The Redmi lineup has been one of the most sought-after budget smartphones for years now, but with competition heating up in the segment, Xioami needs to step up its game to stay relevant. The Redmi Note 8 Pro is an attempt to do that and has a lot to offer for the price delivering new hardware and a set of much-needed features.
Packing the brand new Helio G90T chipset along with a huge 4,500 mAh battery with fast charging and a quad-camera setup on the back, the Redmi Note 8 Pro has all that it takes to be a competitive handset. At first glance, performance is comparable to flagships from last year while the camera setup aims to provide a versatile experience on the cheap.
Moreover, Note 8 Pro is one of the first devices to incorporate the brand new 64MP sensor from Samsung with native pixel-binning technology. We are expecting good low-light performance and competent Night mode to complement the overall camera performance.
Skimming through the specs sheet reveals only one drawback so far, and that's the choice of cameras. In the quad-camera array on the back, a telephoto unit is missing. Instead, you get a dedicated macro lens, and it remains to be seen whether the macro camera makes any difference compared to taking a standard close-up shot with the main camera and then cropping. Those 64MP can be put to work.
Then again, you can say the same for the telephoto. The 64MP sensor could very well be enough for more than decent 2x stills, so why would anyone need a dedicated lens when you have so many pixels to work with? Let's delve deep into the phone itself and try to answer the questions at hand.
Unfortunately, our unit came barebones so we can't be sure what the original package contains, but we can confirm that it ships with the appropriate fast charger in the box. Or that's at least what Xiaomi's official website says. The charging brick is capped at 18W and supports USB Power Delivery, which in turn means that you get a USB-C to USB-C cable for data transfer and charging in the box.
CanÂ’t even run geekbench or the result too bad to be displayed? Because mediatek, iÂ’m pretty sure the geekbench result very very bad