treble where the sound of the Poco was much warmer and less surgical. The volume with the listening loudspeaker was on the other hand not very high, it was a little below average. If you pass the sound on the speakers for music, the sound is significantly more powerful but of lower quality because there is a small resonance effect that can be heard in the video. [b][b][b]

Audio quality (headphones)

To test the quality of the phone's audio output, I connect the device's audio output to a measuring tool, then play sounds on all frequencies and measure the differences between the original sound and the sound produced by the phone. In this way I measure the phone's ability to correctly reproduce all sounds.[b]
Frequency Respons : 4.09 / - 7.22
Noise Level : -86.7
Dynamic Range : 86.7
THD : 0.015
Intermodulation : 10.606
Stereo crosstalk : -11.6
To test the sound quality very objectively, I need a wired connection. The Poco F4 GT does not have a jack audio output, so I have to use a usb to jack adapter which causes some losses along the way. Despite this loss, the sound of the Poco F4 GT is of very good quality, I found a good balance between treble sounds, bass sounds and voices. The sound power is below average but this problem could very well come from the usb adapter. I didn't measure any distortion at maximum volume, so the sound is well controlled. [b][b] I tried to connect my Du Smart earphones to the Poco but I never succeeded, the phone refused to connect to the earphones, it would have allowed me to test the sound in better conditions than with the usb to jack adapter.[b]

Screen quality

To test the screen, I use a colorimetric probe that measures the color accuracy of a screen, as well as other parameters to see if a screen is able to correctly reproduce an image. I also test the brightness level to determine if the screen will be able to display an image in full sunlight.[b]
Screen size : 6.67
Resolution : 1440 x 3200
Ratio : 20:9
Type : Amoled
% occupancy : 86
dE white : 3.2
dE red : 0.9
dE green : 1.7
dE blue : 1.2
dE jaune : 1.3
dE cyan : 1.5
dE magenta : 0.7
White temperature : 6919
Contrast : 1000000:1
Brightness : 756
When I test a phone from the Xiaomi group, I tend to switch the screen to standard configuration to obtain better colorimetry. This trick didn't work with the Poco F4 GT, I tried all the available modes and none really gave me satisfaction in terms of colorimetry, the color difference was too great. Fortunately, there is a possibility to fine tune the contribution of each color in the advanced parameters and this allowed me to obtain good colorimetry. In the end, I obtained a dE of 1.92 by decreasing the contribution of green by one notch and by decreasing the blue by 3 notches. With this setting the colorimetry is better but I did not manage to obtain a perfect white. [b][b] The color space of this phone is also wider than usual, which means it is capable of displaying a greater richness of colors. It covers 97.9% of sRGB and 93% of DCI P3. phones that offer wider color coverage are quite rare today. This Poco F4 GT therefore has a very good screen.[b][b]Top 10 - ranking of the best screens by colorimetry
1. Poco X4 Gt dE = 0.6
2. Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5g dE = 0.73
3. Xiaomi Mi 10t Pro dE = 0.83
4. Redmi Note 11 dE = 0.91
5. Redmi Note 12 Pro dE = 0.97
6. Google Pixel 6a dE = 1.01
7. Google Pixel 5 dE = 1.11
8. Realme Gt dE = 1.17
9. Redmi Note 12 dE = 1.17
10. Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite dE = 1.19

Number of smartphones in the ranking:75
Position of this smartphone in the ranking:22/75

Note: the colorimetric difference is measured in dE. After three, the human eye will perceive a colorimetric difference, so the dE should be the lowest. The tests were all carried out with a colorimetric probe.
[b]Brightness / Contrast[b]I measured a brightness of 470 cd/m² in normal mode but if I use adaptive brightness, I get a brightness of 750 cd/m², so the screen is very very bright and you can use it outdoors under the sun. [b][b] In terms of contrast, no surprise there is infinite contrast thanks to amoled technology, so blacks will be really black and not gray like on LCD screens.[b]


Not yet available / tested[b][b]

Operating system

[b]Not yet available / tested[b][b]

Encoutered bugs

Not yet available / tested[b][b]

Accessories Poco F4 GT

To better enjoy your experience with your smartphone, I offer links to all kinds of accessories that you might find useful

