Vivo Xshot review: Shot in the dark

Performance

The vivo Xshot is available in two versions - a high-end "flagship" version and a bit less powerful "elite" one. The Flagship has a Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 SoC, with a quad-core Krait CPU clocked at 2.3 GHz, 3GB of RAM and 32GB of onboard memory, while the elit" version packs a Snapdragon 800, 2GB of RAM and 16GB of memory. Both are extendible through a microSD card. Other than that, the two handsets are identical.

For this review, we are using the beefier "flagship" version, so the cited results are pretty much the best you can expect from the Xshot. The GPU in the unit is the quite capable Adreno 330.

Judging by the specs sheet alone, the vivo Xshot should mostly breeze through our benchmarks. There is, however the small issue of the custom Android build it is running. It is sure to affect performance, but results could go either way.

On one hand, there are quite a few optimizations in Funtouch OS, but is debatable if any of them actually have to do with hardware optimization for the particular platform. On the other hand, there is the fact that in its core Funtouch is Android 4.3 Jelly Bean, which is quite outdated at this point and could prove a major handicap against opponents running 4.4 KitKat, at minimum.

But the only way to really find out how the vivo Xshot faired in testing is to dive into the results.

The specs sheet of the "flagship" model vivo that we have are also quite common, so finding rivals in the performance department was also quite an easy task. Now a few things need to be noted for the tests. The Galaxy A7 is on the list, because of its similar price tag to the higher-end Xshot, while the Galaxy S5 and Note 3 are close in terms of specs and price. The Galaxy Note 4 is priced slightly higher, but is included a current-gen device.

First up, we have the raw CPU performance test with GeekBench 3, so things should be pretty straightforward in this department.

The Xshot scored pretty high in terms of CPU performance, but there are still a few contenders, with pretty much the same hardware, that did slightly better, like the Oppo Find 7 and Galaxy S5, for example. There are, however slight variations in the chipset models of these phones, so the rather small lead can be attributed to that. Either way, it is not something that would be easily noticeable under normal everyday use.

GeekBench 3

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  3394
• Oppo Find 7
  3178
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  3175
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  3120
• Oppo Find 7a
  3093
• vivo Xshot
  3048
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  3011
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  2984
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  2970
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  2937
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  2925
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  2923
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  2880
• Sony Xperia Z3
  2860
• Oppo N3
  2704
• OnePlus One
  2663
• LG G3
  2370
• HTC One (M8)
  2367

In Antutu 5, the vivo maintained a steady middle ground position, which is pretty consistent with GeekBench scores. There is a lot of rearrangement in the score board around it, which is mostly due to Android Lollipop, which Antutu definitely favors. Once again the Galaxy Note 4 is on the top and the Galaxy A7 at the bottom, which is to be expected from a mid-range specked device.

AnTuTu 5

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  49273
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  46824
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  45660
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  45530
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  45348
• HTC One (M8)
  44020
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  43676
• vivo Xshot
  43318
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  43164
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  42211
• LG G3
  42038
• Sony Xperia Z3
  40393
• Oppo N3
  39245
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  31436

Advancing further to the slightly broader Basemark OS II test, we see a totally different story. The vivo Xshot has plummeted to the very bottom of the list and the single and dual-core performance breakdowns give us a pretty good idea why.

This is where the custom Android build comes into play. As we mentioned, it could swing results either way, but in the case of Funtouch OS, benchmark performance is really suffering. Now, this does not necessarily translate into bad real-world performance, but is a clear indication that the Android 4.3 core is showing its age and not much software optimization has been done by vivo to remedy the situation.

This could potentially lead to performance drops in certain applications, not to mention that there are quite a few recent Google APIs that the OS is missing on, which translates to the Xshot missing some more recent apps.

