Motorola Razr+ 2024 vs Vivo X300 Ultra

Motorola Razr+ 2024

The Snapdragon 8s Gen 3 delivers flip-flagship-level everyday performance, but it's a step down from a true flagship chip — small CPU gains and even a graphics-performance regression versus the prior Razr+.

• Performance is absolutely on the level expected from a flip flagship for day-to-day use.
• Motorola cut back on the SoC — only small performance gains and even a drop in graphics performance versus last year's Razr+.
• It comes with significantly more storage than last year — a meaningful generational upgrade.

Vivo X300 Ultra

Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 plus Vivo's custom imaging silicon delivers flagship benchmark numbers and strong gaming, but the camera-heavy hardware runs hot — sustained stress tests show roughly 60–65% stability and the camera app warms it up fast.

• At the heart is Qualcomm's current flagship Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, supplemented by Vivo's custom VS1 and V3-Plus imaging chips.
• It boots in 16 seconds (vs 21s for the S26 Ultra and 19s for the iPhone 17 Pro Max) and posts an AnTuTu score over 3,800,000, stronger than Samsung.
• In a prolonged stress test it throttled CPU performance to about 60% of peak — in line with other high-powered flagships — and 3DMark stability landed around 63–66%.
• It gets a bit hot after 30–40 minutes of gaming, but with no throttling even past an hour and never uncomfortable to hold; boost mode at max graphics gives around 4 hours of Wuthering Waves on a full charge.
• Native 120fps gaming with smooth/very-high graphics in many titles, with temperature barely crossing 35°C and power draw around 4W in battle-royale modes.
• Under sustained camera/imaging load the front reached ~46.8°C and the back ~45.2°C, and around 47°C the refresh rate drops slightly though not all the way to 60Hz.

Motorola Razr+ 2024

Battery life is very good for a flip foldable and improved over the Razr 40 Ultra (more capacity + a more efficient chipset), with a fast 45W charger included — but it's still weaker than conventional slab phones at the price.

• Battery life is very good — helped by ~200mAh more capacity than the Razr 40 Ultra and a more efficient chipset.
• Motorola includes a rapid charging brick in the box that refuels at the phone's max 45W (and can supply 68W to other hardware).
• Battery life improved, but is still significantly weaker than conventional (non-folding) phones in this price range.

Vivo X300 Ultra

Vivo grew the silicon-carbon cell 10% to 6,600mAh while keeping the body the same size. Real-world endurance is strong — ~16h active-use score, ~7h heavy screen-on, 13–14 hour days with charge to spare — and 100W wired refills it in under an hour, with 40W wireless.

• Vivo increased the battery by 10% to 6,600mAh despite the phone being practically the same size on paper.
• In our battery test it earned an active-use score of almost 16 hours; 100W charging took it 0–66% in 30 minutes and a full charge in 46 minutes, plus 40W wireless. A charger is in the box except in Europe.
• On the China version I'm finishing entire 13–14 hour days with 25–30% left; the global version keeps the 6,600mAh cell so battery life should comfortably last 12–13 hours of heavy use.
• Getting nearly 7 hours of screen-on time with very heavy usage from the 6,600mAh silicon-carbon unit, with 100W wired and 40W wireless charging support.
• After a 4-hour heavy-usage simulation the phone still had ~45% battery left, which is solid by today's standards, and 100W wired charging takes about 45 minutes to full.
• In a head-to-head charge race against the Oppo Find X9 Ultra (80W), the Vivo on 100W finished first at 50 minutes 20 seconds to the Oppo's 52:39.