Protective cover / case poco f4 gt
Screen protection film poco f4 gt
Memory card poco f4 gt
USB Cable / Charger poco f4 gt
Headphones poco f4 gt
Bike rack poco f4 gt

Compare Poco F4 GT with the others

I assigned a score of 1 to 10 for each test that determines the strengths and weaknesses of a product. I am using 0 for criteria that have not (yet) been tested. A score of 1 to 3 indicates poor performance (and yes, it does), a score of 4 to 6 indicates average performance, a score of 7 to 8 indicates good performance, and a score of 9 and 10 indicates exceptional performance. .
The score is calculated based on my measurements and when there are no measurements, it is a subjective opinion based on my experience.

The scores are not static, they change over time because the performance of new products changes and this must be taken into account.

Poco F4 GT
Finish quality8.006.00
Battery performance6.508.00
CPU performance10.006.5
GPU performance10.006.5
Screen quality8.57.00
Photo quality6.55.00
Video quality7.005.00
Wi-Fi performance8.507.00
Mobile download speed8.005.00
Mobile network sensitivity7.006.00
Frequency coverage8.007.00
Audio quality7.56.00
GPS performance7.006.00
Operating system8.008.00
Overall score110.589
Global ranking
1. Black Shark 4 Pro 114 / 140
2. Realme Gt 112.5 / 140
3. Poco F2 Pro 111.5 / 140
4. Oneplus Nord 2t 111.5 / 140
5. Poco F5 111 / 140
6. Samsung Galaxy S20 111 / 140
7. Poco F4 Gt 110.5 / 140
8. Google Pixel 5 109.6 / 140
9. Poco F3 108.5 / 140
10. Poco X4 Gt 108 / 140
11. Google Pixel 6a 108 / 140
12. Poco X3 Pro 107.5 / 140
13. Samsung Galaxy S10+ 107 / 140
14. Xiaomi 11t 107 / 140
15. Redmi Note 11 Pro Plus 5g 106.5 / 140
16. Redmi Note 12 Pro 106 / 140
17. Xiaomi Mi 9t Pro 106 / 140
18. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro 105.5 / 140
19. Samsung Galaxy A52 104 / 140
20. Tcl 10 Pro 104 / 140
21. Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 104 / 140
22. Redmi Note 11 Pro 103 / 140
23. Poco X4 Pro 102.5 / 140
24. Poco M4 Pro 4g 102 / 140
25. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10s 102 / 140
26. Poco M4 Pro 101.5 / 140
27. Unihertz Luna 101.5 / 140
28. Redmi Note 11 101 / 140
29. Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5g 101 / 140
30. Poco X3 101 / 140
31. Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 101 / 140
32. Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 101 / 140
33. Redmi Note 9t 100.5 / 140
34. Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 100 / 140
35. Unihertz Tank 99 / 140
36. Poco X5 5g 98.5 / 140
37. Poco M5 98.5 / 140
38. Xiaomi Mi 9 Lite 98 / 140
39. Doogee S96 Pro 98 / 140
40. Xiaomi Redmi Note 9s 98 / 140
41. Poco F4 98 / 130
42. Poco M3 Pro 98 / 140
43. Redmi 10 97.5 / 140
44. Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 97 / 140
45. Redmi Note 12 95.5 / 140
46. Umidigi Bison Pro 95 / 140
47. F150 R2022 95 / 140
48. Poco M3 94.5 / 140
49. Xiaomi Redmi Note 7 94 / 140
50. Realme 6 93 / 140
51. Umidigi A9 Pro 92 / 140
52. Umidigi Bison 92 / 140
53. Tcl 30 Se 92 / 140
54. Oukitel C21 89.5 / 140
55. Motorola G8 Power 89 / 140
56. Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 89 / 140
57. Nokia 5.3 89 / 140
58. Xiaomi Mi A3 89 / 140
59. Oneplus Nord N100 88.5 / 140
60. Honor 9x 88 / 140
61. Redmi 10a 88 / 140
62. Xiaomi Mi 8 Lite 86 / 140
63. Meizu Note 9 86 / 140
64. Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 85 / 140
65. Umidigi S3 Pro 83 / 140
66. Umidigi F2 82 / 140
67. Samsung Galaxy A21s 82 / 140
68. Redmi 9a 81 / 140
69. Oukitel Wp18 81 / 140
70. Redmi 9c 80 / 140
71. Ulefone Armor 7e 80 / 140
72. Doogee S58 Pro 78.5 / 140
73. Honor 8x 78 / 140
74. Umidigi F1 77 / 140
75. Huawei Y6 2019 74 / 140
76. Xiaomi Mi 10t Pro 57 / 70
77. Samsung Galaxy S23 8 / 10
78. Elephone U5 0 / 0