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  1332
• LG G3
  1327
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  1324
• Oppo N3
  1280
• Oppo Find 7
  1212
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  1202
• OnePlus One
  1196
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  1181
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  1176
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  1173
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  1147
• HTC One (M8)
  1126
• Sony Xperia Z3
  1109
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  1082
• Oppo Find 7a
  1057
• vivo Xshot
  1022
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  1003
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  786

Basemark OS II (single-core)

Higher is better

• Oppo Find 7
  2606
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  2588
• Oppo Find 7a
  2580
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  2574
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  2573
• vivo Xshot
  2531
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  2510
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  2499
• HTC One (M8)
  2428
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  2426
• Oppo N3
  2417
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  2415
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  2409
• LG G3
  2267
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  2236
• OnePlus One
  2213
• Sony Xperia Z3
  2114
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  1572

Basemark OS II (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Oppo Find 7
  10391
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  10320
• Oppo Find 7a
  10256
• OnePlus One
  10234
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  10063
• LG G3
  9975
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  9948
• HTC One (M8)
  9860
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  9827
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  9646
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  9508
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  9446
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  9364
• Oppo N3
  9320
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  9284
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  9198
• vivo Xshot
  8871
• Sony Xperia Z3
  8792

We already mentioned, that the vivo Xshot is powered by the quite capable Adreno 330 GPU. Most of the other contenders on the list use the very same chip, but, as it turns out, a lot more efficiently. Screen resolution is also not the culprit, as again, most phones on the list have Full HD displays.

The fact is that offscreen rendering is particularly poor on the Xshot, which either means the GFX benchmark application is not playing well with Funtouch or something is messed up in the way the hardware is utilized. Either way, vivo still has a lot of software work to do and we would really suggest an Android version upgrade more than anything else.

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  41.7
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  40
• Oppo Find 7a
  28.4
• HTC One (M8)
  28.4
• OnePlus One
  28.3
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  28
• Oppo Find 7
  28
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  27.8
• Sony Xperia Z3
  27.7
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  27.6
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  27
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  27
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  26.6
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  26.3
• LG G3
  26
• vivo Xshot
  23
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  15

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (onscreen)

Higher is better

• HTC One (M8)
  30.1
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  30
• OnePlus One
  30
• Sony Xperia Z3
  29.3
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  29
• Oppo Find 7a
  28.8
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  28.3
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  28.2
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  28.1
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  28
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  26.7
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  26.4
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  26
• vivo Xshot
  23
• LG G3
  20
• Oppo Find 7
  19.9
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  15

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  18.5
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  18
• OnePlus One
  12.1
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  12
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  12
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  12
• Sony Xperia Z3
  12
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  11.8
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  11.6
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  11.4
• Oppo Find 7a
  11.4
• HTC One (M8)
  11.1
• Oppo Find 7
  11.1
• LG G3
  11
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  9.9
• vivo Xshot
  9.5
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  5.8

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  13
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  13
• OnePlus One
  12.9
• Sony Xperia Z3
  12.7
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  12
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  11.9
• HTC One (M8)
  11.9
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  11.7
• Oppo Find 7a
  11.4
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  11.3
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  11.2
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  11
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 S800
  10
• vivo Xshot
  9.4
• LG G3
  7.7
• Oppo Find 7
  6.7
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  5.8

The vivo Xshot uses a custom browser solution as well. It didn't fair particularly well in our browser performance tests, scoring surprisingly low.

Kraken 1.1

Lower is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  5181
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  5351
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  5968
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  6043
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  6137
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  6209
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  6260
• Sony Xperia Z3
  6355
• Oppo Find 7
  6363
• Oppo N3
  6460
• Oppo Find 7a
  6660
• OnePlus One
  7008
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  7023
• LG G3
  7632
• vivo Xshot
  9114
• HTC One (M8)
  10296
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  12266

BrowserMark 2.1

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Lollipop
  2232
• Samsung Galaxy Note 4
  2208
• Samsung Galaxy S5 Lollipop
  2066
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  1655
• Motorola Moto X (2014)
  1600
• Motorola Moto X (2014) Lollipop
  1562
• Sony Xperia Z3
  1533
• HTC One (M8) Lollipop
  1460
• LG G3
  1453
• Oppo Find 7
  1452
• Samsung Galaxy S5 (S801)
  1398
• OnePlus One
  1339
• Oppo Find 7a
  1327
• vivo Xshot
  1075
• HTC One (M8)
  1069
• Xiaomi Mi 4
  744
• Oppo N3
  730

All things considered, the vivo Xshot offers performance lower than its chipset suggests. We feel most of that can be attributed to the custom OS, based on aging Android and the only way vivo is going to stay relevant in the high-end market is via an update sooner rather than later.