FR- Home page
-
Smartphone - Comparison
Xiaomi Mi CC9 vs Google Pixel 6 Pro
Comparison of the technical features between smartphones, with the Xiaomi Mi CC9 on one side and the Google Pixel 6 Pro on the other, also their respective performances with the benchmarks. The first has a processor with 8 cores, 8 threads, a maximale frequency of 2.2GHz. The second chips has a total of 8 cores, 8 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 2.8GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the amount of RAM memory, the date of first broadcast, the values obtained in Geekbench.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Smartphone | Xiaomi Mi CC9 | Google Pixel 6 Pro | ||||||
| Model version(s) | Xiaomi Mi CC 9 | G8VOU, GLUOG | ||||||
| Release date | Q3 2019 | Q4 2021 | ||||||
| Network | CDMA, GSM, HSPA, LTE | 5G, CDMA, EVDO, GSM, HSPA, LTE | ||||||
| Dimensions | 6,17 x 2,93 x 0,34 in | 6,45 x 2,99 x 0,35 in | ||||||
| Weight | 6.31 oz | 7.41 oz | ||||||
| Body | Back glass, aluminum frame |
Front and back glass, aluminum frame | ||||||
| Screen size, colours | 6.4 inches, 430 nits, 16M colours | 6.7 inches, 16M colours | ||||||
| Screen type | Super AMOLED | LTPO AMOLED, 120Hz | ||||||
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels | 1440 x 3120 pixels | ||||||
| Screen ratio | 19.5:9 | 19.5:9 | ||||||
| Density | 403 ppi | 512 ppi | ||||||
| Operating system | Android 9 | Android 12 | ||||||
| Processor | Qualcomm SDM710 Snapdragon 710 | Google Tensor | ||||||
| Lithography | 10 nm LPP | 5 nm LPE | ||||||
| Cores | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Threads | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Energy cores | 6x Qualcomm Kryo 360 Silver @ 1.7 GHz |
4x ARM Cortex-A55 @ 1.8 GHz | ||||||
| High performance cores | 2x Qualcomm Kryo 360 Gold @ 2.2 GHz |
2x ARM Cortex-X1 @ 2.80 GHz 2x ARM Cortex-A76 @ 2.25 GHz | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Qualcomm Adreno 616 | ARM Mali-G78 MP20 | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 2 | 20 | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 128 | 320 | ||||||
| GPU clock | 650 MHz | 848 MHz | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 384 GFLOPS | 1,943 GFLOPS | ||||||
| Memory | 6 / 8 GB RAM | 12 GB RAM | ||||||
| Storage | 64 / 256 GB | 128 / 512 GB | ||||||
| Photo | 48 MP, f/1,8, 8 MP, 2 MP |
50 MP, f/1,9, 26mm, 48 MP, f/3,5, 104mm, 12 MP, f/2,2 |
||||||
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, 720p@960fps |
4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps | ||||||
| Front photo | 32 MP, f/2,0 |
11,1 MP, f/2,2, 20mm |
||||||
| Front video | 1080p@30fps |
4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps | ||||||
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e | ||||||
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.2, A2DP, LE | ||||||
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 3.1 | ||||||
| Battery capacity | 4,030 mAh | 5,003 mAh | ||||||
| Battery type | Non removable Li-Po | Non removable Li-Po | ||||||
| Battery life (versatile use) | - | ~ 20 hours | ||||||
| TDP | 6 W | 10 W | ||||||
| Head SAR | - | - | ||||||
| Body SAR | - | - | ||||||
| AnTuTu | 143,964 | 710,292 | ||||||
| Android PassMark Rating | 5,565 | 12,334 | ||||||
| (Android) Geekbench 4 single core | 1,680 | 4,457 | ||||||
| (Android) Geekbench 4 multi-core | 5,303 | 10,743 | ||||||
| Amazon |  |
|
||||||
| eBay |  |
|
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can easily compare the technical characteristics between these two smartphones. Both phones have an equivalent number of cores, the maximum frequency of Google Pixel 6 Pro is larger. The Google Pixel 6 Pro was started more recently.
Autonomy: the autonomy given is the one for a versatile use with video playback, web browsing, various applications, games, photos, etc ...
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two smartphones, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark softwares such as Geekbench.
| AnTuTu - Total Score | |
|---|---|
Google Pixel 6 Pro | 710,292 |
| Xiaomi Mi CC9 | 143,964 |
The difference is 393%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
AnTuTu is one of the most popular apps in the world to evaluate and compare the power of a mobile device with the competition. It tests above all the power of calculation, the display of Web pages, the modeling of decorations in 3D, the management of the memory, the transfer of data.
| Android PassMark Rating | |
|---|---|
| Google Pixel 6 Pro | 12,334 |
| Xiaomi Mi CC9 | 5,565 |
The difference in performance is 122%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
With Android:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Android | |
|---|---|
| Google Pixel 6 Pro |
4,457 10,743 |
| Xiaomi Mi CC9 |
1,680 5,303 |
In single core, the difference is 165%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 103%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
See also:
Xiaomi Mi CC9eDisclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer's website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.