Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.6 | 80.2 |
| Basic Information | |
| Android 9.0 Pie | -- |
| 2019-05-27 | 2016-10-20 |
| 6.76 x 3.09 x 0.38 inches | 5.66 x 2.74 x 0.34 inches |
| 7.58 ounces | 5.04 ounces |
| Black and Red | Black, Gray and White |
| Aluminum | Aluminum and Glass |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 600.00 | $ 299.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.7 inches | 5 inches |
| 2340 x 1080 pixels | 1920 x 1080 pixels (Full HD) |
| AMOLED | AMOLED |
| 385 pixels per inch | 441 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.1 | 8.2 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SM8150 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor | Kryo, 64-bit (Quad-Core 2150 MHz) processor |
| 12 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Adreno 530 GPU |
| 9.72 | 8.91 |
| Storage | |
| 256 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| 13.3 | 10.1 |
| Camera | |
| 48.00 MP + 16.00 MP | 12.30 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/2.00 aperture |
| 26.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.5 inches (1/2") sensor | 0.43 inches (1/2.3") sensor |
| 7680 x 4320 (15 fps) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 11.88 | 9.79 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.6 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Li - Polymer Battery | 2770mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| 6.8 | 4.72 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| -- | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Google Pixel has an overall score of 80.2, which is just a bit better than the nubia Red Magic 3's score of 75.6. Despite of the fact that the Google Pixel is incredibly older than the nubia Red Magic 3, it's construction is thinner and much lighter. The nubia Red Magic 3 counts with just a bit better hardware performance than Google Pixel, because it has a greater number of cores (and also faster) and more RAM memory.
Google Pixel features a bit more vivid screen than nubia Red Magic 3, because although it has a little bit lower 1080 x 1920px resolution and a way smaller display, it also counts with a quite greater pixels number per inch in the screen. The nubia Red Magic 3 features a much greater memory capacity to install applications and games than Google Pixel, because it has more internal storage.
Nubia Red Magic 3 counts with a much longer battery performance than Google Pixel, because it has an 81 percent larger battery capacity. Nubia Red Magic 3 captures a lot better photos and videos than Google Pixel, because it has a bigger back-facing camera sensor shooting higher quality photos and videos, a larger camera aperture to capture better photos and video in low light environments, a lot higher resolution back-facing camera and a lot better video resolution.
Google Pixel is not only the best phones of the ones we are comparing here, but it's also by far the cheapest, making it very easy to pick between these phones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.