Doogee Blade20 Turbo vs Xiaomi Poco F5 Pro: A Deep Dive Comparison
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing raw performance and faster charging, the Xiaomi Poco F5 Pro is the clear winner. Its Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 chipset provides a significant performance advantage. However, the Doogee Blade20 Turbo offers impressive battery endurance and a more affordable price point, making it a strong contender for budget-conscious users.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Doogee Blade20 Turbo | Xiaomi Poco F5 Pro |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2025, May | 2023, May 09 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, May | Available. Released 2023, May |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 174 x 81.2 x 15.8 mm (6.85 x 3.20 x 0.62 in) | 162.8 x 75.4 x 8.6 mm (6.41 x 2.97 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 333 g (11.75 oz) | 204 g (7.20 oz) |
| - | IP53, dust and splash resistant | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Mohs level 6 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1612 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~267 ppi density) | 1440 x 3200 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~526 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.6 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~74.1% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~87.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | AMOLED, 68B colors, 120Hz, Dolby Vision, HDR10+, 500 nits (typ), 1000 nits (HBM), 1400 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.6 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x3.0 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.5 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 7050 (6 nm) | Qualcomm SM8475 Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G68 MC4 | Adreno 730 |
| OS | Android 15 | Android 13, upgradable to Android 15 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.5", PDAF 2 MP (macro) | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Dual-LED dual-tone flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | - | 64 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.7µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 8K@24fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/3.1" | 16 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30/60fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| - | 24-bit/192kHz audio | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO | GPS (L1), GLONASS (G1), BDS (B1I), GALILEO (E1), QZSS (L1) |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 33W wired Reverse wired | 67W wired, PD3.0, QC3+, 50% in 15 min 30W wireless, 50% in 32 min |
| Type | 10300 mAh | Li-Po 5160 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Desert Titanium, Black | Black, White |
| Models | - | 23013PC75G |
| Price | About 320 EUR | $ 449.99 / € 241.85 |
| SAR | - | 1.09 W/kg (head) 1.08 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 1.00 W/kg (head) 1.00 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 99h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -26.2 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 1057977 (v9) GeekBench: 4001 (v5.1), 4009 (v6) GFXBench: 50fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
| EU LABEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 85:12h endurance, 1100 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class C | - |
| Free fall | Class A (270 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class C | - |
Doogee Blade20 Turbo
- Exceptional battery life (85:12h endurance)
- Long-lasting battery health (1100 charge cycles)
- More affordable price point
- Less powerful processor compared to the Poco F5 Pro
- Slower charging speed (33W)
Xiaomi Poco F5 Pro
- Flagship-level performance (Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1)
- Faster charging (67W wired, 30W wireless)
- Brighter display (1059 nits)
- Shorter battery life (99h endurance)
- Higher price compared to the Doogee Blade20 Turbo
Display Comparison
The Poco F5 Pro boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 1059 nits, compared to an unspecified brightness for the Doogee Blade20 Turbo. This higher brightness translates to better visibility outdoors under direct sunlight. While both displays have an infinite (nominal) contrast ratio, the lack of detailed display specifications for the Doogee – such as refresh rate or panel type – suggests the Poco F5 Pro offers a more premium visual experience. The Poco's display is likely to be more color accurate and offer wider viewing angles.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed as having Photo/Video capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are absent for both. Without sensor size, aperture, or OIS details, a direct comparison is difficult. However, given Xiaomi’s history with camera technology, the Poco F5 Pro likely benefits from more sophisticated image processing algorithms and potentially a larger, higher-resolution main sensor. The absence of any mention of advanced camera features on the Doogee suggests a more basic camera experience.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Poco F5 Pro’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 (4nm) is a generation ahead and architecturally superior to the Doogee Blade20 Turbo’s MediaTek Dimensity 7050 (6nm). The Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 features a Cortex-X2 prime core clocked at 3.0 GHz, offering a substantial performance boost over the Dimensity 7050’s Cortex-A78 cores at 2.6 GHz. The 4nm process node of the Snapdragon also contributes to better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during sustained workloads like gaming. While the Dimensity 7050 is a capable chip, the Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 provides a more fluid and responsive experience, particularly for graphically intensive tasks.
Battery Life
The Doogee Blade20 Turbo excels in battery endurance with an impressive 85:12h rating and a claimed 1100 charge cycles, indicating long-term battery health. The Poco F5 Pro, with a 99h endurance rating, falls slightly behind. However, the Poco compensates with significantly faster charging: 67W wired (50% in 15 minutes) and 30W wireless (50% in 32 minutes), compared to the Doogee’s 33W wired charging. The Doogee’s reverse wired charging is a useful addition, but the Poco’s faster charging speeds offer a more convenient user experience, especially for those who frequently need to top up their battery.
Buying Guide
Buy the Doogee Blade20 Turbo if you need exceptional battery life, prioritize value for money, and don't require the absolute fastest processing speeds. It's ideal for everyday tasks, media consumption, and moderate gaming. Buy the Xiaomi Poco F5 Pro if you prefer a smoother, more responsive experience for demanding games and applications, value faster charging speeds, and are willing to spend a bit more for flagship-tier performance.