Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 77.8 | 80.4 |
| Basic Information | |
| Vivo | Samsung |
| Android 14 | -- |
| 2024-04-03 | 2017-07-07 |
| 6.30 x 5.62 x 0.19 inches | 6.04 x 2.91 x 0.31 inches |
| 7.73 ounces | 5.89 ounces |
| Black and White | Black, Blue, Gold and Silver |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 1915.00 | $ 611.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 8 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2480 x 2200 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 414 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| 4500 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.5 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SM8650-AB (4 nm) chipset | Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890 chipset |
| processor | Exynos M1and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 16 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 750 GPU | Mali-T880 MP12 GPU |
| 6.3 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 512 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 256 GB) external memory slot |
| 17.6 | 10.78 |
| Camera | |
| 50.00 MP + 32.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| 23.00mm focal length | 26.00mm focal length |
| 0.77 inches (1/1.3") sensor | 0.4 inches (1/2.5") sensor |
| 7680 x 4320 (30 fps) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) slow motion video | -- |
| 12.87 | 9.57 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G) and HSPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 10.6 | 6.1 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5700mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3200mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 7.36 | 5.2 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.3 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Infra-red port | -- |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Note Fan Edition is just a bit better than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, with an 80.4 score against 77.8. Despite of the fact Galaxy Note Fan Edition is a lot older and notably thicker than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, it's construction is still notably lighter. Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition features an extremely better CPU than vivo X Fold 3 Pro, although it has a smaller amount of RAM, they both have 8 CPU cores.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a much better looking display than Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because although it has a just a bit less pixels per screen inch, it also counts with a better 2200 x 2480 pixels resolution and a really bigger screen. Vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a much greater memory capacity for applications, games, photos and videos than Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because although it has no SD memory slot, it also counts with 512 GB internal storage.
The vivo X Fold 3 Pro counts with a way better camera than Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition, and although they both have a same size aperture, the vivo X Fold 3 Pro also has a back-facing camera with much more MP, a lot larger back-facing camera sensor which offers a lot better photo and video quality and a much better 7680x4320 video resolution.
Vivo X Fold 3 Pro has a really longer battery performance than Galaxy Note Fan Edition, because it has a 78% bigger battery capacity.
Despite of being the best phone of the ones we compare here, Samsung Galaxy Note Fan Edition is also a bargain compared to the other ones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.