Samsung Galaxy Note 9 vs Oppo Find X9 Ultra
51
out 100
VS
96
out 100
Compared 2 smartphones : Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Manufactured in August, 2018, with display 6.4 with chipsetSamsung Exynos 9 Octa 9810, vs Oppo Find X9 Ultra, Manufactured in May, 2026 with chipsetQualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5. Below are specs, tests, pros and cons for each device
Key Differences
Reasons to choose Samsung Galaxy Note 9
- Higher pixel density: 514ppi
- Lighter design: 201g vs 235g
- Supports Dolby Atmos
Reasons to choose Oppo Find X9 Ultra
- Larger display: 6.82in
- Higher refresh rate: 144Hz
- Higher battery capacity: 7050mAh vs 4000mAh
- Newer Bluetooth version: 6.0 vs 5
- Supports newer USB: 3.2 vs 3.1
- Supports DisplayPort
- Infrared port
- Built-in eSIM
- Includes charger
Versions
| Memory Options | - 6/128 GB - 8/128 GB - 8/512 GB |
- 12/256 GB - 12/512 GB - 16/512 GB - 16/1024 GB |
Review
Display
Color accuracy, sharpness & brightness
Camera
Main & front camera tests
Performance
App & system performance
Games
3D gaming performance
Battery
Battery life, charging speed & type
Connectivity
Connectivity features
Adjust each parameter’s importance to find the best match for you.
Tests & specs
Specs & test comparisonDisplay
| Type | Super AMOLED | AMOLED |
| Size | 6.4 in | 6.82 in |
| Resolution | 1440x2960 pixels | 1440x3168 pixels |
| Aspect ratio | 18.5:9 | 19.8:9 |
| Pixel density | 514 ppi | 510 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 144 Hz |
| Adaptive refresh rate | No | Yes (1-120 Hz) |
| Max brightness | 520 nits | 1800 nits |
| HDR support | Yes HDR10 | Yes, Dolby Vision |
| Touch Sampling Rate | n/a | 300 Hz |
| Screen-to-body ratio | 84 % | 90 % |
| Features | Always-On Display | - DCI-P3 - Always-On Display - DC dimming |
| sRGB gamut | 144.6 % | n/a |
| PWM (Flicker) | 227 Hz | n/a |
| Response time | 8 ms | n/a |
| Contrast | ∞ Infinite | n/a |
Design & Build
| Height | 161.9 mm (6.37 in) | 163.16 mm (6.42 in) |
| Width | 76.4 mm (3.01 in) | 76.97 mm (3.03 in) |
| Thickness | 8.8 mm (0.35 in) | 8.65 mm (0.34 in) |
| Weight | 201 g (7.09 oz) | 235 g (8.29 oz) |
| Water resistance | IP68 | IP69 |
| Cooling system | n/a | Vapor chamber |
| Back panel | Glass | Glass |
| Frame | Metal | Metal |
| Colors | - Black - Blue - Brown |
- White - Green - Orange |
| Fingerprint sensor | Yes rear | Yes, In-Display |
Screen-to-body ratio
Performance
| Chipset | Samsung Exynos 9 Octa 9810 | Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 |
| Max Frequency | 2700 MHz | 4600 MHz |
| CPU Cores | 8 (4 + 4) | 8 (2 + 6) |
| Architecture | - 4/1.9 (Cortex-A55) - 4/2.9 (Exynos M3) |
- 6/3.63 (Oryon Gen 3 Performance) - 2/4.61 (Oryon Gen 3 Prime) |
| Process | Samsung | TSMC |
| Transistor Size | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| Neural Processor | Yes | Hexagon |
| Graphics | Mali-G72 MP18 | n/a |
| GPU Cores | 324 | n/a |
| GPU Frequency | 572 MHz | n/a |
| FLOPS | 370.6 GFLOPS | n/a |
| Geekbench 6 (Single-Core) | 828 | 3646 |
| Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core) | 2026 | 11276 |
| CPU | 147238 | 1166693 |
| GPU | 137906 | 1523262 |
| Memory | 86902 | 509363 |
| UX | 85397 | 886789 |
| NanoReview Score | 457443 | 4086107 |
| Max Surface Temp. | 48.7 °C | n/a |
| Stability | 95 % | n/a |
| Graphics Test | 13 fps | n/a |
| Graphics Score | 2333 | n/a |
| Writing score | 6182 | n/a |
| Web score | 5312 | n/a |
| Video editing | 5462 | n/a |
| Data manipulation | 5867 | n/a |
| NanoReview Score | 6325 | n/a |
Memory
| RAM Size | - 6 GB - 8 GB |
12 GB |
| Memory Type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR5X |
| Memory Frequency | 1794 MHz | 5300 MHz |
| Channels | 2 | 4 |
| Storage Capacity | - 128 GB - 256 GB - 512 GB | 256 GB |
| Storage Type | UFS 2.1 | UFS 4.1 |
| Memory Card | MicroSD | No |
Software
| OS | Android 8.1 (Upgradeable to Android 10) | Android 16 |
| OS Size | 19 GB | n/a |
| UI Skin | One UI 2.5 | ColorOS 16 |
Battery
| Volume | 4000 mAh | 7050 mAh |
| Max Charging Power | 15 W | 100 W |
| Battery Type | Li-Po | Silicon Carbon (Si/C) |
| Removable | No | No |
| Wireless Charging | Yes Qi/PMA (15 W) | Yes (50 W) |
| Reverse Charging | No | Yes, (Wireless) |
| Fast Charging | Yes Samsung Adaptive Fast Charge (50% in 35 min) | Yes (75% in 30 min) |
| Full Charge Time | 1:40 h | 0:45 h |
