vivo X200 vs vivo X100s: An In-Depth Comparison - Which One Should You Buy?

vivo X200 vs vivo X100s: An In-Depth Comparison - Which One Should You Buy?The tech world's debate on "buy new, not old" never ceases, particularly when a new flagship is released. Choosing between a new flagship and its predecessor sparks heated discussions

vivo X200 vs vivo X100s: An In-Depth Comparison - Which One Should You Buy?

The tech world's debate on "buy new, not old" never ceases, particularly when a new flagship is released. Choosing between a new flagship and its predecessor sparks heated discussions. Older flagships usually offer compelling hardware and software that hasn't become obsolete, along with a more attractive price. New models, however, boast cutting-edge hardware, more features, and a superior overall experience at a higher cost.

Take the vivo X100s and X200, for example. These two standard vivo flagship phones have a significant price difference; the X100s' starting price is 300 lower than the X200. On some e-commerce platforms, the X100s' price has even been "halved," dropping below 3000. Given this substantial price gap, should you opt for the newer vivo X200 or the more affordable vivo X100s? This in-depth comparison aims to help you decide.

Design: New Flagship Feels More Premium, Older Flagship More Distinctive

The vivo X200 returns to a centrally symmetrical circular camera module design, eliminating the previously criticized text arrangement, resulting in a cleaner look. However, the X100s' unique, top-aligned symmetrical circular Deco design, while potentially irksome to some, showcases vivo's distinctive take on the "Oreo" module design. Our review unit of the X200 is white, officially named "Moonlight White." White remains a classic and safe color choice for smartphones, and the X200 harmoniously blends various materials. The white body also minimizes fingerprint smudges.

Specifications show the X200 has a more compact body and is slightly lighter than the X100s. Thanks to its isosceles four-curved design, the X200 feels more comfortable in hand. This design offers several advantages: a more premium look, easier creation of a visually harmonious equal-width bezel on the front, while retaining the feel of a flat screen. Similar to a 2.5D glass with a larger curvature, it enhances the X200's premium feel visually and tactically.

However, the thinner body leads to a more prominent camera module protrusion on the X200, resulting in more contact between the index finger and the camera module during one-handed use. While I personally appreciate the isosceles four-curved design, combining the strengths of flat and curved screens and integrating side-return gestures for a smoother interaction, the X100s' traditional flat screen is easier to apply screen protectors to.

Screen-wise, the X200 utilizes LTPS technology, while the X100s employs LTPO but lacks adaptive refresh rate. The X200's dimming strategy only supports high-frequency PWM dimming at low brightness and quasi-DC dimming at high brightness. Low-brightness power consumption is slightly higher than that of an LTPO screen; users prioritizing eye protection should note this.

Core Performance: Larger Battery, Newer Chip Wins; Older Flagship Slightly Lags

In terms of core configuration, the vivo X200 boasts MediaTek's latest flagship chip, the Dimensity 9400, while the X100s features the Dimensity 9300+. The Dimensity 9400 uses TSMC's second-generation 3nm process, with significant improvements in CPU clock speed and cache compared to the Dimensity 9300+.

• In gaming tests, in Honor of Kings at maximum graphics settings with 120fps, the X200 achieved an average frame rate of 121.3fps, with a very stable frame rate curve, an average power consumption of 3.38W, a peak power consumption of 6.53W, and a maximum temperature of 39. The X100s averaged 120.1fps, with a less stable frame rate curve and slightly higher power consumption (4.64W average, over 8W peak), reaching nearly 42, with the temperature increase particularly noticeable around the camera.

Under medium load, the power consumption difference between the two phones widened further. The X200 averaged 60.2fps with a frame rate fluctuation of only 0.5, almost a straight line; the X100s averaged 59fps with a fluctuation of 1.5, showing more curve fluctuation, though this didn't significantly impact the gaming experience. Thanks to its superior chip, the X200 demonstrated better energy efficiency, consuming 4.47W on average, versus 6.88W for the X100s to achieve similar performance.

• In the Honkai: Star Rail high-quality graphics benchmark test, the X200 maintained 60fps in the first half but dropped to 40fps in the second, averaging 55fps with 7.27W average power consumption, 10.66W peak, and a maximum temperature of nearly 50. The X100s' frame rate dropped to 45fps shortly after the game started, triggering thermal throttling and further dropping to around 40fps, averaging 41.5fps with 7.64W average and 12.2W peak power consumption. Both phones experienced brightness reduction under high load; a cooling clip is recommended for extended high-load usage.

Regarding battery life, the X200 boasts a 5800mAh battery, compared to the X100s' 5100mAh. Under an 80% Wi-Fi + 20% 5G test environment (120Hz + 1.5K resolution), the X200 lasted 6 hours and 30 minutes, while the X100s lasted 5 hours and 24 minutes. The X200's larger battery capacity and more energy-efficient processor provide a clear advantage in battery life. However, the X200 only supports 90W fast charging (65% in 20 minutes, full charge in 44 minutes), while the X100s supports 100W fast charging (full charge in approximately 33 minutes).

In summary, in terms of performance and battery life, the vivo X200 excels due to its hardware advantages. The X100s is not unusable; the difference in game frame rates might not be noticeable in real-world use, but the X200 offers better power consumption and temperature control. Even for infrequent gamers, the X200s upgrades are significant.

Imaging System: Visuals and Algorithms Each Have an Edge

While the X200 shines in gaming performance, X-series users often prioritize imaging capabilities. In terms of hardware specs, the X200's main camera sensor is slightly smaller, using a 1/1.56-inch Sony IMX921; the telephoto lens employs a Sony LYT-600 sensor, retaining the telephoto macro function. The X100s features a dedicated V2 imaging chip, while the X200 integrates the V2's capabilities into the Dimensity 9400.

In daylight, the X100s' main camera images appear slightly more whitish, with resolution almost identical to the X200; in high contrast scenes, the X200 exhibits more harmonious color reproduction. Both phones' main camera images show varying degrees of image quality degradation at the edges, related to lens quality, coating, and aperture.

In terms of telephoto, the X200's LYT-600 sensor boasts a larger pixel size and faster focusing speed, theoretically leading to better night performance. In bright daylight, both phones show similar telephoto performance, but zooming in reveals the X200's sharper image with slightly lower resolution than the X100s. In low-light conditions, the X200 surpasses the X100s, offering richer details in dark areas and a more natural look.

In digital zoom tests, due to insufficient resolution, the X200 utilizes more algorithms to fill in details, while the X100s offers a more natural result. In some scenes, the X200's AI detail enhancement shows flaws, while the X100s boasts higher fidelity. The X200's telephoto macro performance is decent.

Regarding ultra-wide-angle shots, the X200 has a slight advantage in terms of visual appeal, with resolution comparable to the X100s. The X200's three cameras exhibit better white balance consistency, with more accurate color reproduction in high-saturation areas; the X100s' whitish issue affects overall visual appeal. In video recording, the clarity difference is minimal; the X100s footage is slightly yellowish, and the X200 is more prone to lens flare. The X100s is superior to the X200 in telephoto video recording.

In night scenes, the X200'