OnePlus 6T McLaren Edition vs Xiaomi Mi 9 Pro 5G
Compare Phones: OnePlus 6T McLaren Edition vs Xiaomi Mi 9 Pro 5G
Summary |
|
For:
Lower price (715.1 USD vs 726.05 USD)
Better performance (987 points vs 954 points)
Better connectivity (958 points vs 805 points)
Better display (872 points vs 855 points)
Better design (844 points vs 760 points)
Against:
Worse camera (636 points vs 867 points)
Worse battery (333 points vs 377 points)
Camera |
|
Against:
Worse main camera resolution (15.93 Megapixels vs 48 Megapixels)
Worse front camera resolution (15.93 Megapixels vs 20.11 Megapixels)
Battery |
|
Against:
Worse battery capacity (3700mAh vs 4000mAh)
Performance |
|
For:
Higher gpu frequency (710 megahertz vs 675 megahertz)
More ram (10240 mega bytes vs 8192 mega bytes)
More rom (262144 mega bytes vs 131072 mega bytes)
Against:
Lower cpu frequency (2800 megahertz vs 2960 megahertz)
Connectivity |
|
Display |
|
For:
Bigger display (6.41 inch vs 6.39 inch)
Against:
Lower pixel density (402 pixels per inch vs 403 pixels per inch)
Design |
|
For:
Bigger display area (85.89 percents vs 85.7 percents)
Summary |
|
For:
Better camera (867 points vs 636 points)
Better battery (377 points vs 333 points)
Against:
Higher price (726.05 USD vs 715.1 USD)
Worse performance (954 points vs 987 points)
Worse connectivity (805 points vs 958 points)
Worse display (855 points vs 872 points)
Worse design (760 points vs 844 points)
Camera |
|
For:
Better main camera resolution (48 Megapixels vs 15.93 Megapixels)
Better front camera resolution (20.11 Megapixels vs 15.93 Megapixels)
Battery |
|
For:
Better battery capacity (4000mAh vs 3700mAh)
Performance |
|
For:
Higher cpu frequency (2960 megahertz vs 2800 megahertz)
Against:
Lower gpu frequency (675 megahertz vs 710 megahertz)
Less ram (8192 mega bytes vs 10240 mega bytes)
Less rom (131072 mega bytes vs 262144 mega bytes)
Connectivity |
|
Display |
|
For:
Higher pixel density (403 pixels per inch vs 402 pixels per inch)
Against:
Smaller display (6.39 inch vs 6.41 inch)
Design |
|
Against:
Smaller display area (85.7 percents vs 85.89 percents)