The Huawei Mate 30 Pro Review: Top Hardware without Google?
by Andrei Frumusanu on November 27, 2019 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mobile
- Smartphones
- Huawei
- Kirin 990
- Mate 30 Pro
GPU Performance & Power
In terms of 3D gaming and GPU performance, we expect the Kirin 990 and the Mate 30 Pro to do quite well. The GPU itself is not only a large step up from the MP10 configuration on the Kirin 980, but also larger than Samsung’s Exynos 9820 MP12 implementation. Huawei also claimed to be able to achieve better performance than the Snapdragon 855, which seems quite plausible. The remaining question is how power efficiency ends up and how the Mate 30 Pro’s thermal management is able to sustain the performance of the chipset for prolonged durations.
On the 3DMark Physics test which is actually a CPU benchmark within a 3D workload, we see that the Mate 30 Pro is showcasing some extremely high results, actually taking the top spot amongst all devices in the market. The benchmark should be mainly memory intensive and the Cortex A76’s strong prefetchers as well as the Kirin 990’s strong memory subsystem would be a possible explanation for the top performance results.
Switching over to the graphics workload, the Mate 30 Pro makes a very large leap compared to previous generation Huawei flagships, but falls short of some of the better Snapdragon 855 devices as well as Apple’s newest iPhone 11 lineup.
In GFXBench Aztec, the Mate 30 Pro takes an ever so slight lead ahead of Snapdragon 855 devices, but still falls short of Apple’s new architectures.
| GFXBench Aztec High Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm | N7P | 26.14 | 3.83 | 6.82 fps/W |
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak | N7P | 34.00 | 6.21 | 5.47 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | N7 | 19.32 | 3.81 | 5.07 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | N7 | 26.59 | 5.56 | 4.78 fps/W |
| Mate 30 Pro (Kirin 990 4G) | N7 | 16.50 | 3.96 | 4.16 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) | N7 | 16.17 | 4.69 | 3.44 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) | 8LPP | 15.59 | 4.80 | 3.24 fps/W |
The power characteristics of the chip are quite good and clearly a step ahead of both the Snapdragon 855 and Exynos 9820, sporting higher performance as well as lower absolute power.
| GFXBench Aztec Normal Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm | N7P | 73.27 | 4.07 | 18.00 fps/W |
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak | N7P | 91.62 | 6.08 | 15.06 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | N7 | 55.70 | 3.88 | 14.35 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | N7 | 76.00 | 5.59 | 13.59 fps/W |
| Mate 30 Pro (Kirin 990 4G) | N7 | 41.68 | 4.01 | 10.39 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) | N7 | 40.63 | 4.14 | 9.81 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) | 8LPP | 40.18 | 4.62 | 8.69 fps/W |
We see similar results in the Normal 1080p variant of the benchmark.
| GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm | N7P | 100.58 | 4.21 | 23.89 fps/W |
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak | N7P | 123.54 | 6.04 | 20.45 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | N7 | 76.51 | 3.79 | 20.18 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | N7 | 103.83 | 5.98 | 17.36 fps/W |
| Mate 30 Pro (Kirin 990 4G) | N7 | 75.69 | 5.04 | 15.01 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) | N7 | 70.67 | 4.88 | 14.46 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) | 8LPP | 68.87 | 5.10 | 13.48 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) | 10LPP | 61.16 | 5.01 | 11.99 fps/W |
| Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) | N7 | 54.54 | 4.57 | 11.93 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) | 10LPP | 46.04 | 4.08 | 11.28 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) | 10LPE | 38.90 | 3.79 | 10.26 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) | 10LPE | 42.49 | 7.35 | 5.78 fps/W |
In Manhattan 3.1, what does change is that the device’s power usage goes up from 4 to 5W. Such a change usually happens when the GPU and SoC is able to achieve a higher utilisation of the silicon. Still, it’s slightly ahead of the Snapdragon 855 in terms of performance and efficiency.
