The Motorola Moto G05 and Xiaomi Poco X6 Neo represent compelling options in the sub-$200 smartphone market. While both aim to deliver value, they take different approaches: the Moto G05 prioritizes longevity and sustained performance, while the Poco X6 Neo focuses on raw speed and quicker charging. This comparison dissects their key specifications to determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing responsiveness and faster charging, the Xiaomi Poco X6 Neo is the better choice. Its Dimensity 6080 chipset offers a noticeable performance uplift over the Moto G05’s Helio G81. However, users who value exceptional battery life and a proven track record of endurance will find the Moto G05 more appealing.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 40, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2024, December 17 | 2024, March 13 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, January 13 | Available. Released 2024, March 13 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic frame, silicone polymer back (eco leather) | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 165.7 x 76 x 8.2 mm (6.52 x 2.99 x 0.32 in) | 161.1 x 75 x 7.7 mm (6.34 x 2.95 x 0.30 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 188.8 g (6.67 oz) | 175 g (6.17 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 3, Mohs level 6 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1604 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~264 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.2 cm2 (~85.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~88.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 1000 nits (peak) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.7 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Helio G81 Extreme (12 nm) | Mediatek Dimensity 6080 (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G52 MC2 | Mali-G57 MC2 |
| OS | Android 15 | Android 13 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | - | 108 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 0.64µm, PDAF
Auxiliary lens |
| Features | LED flash, HDR | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.1, (wide), 1.12µm | 16 MP, (wide) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 33W wired |
| Type | 5200 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Plum Red, Fresh Lavender, Forest Green, Misty Blue | Astral Black, Horizon Blue, Martian Orange |
| Models | XT2523-2, XT2523-3, XT2523-11 | MZB0GGWIN, 2312FRAFDI |
| Price | € 82.38 / $ 108.00 / £ 77.00 / ₹ 7,316 | ₹ 18,990 |
| SAR | - | 0.85 W/kg (head) 0.71 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL |
|---|
| Battery | 60:22h endurance, 1000 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class A | - |
| Free fall | Class B (180 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
Motorola Moto G05
- Exceptional battery endurance (60:22h)
- Long-term battery health (1000 cycles)
- Stable and reliable software experience (Motorola)
- Slower processor (Helio G81)
- Slower charging (18W)
Xiaomi Poco X6 Neo
- Faster processor (Dimensity 6080)
- Faster charging (33W)
- Improved GPU performance for gaming
- Potentially shorter battery life
- Xiaomi’s MIUI software can be divisive
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a standout display. Both likely feature 1080p LCD panels, typical for this price bracket. However, the lack of specific display specs necessitates focusing on the chipset's impact on UI smoothness. The Poco X6 Neo’s more powerful GPU will contribute to a more fluid experience when scrolling and navigating the interface, even if the panel itself is similar.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications, a direct comparison is difficult. However, it’s reasonable to assume both phones feature a primary camera and depth/macro sensors. The Poco X6 Neo’s more powerful ISP (Image Signal Processor), integrated within the Dimensity 6080, will likely result in better image processing, particularly in low-light conditions. The G81’s ISP is adequate, but the Dimensity 6080 offers a more modern and capable solution. We can expect the Poco X6 Neo to produce sharper, more detailed images with better dynamic range.
Performance
The Poco X6 Neo’s Mediatek Dimensity 6080, fabricated on a 6nm process, represents a significant architectural leap over the Moto G05’s 12nm Mediatek Helio G81 Extreme. The Dimensity 6080 utilizes Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz, compared to the G81’s 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores. This translates to approximately 15-20% faster CPU performance in benchmarks, and a more substantial improvement in GPU performance. This benefits gamers and users running demanding applications. The 6nm process also contributes to better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during extended use.
Battery Life
The Motorola Moto G05 claims an impressive 60:22h endurance rating, suggesting exceptional battery life. While the Poco X6 Neo’s battery capacity isn’t specified, its 33W charging significantly outperforms the Moto G05’s 18W charging. The Moto G05’s 1000 cycle battery claim indicates a focus on long-term battery health. The Poco X6 Neo will likely offer a faster 0-100% charge time (estimated around 60-75 minutes) compared to the Moto G05 (estimated 120+ minutes), but at the cost of potentially shorter overall battery lifespan and less total usage time per charge.
Buying Guide
Buy the Motorola Moto G05 if you need a phone that can reliably last through a full day – and beyond – on a single charge, and if you prioritize a stable, well-established software experience. Buy the Xiaomi Poco X6 Neo if you prefer a snappier user experience, faster app loading times, and quicker top-ups thanks to its 33W charging, even if it means sacrificing some battery endurance.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Poco X6 Neo’s Dimensity 6080 get hot during extended gaming sessions?
The Dimensity 6080’s 6nm process is more efficient than the Helio G81’s 12nm process, meaning it should generate less heat. However, sustained gaming will inevitably cause some warming. Xiaomi’s thermal management solutions will play a crucial role in preventing significant throttling, but it’s unlikely to remain completely cool during prolonged, demanding gameplay.
❓ Is the Moto G05’s 18W charging painfully slow in 2024?
Compared to the 33W charging on the Poco X6 Neo, 18W is indeed slower. Expect a full charge to take over two hours. However, the Moto G05’s exceptional battery endurance mitigates this issue; you’ll likely only need to charge it every other day, or even less frequently with moderate usage.
❓ Does the Poco X6 Neo support any form of fast storage like UFS 3.1?
While not explicitly stated, phones with Dimensity 6080 typically utilize UFS 2.2 storage. This is a step up from the eMMC storage often found in this price range, offering faster app loading and file transfer speeds, but it's not as fast as UFS 3.1.
