- android.gs
- Compare
- X50 Pro+ vs Black Shark 3S
Vivo X50 Pro+ vs Xiaomi Black Shark 3S
What X50 Pro+ does better (9) and where Black Shark 3S wins (9) — every spec side by side.
vs
7.7Display7.2
9.7Camera8.0
4.2Battery6.8
7.1Features6.6
Dimensions
Size comparison
X50 Pro+Black Shark 3S
| X50 Pro+ | Black Shark 3S | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 158.5 mm | 168.7 mm | −10.2 mm |
| Width | 73 mm | 77.3 mm | −4.3 mm |
| Thickness | 8.8 mm | 10.4 mm | −1.6 mm |
| Weight | 192 g | 222 g | −30 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is X50 Pro+ better than Black Shark 3S?
- Optical stabilisationYes · Black Shark 3S: No
- Telephoto cameraYes · Black Shark 3S: No
- NFCYes · Black Shark 3S: No
- Rear cameras4 vs 22×
- Max video8K vs 4K
- Weight192 g vs 222 g+16%
- Selfie camera32 MP vs 20 MP+60%
- Thickness8.8 mm vs 10.4 mm+18%
- Screen-to-body ratio90.4% vs 82.4%+10%
Why is Black Shark 3S better than X50 Pro+?
- Wired charging44 W vs 65 W+48%
- Wireless chargingNo · X50 Pro+: Yes
- Stereo speakersNo · X50 Pro+: Yes
- Battery capacity4,350 mAh vs 4,729 mAh+9%
- Main camera50 MP vs 64 MP+28%
- 3.5 mm headphone jackNo · X50 Pro+: Yes
- Charged in 30 min62% vs 79%+27%
- Wi-Fi standardWi-Fi 5 vs Wi-Fi 6+20%
- Main camera aperturef/1.9 vs f/1.8+6%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design | ||
| Weight | 192 g | 222 g |
| Thickness | 8.8 mm | 10.4 mm |
| Height | 158.5 mm | 168.7 mm |
| Width | 73 mm | 77.3 mm |
| Frame | Aluminium | Aluminium |
| Back | Glass | Aluminium |
| Colours | Blue, Brown | Sky Cloud Black, Crystal Blue |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 6.6″ | 6.7″ |
| Panel | AMOLED | AMOLED |
| OLED panel | Yes | Yes |
| Resolution (width) | 1,080 px | 1,080 px |
| Resolution (height) | 2,376 px | 2,400 px |
| Pixel density | 398 ppi | 395 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 120 Hz |
| Peak brightness | — | 500 nits |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 90.4% | 82.4% |
| HDR | Yes | Yes |
| Performance | ||
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G | Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G |
| Chip maker | Qualcomm | Qualcomm |
| Process | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| CPU cores | 8 | 8 |
| CPU frequency | 2.84 GHz | 2.84 GHz |
| GPU | Adreno 650 | Adreno 650 |
| AnTuTu score | 621,433 | — |
| Geekbench 6 (multi-core) | 3,411 | — |
| Memory | ||
| RAM | 12 GB | 12 GB |
| Storage (max) | 256 GB | 256 GB |
| Storage (base) | 128 GB | 128 GB |
| Storage type | UFS 3.1 | UFS 3.1 |
| Memory card slot | No | No |
| Camera | ||
| Main camera | 50 MP | 64 MP |
| Main camera aperture | f/1.9 | f/1.8 |
| Main sensor size | 1/1.31" | 1/1.72" |
| Rear cameras | 4 | 2 |
| Optical stabilisation | Yes | No |
| Ultra-wide camera | Yes | Yes |
| Telephoto camera | Yes | No |
| Optical zoom | 5× | — |
| Max video | 8K | 4K |
| 4K video frame rate | 60 fps | 60 fps |
| Selfie camera | 32 MP | 20 MP |
| 4K selfie video | No | No |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 4,350 mAh | 4,729 mAh |
| Battery type | — | Li-Po |
| Wired charging | 44 W | 65 W |
| Charged in 30 min | 62% | 79% |
| Wireless charging | No | Yes |
| Connectivity | ||
| 5G | Yes | Yes |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Dual SIM | Yes | Yes |
| Wi-Fi standard | Wi-Fi 5 | Wi-Fi 6 |
| Bluetooth | 5.1 | 5 |
| NFC | Yes | No |
| USB | USB Type-C | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| USB version | — | 2 |
| Dual-band GPS | Yes | — |
| Satellite navigation | GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS |
| Features | ||
| Stereo speakers | No | Yes |
| 3.5 mm headphone jack | No | Yes |
| Loudspeaker loudness | -27.5 LUFS | — |
| Fingerprint sensor | Under display | Under display |
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Software | ||
| OS at launch | Android 10 | Android 10 |
| Platform | Android | Android |
| Interface | Funtouch 10.5 | — |
