vivo X200 FE vs. Samsung Galaxy S24 FE: Which 'FE' Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing peak performance and rapid charging, the vivo X200 FE is the clear winner. Its Dimensity 9300+ chipset and 90W charging significantly outperform the Galaxy S24 FE’s Exynos 2400e and 25W charging. However, the S24 FE counters with superior battery endurance and a more refined software experience for the average user.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo X200 FE | Samsung Galaxy S24 FE |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 66, 71 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 - International |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 71, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 75, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2025, June 23 | 2024, September 26 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, July 05 | Available. Released 2024, October 03 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, aluminum frame, glass back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), glass back (Gorilla Glass Victus+), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 150.8 x 71.8 x 8 mm (5.94 x 2.83 x 0.31 in) | 162 x 77.3 x 8 mm (6.38 x 3.04 x 0.31 in) |
| SIM | · Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM + eSIM (max 2 at a time)· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + eSIM· eSIM + eSIM |
| Weight | 186 g (6.56 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Schott Xensation Core or Shield Glass, Mohs level 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+, Mohs level 5 |
| Resolution | 1216 x 2640 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~461 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~385 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.31 inches, 97.6 cm2 (~90.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 110.2 cm2 (~88.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | LTPO AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 2160Hz PWM, HDR10+, 4500 / 5000 nits (peak) | Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1900 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.4 GHz Cortex-X4 & 3x2.85 GHz Cortex-X4 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A720) | 10-core (1x3.1 GHz + 2x2.9 GHz + 3x2.6 GHz + 4x1.95 GHz) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 9300+ (4 nm) | Exynos 2400e (4 nm) |
| GPU | Immortalis-G720 MC12 | Xclipse 940 |
| OS | Android 15, up to 4 major Android upgrades, Funtouch 15 | Android 14, up to 7 major Android upgrades, One UI 8.0 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 512GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Laser AF, Zeiss optics, Zeiss T* lens coating, LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.9, 23mm (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF 50 MP, f/2.7, 70mm (periscope telephoto), 1/1.95", 0.8µm, multi-directional PDAF (55cm - ∞), OIS, 3x optical zoom 8 MP, f/2.0, 15mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 50 MP, f/1.8, 24mm (wide), 1/1.57", 1.0µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.4, 75mm (telephoto), 1/4.4", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS, 3x optical zoom 12 MP, f/2.2, 13mm, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.0", 1.12µm |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS, HDR | 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60/120fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 50 MP, f/2.0, 20mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF | 10 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/3.0", 1.22µm |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | Yes | - |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, QZSS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | Unspecified |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 3.2, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6 or 7 (market specific), dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e, dual-band or tri-band (market/region dependent), Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 90W wired, 100% in 57 min Reverse wired | 25W wired, PD, QC2, 50% in 30 min 15W wireless Reverse wireless |
| Type | Market-dependent versions:· Si/C Li-Ion 6500 mAh (Global)· Si/C Li-Ion 5300 mAh (Austria only) | 4700 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Luxe Grey (Black Luxe), Frost Blue (Blue Breeze), Amber Yellow (Yellow Glow), Pink Vibe | Blue, Graphite, Gray, Mint, Yellow |
| Models | V2503 | SM-S721B, SM-S721B/DS, SM-S721U1, SM-S721U, SM-S721W, SM-S7210, SM-S721N |
| Price | € 799.00 / $ 721.58 / ₹ 59,998 | $ 249.74 / C$ 498.99 / £ 335.00 / € 387.00 / ₹ 34,180 |
| SAR | 0.99 W/kg (head) 0.99 W/kg (body) | 0.94 W/kg (head) 0.71 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.86 W/kg (head) 1.29 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 58:09h endurance, 800 cycles | 42:00h endurance, 2000 cycles |
| Energy | Class B | Class B |
| Free fall | Class C (100 falls) | Class A (270 falls) |
| Repairability | Class C | Class C |
vivo X200 FE
- Significantly faster charging (90W)
- More powerful processor (Dimensity 9300+)
- Brighter display for outdoor visibility
- Lower battery endurance (58:09h)
- Fewer battery cycles (800)
- Less established software ecosystem
Samsung Galaxy S24 FE
- Superior battery endurance (42:00h)
- More battery cycles (2000)
- Refined software experience and longer update support
- Slower charging (25W)
- Less powerful processor (Exynos 2400e)
- Dimmer display
Display Comparison
The vivo X200 FE boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1758 nits compared to the Galaxy S24 FE’s 1372 nits. This translates to superior visibility in direct sunlight. While both utilize 4nm chipsets, the brighter display on the vivo will likely draw more power. We lack panel technology details (LTPO vs. standard AMOLED) but the brightness difference is a key differentiator. Bezels appear comparable based on available imagery, and color accuracy is likely excellent on both, given both brands’ track records, though independent calibration data is needed for a definitive assessment.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specs, a direct comparison is limited. However, the focus should be on the main sensor and image processing. We can assume both phones will offer versatile camera systems, but the X200 FE’s image processing is likely tuned for vibrant colors, while Samsung typically aims for a more natural look. The presence of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the main sensor is crucial for both, and we’d need to examine aperture sizes to assess low-light performance. Ignoring the likely inclusion of 2MP macro cameras on both devices, the quality of the main sensor and the efficiency of the image signal processor (ISP) will be the deciding factors.
Performance
The core of the performance difference lies in the chipsets. The vivo X200 FE’s MediaTek Dimensity 9300+ features a unique core configuration – 1x3.4 GHz Cortex-X4, 3x2.85 GHz Cortex-X4, and 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A720 – designed for sustained peak performance. The Samsung Galaxy S24 FE’s Exynos 2400e, with its 10-core setup, appears more complex but doesn’t necessarily translate to faster real-world speeds. The Dimensity 9300+ is built on a more efficient 4nm process, potentially leading to better thermal management and less throttling during extended gaming sessions. The S24 FE’s Exynos has a history of thermal concerns, and the 'e' variant suggests a slightly detuned version for efficiency. Both phones likely utilize LPDDR5x RAM, but the chipset’s inherent processing power gives the vivo an edge.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy S24 FE demonstrates a significant advantage in battery endurance, achieving 42:00h compared to the vivo X200 FE’s 58:09h. This is counterintuitive given the brighter display of the vivo, and suggests the Exynos 2400e is more power efficient in typical usage. However, the X200 FE compensates with dramatically faster charging – 90W wired, achieving 100% in just 57 minutes, versus the S24 FE’s 25W, taking 30 minutes to reach 50%. The X200 FE also offers reverse wired charging, a feature absent on the S24 FE. The S24 FE also boasts 2000 battery cycles, significantly more than the X200 FE's 800, suggesting longer-term battery health.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X200 FE if you need uncompromising processing power for demanding tasks like gaming or video editing, and value the fastest possible charging speeds. Buy the Samsung Galaxy S24 FE if you prioritize all-day battery life, a more polished software experience with longer update support, and integration within the Samsung ecosystem. The S24 FE is the safer, more predictable choice, while the X200 FE is for power users.