| GFXBench T-Rex Offscreen Power Efficiency (System Active Power) |
||||
| Mfc. Process | FPS | Avg. Power (W) |
Perf/W Efficiency |
|
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Warm | N7P | 289.03 | 4.78 | 60.46 fps/W |
| iPhone 11 Pro (A13) Cold / Peak | N7P | 328.90 | 5.93 | 55.46 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Warm | N7 | 197.80 | 3.95 | 50.07 fps/W |
| iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak | N7 | 271.86 | 6.10 | 44.56 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Snapdragon 855) | N7 | 167.16 | 4.10 | 40.70 fps/W |
| Mate 30 Pro (Kirin 990 4G) | N7 | 152.27 | 4.34 | 35.08 fps/W |
| Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) | 10LPP | 150.40 | 4.42 | 34.00 fps/W |
| Galaxy 10+ (Exynos 9820) | 8LPP | 166.00 | 4.96 | 33.40fps/W |
| Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) | 10LPP | 141.91 | 4.34 | 32.67 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) | 10LPE | 108.20 | 3.45 | 31.31 fps/W |
| Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) | N7 | 135.75 | 4.64 | 29.25 fps/W |
| Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) | 10LPE | 121.00 | 5.86 | 20.65 fps/W |
Finally, in T-Rex, the results are in line with the Snapdragon 855, although this time around it doesn’t manage to pass the competitor.
Overall, the Kirin 990 and the Mate 30 Pro are good performers. In general, I’d say Huawei and HiSilicon were able to match and sometimes slightly beat the Snapdragon 855 in terms of performance all while maintaining good efficiency. In my prolonged testing I saw the phone max out at a peak skin temperature of 45°C which wasn’t too bad. What was odd though is that this hotspot was very pronounced towards the top side of the phone’s frame – so when you’re gaming in landscape mode this going to be always touching your palm or fingers when holding the phone.
Whilst the results are good in context of the competition this year, there’s the issue that we expect the next generation of Snapdragon and Exynos devices to easily be able to top the Kirin 990, and of course it’s still far behind what Apple devices are able to showcase in terms of performance as the A12 and A13 were able to sport outstanding generational increases.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
s.yu - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
"a unique 90° curved screen on its sides – a first not only for Huawei but for the smartphone market overall"...IIRC NEX 3 with the same screen curve design was launched 3 days before this model.
But the comments regarding the ergonomics certainly push me further towards the ROGP2.
"The new sensor is a native 16:9 unit" really surprises me as I thought it was a 3:2, since it shoots stills in 3:2, in this case the 4:3 crop in night mode would be even more of a compromise cutting out a larger portion of the sensor, essentially highlighting how severe the falloff and in cam shadow lifting is.
But this doesn't explain the poor DR of the new unit.
If I were shooting an UWA I'd probably prefer a narrower one, as the ~12mm FoV is overdramatic and incredibly difficult to master, but this isn't the main issue as I don't believe a significantly relevant proportion of users of these ultimately consumer devices actually understand photography enough to have that in mind.
The night mode on the UWA still has severe smearing that hasn't been resolved, especially obvious in the shot of the theater, whose exacerbation in edges and corners under a certain lighting threshold is observable in the 2nd sample on the stairs, so what I observed from GSMA's very few night samples turns out to be universal, that the UWA night mode on this big big sensor is actually worse than Samsung's tiny tiny sensor with a far wider FoV. Peculiar.
So the conclusion here is: When not much FoV is needed, DR isn't too extreme, and lighting is either sufficient enough not to need night mode or lacking enough that Samsung's tiny sensor tends to capture no data, this new UWA has the advantage.
A minor detail regarding "The ISO51200 of the sensor in the regular mode is able to get better results than the image stacking of ISO1600 pictures in night mode." The ISO1600 is probably calculated from the accumulated shutter durations of the burst, I don't believe it's likely that a burst could be captured without vibration under this lighting with each shot at ISO1600.
Finally, I was expecting a sprinkler test of the "7680fps", and preferably a test on effective video resolution, shame this wasn't included.
Andrei Frumusanu - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
You are right about the 3:2, I was absentmindedly writing 16:9.In regards to the slow-mi, Ian did an article few months back:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14897/a-day-with-th...
The capture is just 2000fps interpolated 4x, I investigated this in the software.
s.yu - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
Yeah I know, just that a running tap was too slow, while a sprinkler test would yield more as to how the interpolation is done, e.g. the NPU technically should be able to afford some object tracking resulting in much better interpolation than mere averaging or something.Also a comparison of resolution between all the slow-mo that on paper appear to be 720P could help assess actual quality, my second point.
