TENAA published details of a new Xiaomi phone – model number 21091116AC – and now the first Geekbench result is out. Is this the Redmi Note 11? The Poco M4 Pro? The model number has been associated with both, but we’ll get to that.
The chipset (MT6833P) should be the Dimensity 810, which was announced alongside the 920. This 6 nm chip has two Cortex-A76 cores running at 2.4 GHz and six A55 cores at 2.0 GHz, which matches the data from Geekbench. There is also a Mali-G57 MC2 GPU and a 5G modem (sub-6 GHz) on board. This matches up with rumors about the vanilla Redmi Note 11.
The phone was equipped with 8GB of RAM, only one of the many possible configurations listed on TENAA (though the FCC only tested 4/64 GB and 8/128 GB). Additional details include a 6.6” display, 4,900 mAh battery with 33W charging and a 16 MP camera. Though we’ve seen rumors of a 50 MP camera about the M4 Pro.
Okay, what’s going on? The 21091116AC was identified as the vanilla Redmi Note 11 by Digital Chat Station. However, other leaks have named this model number as the Poco M4 Pro. There’s no reason both can’t be true – for example, the Poco M3 Pro 5G is basically the same phone as the Redmi Note 10 5G, save for difference in the exterior and the memory configuration.
A related device – the 21091116AG – will definitely be marketed as the Poco M4 Pro 5G in some regions. The G should stand for “global” while “C” is for China and Xiaomi often uses different model names for the domestic and foreign markets, which may be what is causing the confusion. Also, according to DCS the data listed on TENAA is not 100% accurate, which could explain some discrepancies (e.g. the camera).
The Redmi Note 11 series is getting unveiled tomorrow, which will hopefully clear up some of the confusion. The Poco M4 Pro is expected in early November.
Most think that this is the case, and even those mentioned are not definitive, many more things are missing, for example Snapdragon 865 1x 2.84 GHz -Cortex-A77 3x 2.42 GHz -Cortex-A77 4x 1.8 GHz - Cortex-A55 Dimensity 1200 1x 3 GHz ...
I didn't know this , learned something today I always just looked at the name of the cores and just say well this must be better