vivo NEX 3 5G vs Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha: A Battle of Bold Display Innovations
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the vivo NEX 3 5G emerges as the more sensible choice. While the Mi Mix Alpha’s wrap-around display is a technological marvel, the NEX 3 5G offers a more refined experience with a brighter, more usable display and a slightly more practical form factor, all while delivering comparable performance.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo NEX 3 5G | Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 - China |
| 5G bands | 41, 78 NSA | 41, 78, 79 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (5CA) Cat18 1200/150 Mbps, 5G (2+ Gbps DL) | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (7CA) Cat20 2000/150 Mbps, 5G (2+ Gbps DL) |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | CDMA 800 & TD-SCDMA | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2019, September. Released 2019, September | 2019, September |
| Status | Discontinued | Cancelled |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front, ceramic/glass back, titanium alloy frame (TC4) |
| Dimensions | 167.4 x 76.1 x 9.4 mm (6.59 x 3.00 x 0.37 in) | 154.4 x 72.3 x 10.4 mm (6.08 x 2.85 x 0.41 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 218.5 g (7.72 oz) | 241 g (8.50 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 1080 x 2256 pixels (~363 ppi density) | 2088 x 2250 pixels (~388 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.89 inches, 119.3 cm2 (~93.6% screen-to-body ratio) | 7.92 inches, 201.8 cm2 (~180.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, HDR10 | Flexible Super AMOLED |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.96 GHz Kryo 485 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485 & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 485) | Octa-core (1x2.96 GHz Kryo 485 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485 & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 485) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855+ (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855+ (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 640 (700 MHz) | Adreno 640 (700 MHz) |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie), upgradable to Android 10, Funtouch 10 | Android 10, MIUI 11 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM | 512GB 12GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.0 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Laser AF, Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF 13 MP, f/2.5, 52mm (telephoto), PDAF, 2x optical zoom 13 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), PDAF | 108 MP, f/1.7, (wide), 1/1.33", 0.8µm, PDAF 12 MP, f/2.0, 54mm (telephoto), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, 2x optical zoom 20 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), 1/2.8", 1.0µm |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, 720p@960fps, gyro-EIS | 6K@30fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/120/240fps, 1080p@960fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | Motorized pop-up 16 MP, f/2.1, 26mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | - |
| Triple | - | No - uses main camera |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 3240p@30fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/120/240fps, 1080p@960fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1), GALILEO (E1+E5a) |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 44W wired | 40W wired |
| Type | 4500 mAh, non-removable | Li-Po 4050 mAh, non-removable |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, Blue | Black |
| Models | V1924A, V1924T, 1913 | - |
| Price | About 730 EUR | About 2500 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Audio quality | Noise -93.7dB / Crosstalk -93.1dB | - |
| Battery life | Endurance rating 110h | - |
| Camera | Photo / Video | - |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | - |
| Loudspeaker | Voice 70dB / Noise 73dB / Ring 72dB | - |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 388878 (v7), 497858 (v8) GeekBench: 11060 (v4.4) GFXBench: 37fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | - |
vivo NEX 3 5G
- Brighter display for better outdoor visibility
- Faster 44W wired charging
- More practical and durable design
- Waterfall display still prone to accidental touches
- Limited camera specification details
Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha
- Truly innovative wrap-around display
- Visually striking and futuristic design
- Potentially larger battery capacity (unconfirmed)
- Fragile and prone to damage
- Slower 40W wired charging
- Potential for software glitches and accidental touches
Display Comparison
Both the vivo NEX 3 5G and Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha aim for near-bezel-less designs, but their implementations differ drastically. The NEX 3 5G features a 'waterfall' display, curving dramatically over the sides, while the Mi Mix Alpha takes this further with a true 'wrap-around' display extending onto the phone's frame. The NEX 3 5G boasts a measured peak brightness of 610 nits, a crucial advantage for outdoor visibility, a metric the Mi Mix Alpha’s specifications do not detail. The NEX 3 5G’s contrast ratio is listed as infinite (nominal), suggesting a high-quality OLED panel. The Mi Mix Alpha’s display, while visually stunning, is inherently more prone to accidental touches and potential damage due to its exposed edges.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature capable camera systems, but detailed specifications are limited. Both are listed as having Photo/Video capabilities. The Mi Mix Alpha’s camera setup is more ambitious, but the NEX 3 5G’s more conventional design may offer better image stabilization and overall usability. Without specific sensor size or aperture information, it’s difficult to definitively declare a winner. The absence of details regarding image processing algorithms further complicates the comparison. It's reasonable to assume both phones leverage Qualcomm’s ISP for image processing, but software tuning will play a significant role in the final image quality.
Performance
Both devices are powered by the Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855+ (7 nm) chipset, featuring an octa-core CPU configuration (1x2.96 GHz Kryo 485, 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485, and 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 485). This ensures comparable performance in demanding tasks like gaming and video editing. However, the Mi Mix Alpha’s unique design may present thermal challenges, potentially leading to more aggressive throttling under sustained load. Neither device’s specifications detail RAM speed, but both likely utilize LPDDR4X, standard for the Snapdragon 855+ era. The lack of significant performance differentiation means the user experience will be largely similar in terms of raw speed.
Battery Life
The vivo NEX 3 5G boasts an endurance rating of 110 hours, suggesting a well-optimized battery life. It supports 44W wired charging, enabling rapid replenishment. The Mi Mix Alpha, with its 40W wired charging, offers a slightly slower charging speed. While the Mi Mix Alpha’s battery capacity isn’t specified, its larger form factor *could* accommodate a larger battery, but the power demands of the wrap-around display may negate any capacity advantage. The NEX 3 5G’s faster charging and proven endurance rating give it an edge in this category.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo NEX 3 5G if you prioritize a bright, vibrant display for everyday use, reliable battery life with 44W fast charging, and a more conventional (though still striking) smartphone experience. Buy the Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha if you are a technology enthusiast willing to sacrifice practicality for a truly groundbreaking and visually arresting design, and are comfortable with the potential software quirks and durability concerns associated with such an experimental device.