Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5 vs Vivo X300 Ultra

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5

Bespoke Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy (3.36GHz) — same chip as the S23 family and Fold 5. Flagship-grade for everyday use and noticeably more efficient than the Flip 4's 8+ Gen 1.

• Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy at 3.36GHz + 8GB RAM + 256GB UFS 4.0 base — same chip as the S23 family in a Flip form factor.
• New chip is faster AND more efficient than the Flip 4's 8+ Gen 1 — battery life improvement comes from chip + 10% larger cell combined.
• Two years in (2025), still smooth for everyday use — chip + 8GB RAM have aged well thanks to Samsung's update cadence.

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.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5

3,700mAh — only 10% more than the Flip 4 and the lineup's weakest. GSMArena measured ~15h video / 12h Wi-Fi web. 25W charging is slow, and oddly the Flip 5 takes longer to reach 100% than the Flip 4.

• 3,700mAh battery — only ~10% larger than the Flip 4. The lineup's weak spot, especially next to slab flagships with 4,500-5,000mAh.
• GSMArena testing: just over 15 hours of video playback and 12 hours of Wi-Fi web browsing — 'not amazing, not half bad either'.
• Real-world: about 1 hour more SOT per day than the Flip 4 thanks to chip + cell improvements — meaningful but still behind comparable slab phones.
• 25W charging matches the Flip 4 in the first 30 minutes — but oddly takes longer to reach 100% than the Flip 4 did.
• 15W Qi wireless charging supported and 4.5W reverse wireless — top up Galaxy Buds while traveling.

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.