Test / Review conclusion

[b]When I opened the box of the Poco F4 GT, I thought to myself that I probably had in my hands a serious competitor for the Black Shark 4 Pro because in addition to having high-end features, I found that the level of finish was better. It's obviously a subjective feeling but the first impression is always important especially for a phone in this price range. As I progressed in my test, I realized that this Poco might not succeed in dethroning the Black Shark for several reasons. The Poco reminds me of a beautiful American muscle car with a beautiful fully assumed body (here for gaming), enormous almost enjoyable power but with here and there a few annoying flaws for a phone at this price level. [b][b] The power is there, you won't be disappointed, I don't really see what game could put this phone in danger except that I managed to knock it out with a load test that raised the temperature high enough for the phone to shut down so it could cool down. A priori, it is unlikely that you will encounter the same problem while playing, but the phone still heats up quite strongly. [b][b] As with the Black Shark, the battery may be a problem if you play for a long time without a charger. It's not really a problem of battery capacity but the Poco is a really very greedy phone and the autonomy will therefore quickly drop if you push it to the maximum. Fortunately, it is compatible with 120W fast charging which will allow you to bring it back to 100% in about twenty minutes. It is in itself a kind of compromise so as not to have a phone that is too thick and not to have to wait too long to charge the phone. This is clearly not a crippling defect but it is better to know it and keep your charger nearby. [b][b] The Poco's screen is superb, it fully assumes its positioning in the high end. It offers excellent contrast, excellent brightness, extended color coverage, a good viewing angle and exemplary responsiveness. This screen is without doubt one of the best in the Poco range so far. [b][b] The sound is also high-end, both through external speakers and when listening with headphones and earphones. The sound will therefore be very immersive for all games where sound is important. [b][b] I was a little surprised by the photo processing which was supposed to be better than on previous generations, I find that the image processing is too aggressive in terms of sharpness and saturation. The photos I took can cause a wow effect if you show them on the phone screen but the colors are not realistic and if you zoom in the photo you will start to see the lack of sharpness appear. However, I had already tested this camera on other phones and I had not noticed these problems. It is therefore possible that this will change after an update. [b][b] The Poco also has good connectivity with dual band GPS, super fast wifi and good network awareness. [b][b] I hope that Poco will manage to correct the few problems through an update because it could raise this phone to the level of the Black Shark or even exceed it.[b]Strengths[b]Raw power [b] Screen at the top (colors, brightness, contrast, responsiveness, ...) [b] Dual frequency GPS [b] Very fast Wifi [b] Video stabilization in 4k 60fps [b] Video quality in 4k 60fps [b] Finishing [b] Customizable controllers [b][b]Weaknesses[b]Cooling not efficient enough [b] Photo processing too aggressive [b] Power [b][b][b]Alternatives to this product[b][b]Not yet available / tested[b][b]

laurent willen Laurent Willen
Instead of watching nonsense on TV or YouTube, I spend my time in the evenings testing products and sharing my passion for technology, travel and photography.

I run this site in my own name and completely independently, no one pays me to do so.

I have more than 20 years of experience in the digital world, I have managed and developed many high traffic websites in companies in Belgium such as Mobistar, Microsoft, Immoweb, BrusselsAirlines, Proximus, Orange,...


Join the discussion / Ask your questions

Your comment will be published after validation. I respond to over 1500 comments a year in my spare time, so I can't always respond very quickly. Your email address will not be publicly visible and it will not be used for commercial purposes.

Be notified by email when a response is published