Dazzler86 - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
Eventhough the DR is not up to the unrealistic level of Samsung, its subtle enough & flagship grade.Whining about Night Mode? The Mates doesnt even need to use Night Mode to beat other competition, its still a low light king, as stated by the review.
Funny that you only stated negativity about the camera phone but ignores its pros that beat others. Best UWA implentation, best detail preservation on a smartphone camera, ever.
I dont care about your other post about their politics, but i know i made the right choice, choosing Huawei for a point & shoot camera along with my main Leica Q & Fuji X-E3.
s.yu - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
Oh I know a Huawei fanboy when I see one alright."Eventhough the DR is not up to the unrealistic level of Samsung, its subtle enough & flagship grade."
So more DR than Huawei equals unrealistic? lol. Apple's UWA output also has more DR and is quite realistic. The processing of the two Samsung variants is also different, and not entirely less realistic than for example P30P.
"The Mates doesnt even need to use Night Mode to beat other competition"
Rather that it would lose to others where it might have won without night mode?
The Mate, which on auto:
https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/7356/Mate30... beats Samsung's night mode(for as wide as its FoV would cover): https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/7356/S10E_2...
loses handily to Samsung's night mode with its own night mode: https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/7356/Mate30...
with much narrower FoV, much more severe smearing etc.
This inconsistency, a strong argument against night mode use in many nighttime conditions, is a liability, because the user is forced to guess when night mode works better and when it's far worse, and the penalty for making a mistake in judgement is a heavy one.
Andrei left out a lot of individual analysis between samples, but clearly there are too many catches for it to be declared outright "king", which I summarized as "When not much FoV is needed, DR isn't too extreme, and lighting is either sufficient enough not to need night mode or lacking enough that Samsung's tiny sensor tends to capture no data, this new UWA has the advantage."
Note that I acknowledge the advantage, where there is one, only I also acknowledge the disadvantage, where there is one, unlike you who does nothing but brag.
"Best UWA implentation"
is, again, false. You don't say that a 21/2 is better than a 12/5.6, because the drastic difference in FoV makes then incomparable, and the UWA, already ~18mm in stills, a 1.5x crop compared to Samsung and Apple's UWA, is a ~21mm equiv. FoV in night mode's forced 4:3 crop, so no matter how much cleaner it is, you can't call it something along the lines of "the best". Your claim is akin to "my 16-35/2.8 is better than your 12-24/4", or "my 50/0.95 is better than your 75/1.4", which is nothing but ignorant fanboy talk. You're lucky this is Anandtech, or else you'd be laughed at commenting like that under DPR.
Also some things I left unsaid as I already covered some of Mate30P's performance in the comments of the Pixel 4 review, I felt no need to repeat them.
"Leica Q"
You bought an expensive toy that will go to waste in your hands. Your X-E3 purchase does expose your taste for JPG filters over material performance gain though, not surprising for a Huawei fanboy.
SydneyBlue120d - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
Thank You Andrei for your great review!After all this years of Android it is really disappointing that still at the end of 2019 no one seems to be able to beat the iPhone 11 PRO display accuracy.
phils1969 - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
Anyone else had an issue with the Nano Memory card not being detected? Dual sim works so the slots fine, but 1 sim and 1 NM card and its not seeing the NM card, the wifes Mate 20 Pro sees it fine so its not the card?Calista - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link
If anything this shows we really need properly split Alphabet/Google from Android. Android being open source, it belongs to the world. But that's not much use if it's still locked to a single company in a country more than happy to be both judge, jury and executioner when it comes to world politics. All the major cellphone vendors should work together to replace the Google services with open alternatives. It's easy to pick on Huawei, but what's the next target? Samsung? Oppo? LG? Sony? Some other company not from USA?liquid_c - Saturday, November 30, 2019 - link
In the pfw chart, the iPhones get 2 subsections (cold/peak and hot) while the other devices, don’t. Why is that?AidenP - Saturday, December 7, 2019 - link
Looks decent (except for those extra curved sides) ,and the specs are up there,it seems, I think at 500-600 Euros would be a realistic value offer , but for now I will stick to my iPhone 8,for at least a few more years .