Xiaomi Black Shark 5 Pro vs Poco F4 GT: Which Gaming Beast Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
The Black Shark 5 Pro edges out the Poco F4 GT with slightly better battery endurance and a marginally faster charging time. However, the Poco F4 GT often offers a more competitive price, making it a compelling choice for budget-conscious gamers. Ultimately, the best choice depends on your priorities.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Xiaomi Black Shark 5 Pro | Xiaomi Poco F4 GT |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 8, 28, 41, 77, 78, 79 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 / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, March 30 | 2022, April 26 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, April 04 | Available. Released 2022, April 28 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus), glass back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 163.9 x 76.5 x 9.5 mm (6.45 x 3.01 x 0.37 in) | 162.5 x 76.7 x 8.5 mm (6.40 x 3.02 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 220 g (7.76 oz) | 210 g (7.41 oz) |
| - | Physical magnetic pop-up gaming triggers | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~85.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~86.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | OLED, 1B colors, 144Hz, HDR10+ | AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, HDR10+, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.00 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.50 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) | Octa-core (1x3.00 GHz Cortex-X2 & 3x2.50 GHz Cortex-A710 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A510) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8450 Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (4 nm) | Qualcomm SM8450 Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 730 | Adreno 730 |
| OS | Android 12, Joy UI 13 | Android 12, upgradable to Android 14, HyperOS 2 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| - | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Color spectrum sensor, Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 16 MP, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | 20 MP, f/2.4, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 108 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.52", 0.7µm, PDAF 13 MP, f/2.4, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm 5 MP, f/2.4, (telephoto macro), AF | 64 MP, f/1.9, 26mm (wide), 1/1.73", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚ (ultrawide) 2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps, 1080p@960fps; HDR10+ | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, 720p@960fps, HDR |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | 20 MP, f/2.4, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30/60fps, 720p@120fps, HDR |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers (4 speakers) |
| - | 24-bit/192kHz audio Tuned by JBL | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive | 5.2, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, QZSS, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1I+B1c+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5), NavIC (L5) |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, video output | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer (China only) | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 120W wired, 100% in 15 min | 120W wired, PD3.0, QC3, 100% in 17 min |
| Type | Li-Po 4650 mAh | Li-Po 4700 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, White | Stealth Black, Knight Silver, Cyber Yellow |
| Models | SHARK KTUS-H0 | 21121210G |
| Price | About 720 EUR | € 227.11 / £ 339.99 |
| SAR | - | 1.09 W/kg (head) 0.99 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.59 W/kg (head) 0.96 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 83h | Endurance rating 81h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -27.4 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 876704 (v8), 1007133 (v9) GeekBench: 3665 (v5.1) GFXBench: 82fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 952124 (v9) GeekBench: 3637 (v5.1) |
Xiaomi Black Shark 5 Pro
- Slightly better battery life
- Faster charging (marginally)
- Potentially better thermal management
- More refined gaming aesthetic
- Higher price
- Camera performance not class-leading
Xiaomi Poco F4 GT
- More competitive price
- Excellent performance
- Stylish design
- Fast charging
- Slightly lower battery life
- Potentially less effective thermal management under sustained load
Display Comparison
Both phones feature excellent AMOLED displays with a 120Hz refresh rate, ensuring smooth visuals. The Black Shark 5 Pro boasts a measured peak brightness of 682 nits, potentially offering slightly better visibility in direct sunlight. Both have 'Infinite' contrast ratios, indicating deep blacks and vibrant colors. The Poco F4 GT's display is generally considered very good, though slightly less bright than the Black Shark.
Camera Comparison
Camera performance is generally comparable. Both offer capable main sensors, ultrawide lenses, and macro lenses. Image quality in good lighting conditions is solid, but low-light performance can be inconsistent. The Black Shark 5 Pro might have a slight edge in video recording due to potentially better stabilization. Both phones lack dedicated telephoto lenses.
Performance
Both devices are powered by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, meaning top-tier performance in games and demanding applications. Thermal management is crucial with this chip, and both phones incorporate vapor chambers to dissipate heat. Anecdotally, the Black Shark 5 Pro's cooling system is often cited as slightly more effective, potentially leading to more sustained performance during extended gaming sessions. However, real-world differences are often minimal.
Battery Life
The Black Shark 5 Pro holds a slight advantage in battery endurance, with an 83h endurance rating compared to the Poco F4 GT's 81h. Both support 120W fast charging, but the Black Shark 5 Pro charges slightly faster (15 minutes vs 17 minutes). This difference, while small, can be noticeable when you're in a hurry.
Buying Guide
Who should buy the Xiaomi Black Shark 5 Pro? Gamers prioritizing slightly longer battery life and a more refined gaming aesthetic. Who should buy the Xiaomi Poco F4 GT? Gamers seeking a powerful device at a more accessible price point, and those who appreciate a more understated design.