Xiaomi Poco F4 vs Realme 9 Pro+: A Deep Dive into Performance and Value
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Xiaomi Poco F4 emerges as the stronger contender. Its significantly brighter display and faster 67W charging provide tangible benefits in everyday use. While the Realme 9 Pro+ offers a slightly more efficient chipset, the Poco F4’s overall performance and feature set justify its slight price premium.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Realme 9 Pro+ | Xiaomi Poco F4 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 - International | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA - International | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, February 16 | 2022, June 23 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, February 21 | Available. Released 2022, June 27 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back |
| Dimensions | 160.2 x 73.3 x 8 mm (6.31 x 2.89 x 0.31 in) | 163.2 x 76 x 7.7 mm (6.43 x 2.99 x 0.30 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 182 g (6.42 oz) | 195 g (6.88 oz) |
| - | IP53, dust and splash resistant | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~411 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.4 inches, 98.9 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~86.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 90Hz, 430 nits (typ), 600 nits (HBM) | AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, 900 nits (HBM), 1300 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.5 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x3.2 GHz Kryo 585 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 585 & 4x1.80 GHz Kryo 585) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 920 (6 nm) | Qualcomm SM8250-AC Snapdragon 870 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G68 MC4 | Adreno 650 |
| OS | Android 12, upgradable to Android 14, Realme UI 5.0 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 13, MIUI 14.2 for POCO |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, 24mm (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚, 16mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) | 64 MP, f/1.8, (wide) 1/2.0", 0.7µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120/480fps, 720p@960fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR, panorama | - |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.4, 27mm (wide), 1/3.09", 1.0µm | 20 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| - | 24-bit/192kHz audio | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.2, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1I+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5), NavIC (L5) |
| Radio | No | 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, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 60W wired, PD3.0, 100% in 44 min | 67W wired, PD3.0, QC3, 100% in 38 min |
| Type | 4500 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Midnight Black, Aurora Green, Sunrise Blue, Free Fire Limited Edition | Moonlight Silver, Night Black, Nebula Green |
| Models | RMX3392, RMX3393 | 22021211RG, 22021211RI |
| Price | £ 493.68 | ₹ 16,999 |
| SAR | 1.19 W/kg (head) 0.73 W/kg (body) | - |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 101h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -26.1 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 590961 (v8), 698586 (v9) GeekBench: 3190 (v5.1) GFXBench: 49fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Realme 9 Pro+
- More power-efficient chipset (Dimensity 920)
- Slightly longer battery endurance rating
- Potentially better sustained performance under heavy load
- Dimmer display, difficult to see in sunlight
- Slower charging speed (60W vs 67W)
Xiaomi Poco F4
- Significantly brighter display (1003 nits)
- Faster charging (67W, 38 minutes to full)
- Stronger GPU performance (Snapdragon 870)
- Generally more refined image processing
- Slightly lower battery endurance rating
- Potentially more thermal throttling under extreme load
Display Comparison
The Poco F4’s display is the clear winner here, boasting a measured peak brightness of 1003 nits compared to the Realme 9 Pro+’s 613 nits. This difference is immediately noticeable outdoors, where the Poco F4 remains easily readable in direct sunlight. While both feature similar resolutions, the Poco F4’s higher brightness and infinite contrast ratio (nominal) translate to a more immersive viewing experience. The Realme 9 Pro+’s display, while adequate, feels comparatively dim and lacks the vibrancy of the Poco F4.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer capable camera systems, but detailed sensor information is limited. Given the market positioning, it’s reasonable to assume both rely on similar primary sensors. However, the Poco F4’s image processing is generally regarded as more refined, producing more natural-looking photos with better dynamic range. The Realme 9 Pro+’s camera likely leans towards more saturated colors, a common trait of Realme’s image processing. Without specific sensor details, it’s difficult to definitively declare a winner, but the Poco F4’s software advantage gives it a slight edge.
Performance
Both phones are equipped with capable chipsets, but they differ in architecture and efficiency. The Poco F4’s Snapdragon 870 (7nm) features a Kryo 585 core configuration with a peak clock speed of 3.2 GHz, offering strong single-core and multi-core performance. The Realme 9 Pro+’s Dimensity 920 (6nm) utilizes a dual-cluster architecture with Cortex-A78 and Cortex-A55 cores, peaking at 2.5 GHz. While the Dimensity 920’s 6nm process offers theoretical efficiency gains, the Snapdragon 870’s superior GPU and optimized software integration often result in smoother gaming performance. The Poco F4 is likely to exhibit less thermal throttling during prolonged gaming sessions.
Battery Life
The Realme 9 Pro+ has an endurance rating of 117 hours, while the Poco F4 scores 101 hours. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story. The Poco F4 compensates for its slightly smaller battery with significantly faster 67W charging, achieving a full charge in just 38 minutes, compared to the Realme 9 Pro+’s 44 minutes. This faster charging speed is a significant convenience factor. The Dimensity 920’s 6nm process contributes to slightly better battery efficiency, but the difference is unlikely to be substantial in real-world usage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Realme 9 Pro+ if you prioritize sustained performance under load and value a slightly more power-efficient chipset for extended gaming sessions. Buy the Xiaomi Poco F4 if you demand a vibrant, easily visible display, faster charging speeds, and a generally more responsive user experience, even if it means slightly higher power consumption.