| Web Browsing | 07:31 h | 16:45 h |
| Video Playback | 11:36 h | 26:15 h |
| Games | 05:01 h | 08:23 h |
| Standby Mode | 96 h | 144 h |
Main camera
| Matrix | 12 MP | 200 MP |
| Photo resolution | 4000x3000 pixels | n/a |
| Zoom | Optical, 2x | Optical, 10x |
| Flash | Dual LED | LED |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| 8K Recording | No | Yes (Up to 30 fps) |
| 4K Recording | Yes (Up to 60 fps) | Yes (Up to 120 fps) |
| 1080p Recording | Yes (Up to 60 fps) | Yes (Up to 240 fps) |
| Slow Motion | 960 fps (720p) | 480 fps (720p) |
| Wide-angle lens | n/a | 120 ° |
| Lenses count | Standard: 12 MP Telephoto: 12 MP |
Standard: 200 MP Telephoto: 200 MP Telephoto: 50 MP Ultra-wide: 50 MP |
| Features | - Bokeh effect - Pro mode - RAW support |
- Bokeh effect - Pro mode |
| Matrix | 12 MP | 200 MP |
| Aperture | f/1.5 - 2.4 | f/1.5 |
| Focal length | 26 mm | 23 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung SAK2L3 | Sony LYTIA-901 |
| Sensor size | 1/2.55 | 1/1.12 (0.89) |
| Pixel size | 1.4 μm | 0.7 μm |
| Autofocus | Phase autofocus (Dual Pixel) | Phase autofocus |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Matrix | 12 MP | 200 MP |
| Aperture | f/2.4 | f/2.2 |
| Focal length | 52 mm | 70 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung | OmniVision OV52A |
| Sensor size | 1/3.4 | 1/1.28 (0.78) |
| Pixel size | 1 μm | 0.61 μm |
| Stabilization | Optical | Optical |
| Matrix | n/a | 50 MP |
| Aperture | n/a | f/2.0 |
| Focal length | n/a | 14 mm |
| Sensor | n/a | Sony LYTIA-600 |
| Sensor size | n/a | 1/1.95 (0.51) |
| Pixel size | n/a | 0.8 μm |
| Stabilization | n/a | Digital |
Front camera
| Matrix | 8 MP | 50 MP |
| Photo resolution | 3264x2448 pixels | n/a |
| Aperture | f/1.7 | f/2.4 |
| Focal length | 25 mm | 21 mm |
| Sensor | Samsung S5K3H1 | Samsung ISOCELL JN5 |
| Sensor size | 1/3.6 | 1/2.75 (0.36) |
| Pixel size | 1.22 μm | 0.64 μm |
| Autofocus | Phase autofocus (Dual Pixel) | Phase autofocus |
| Stabilization | Digital | Digital |
| Video resolution | 1440p at 30 fps | 2160p (4K) at 60 fps |
| TOF 3D sensor | No | No |
Connectivity
| Wi-Fi version | Wi-Fi 5 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac) | Wi-Fi 7 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be) |
| Wi-Fi features | - Dual Band - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot |
- Dual Band - Wi-Fi MiMO - Wi-Fi Direct - Wi-Fi Hotspot - Wi-Fi Display |
| Bluetooth version | 5 | 6.0 |
| Bluetooth features | PBAP/PAB, PAN, OPP, MAP, LE, HSP, HID, HFP, DIP, AVRCP, A2DP | LE |
| USB type | USB Type-C | USB Type-C |
| USB version | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| USB features | - Charging - USB Storage Mode - OTG |
- Charging - USB Storage Mode - OTG |
| DisplayPort | n/a | Yes |
| GPS | - GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo |
- GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo - QZSS - NAVIC |
| NFC* | Yes | Yes |
| Infrared Port | No | Yes |
| SIM Count* | 2 | 2 |
| SIM Type | Nano | Nano |
| SIM Mode | Dual SIM Standby | Dual SIM Standby |
| eSIM Support * | No | Yes |
| Hybrid Slot | Yes | No |
| 2G Bands | GSM 850, GSM 900, GSM 1800, GSM 1900 | GSM 850/900/1800/1900MHz |
| 3G Bands | HSDPA 850, HSDPA 900, HSDPA 1900, HSDPA 2100 | WCDMA 1/2/4/5/6/8/19 |
| LTE Bands* | LTE (B700/B800/B850/B900/B1700/B1800/B1900/B2100/B2300/B2500/B2600) | LTE (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B13/B17/B18/B19/B20/B25/B26/B28/B32/B66/B71) |
| LTE category | 18 | n/a |
| 5G Support | No | Yes |
Sound
| Speakers | Stereo | n/a |
| 3.5 mm Jack | Yes | No |
| FM Radio | No | No |
| Dolby Atmos | Yes | n/a |
Other
| Class | Flagship | Flagship |
| Announced | August, 2018 yr | April, 2026 yr |
| Release Date | August, 2018 yr | May, 2026 yr |
| Launch Price ($) | 1000 | n/a |
| MSRP ($) | n/a | 1299 |
| Sensors | - Hall Sensor - Barometer - Proximity Sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient Light Sensor - Compass - Fingerprint sensor |
- Proximity Sensor - Gyroscope - Accelerometer - Ambient Light Sensor - Compass - Fingerprint sensor |
| Charger Included | n/a | Yes, 100 W |
*
Attention!
Config, frequencies, NFC, and other specs may vary by region.
Results
After analyzing the data, we consider Oppo Find X9 Ultra the clear winner in this comparison.
Survey
Total Votes: 0
