Razer Phone review

Benchmarking performance

We finally get to the main event. According to Razer, its handset is created to serve a singular purpose - be the best gaming/multimedia handset out there. A tough mission, if we ever saw one, yet Razer seemed pretty confident at the unveiling event. Synthetic benchmark numbers were even quoted, along with lofty claims, like: "The best thermal performance in a smartphone".

While the PC gaming crowd might be pretty accustomed to such cocky overstatements, on the smartphone scene, manufacturers tend to be a bit more conservative in their wording overall. The simple truth is that the number and possible variations of internal smartphone components is still nowhere near PC standards. That leaves little room for overly unexpected performance variance as a whole.

The Razer Phone is powered by the same Snapdragon 835 we have already seen and thoroughly tested in most of this year's flagship devices. Naturally, Razer decided to throw the 8GB RAM number around as well. Like we have said before, it is hardly a game-changer within the current state of the Android OS, resource management and typical mobile app loads.

Plus, when you throw a conveniently big memory figure like that in our face, you better be ready to defend your choice of storage options. In this case, only one - 64GB, which, frankly, is hardly impressive when you are pitching your product to gaming and multimedia enthusiasts.

To be fair, most of our frustration with Razer's PR likely stems from its, for lack of a better term, "gamer-friendly" approach to marketing. So, we'll give it a rest and move on to the actual benchmarks. The Snapdragon 835 chipset performs exactly as expected.

GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  6784
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  6783
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  6754
• Razer Phone
  6728
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  6719
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  6629
• Huawei Mate 10
  6625
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  6593
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  6590
• Nokia 8
  6568
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  6541
• Google Pixel 2
  6437
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  6428
• HTC U11
  6393
• LG V30
  6365
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  6301
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  6234
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  5460
• LG G6
  4175

GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  1987
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  1986
• Razer Phone
  1931
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  1929
• Nokia 8
  1925
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  1924
• HTC U11
  1919
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  1919
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  1915
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  1915
• Google Pixel 2
  1912
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  1902
• LG V30
  1901
• Huawei Mate 10
  1882
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  1862
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  1840
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  1836
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  1832
• LG G6
  1767

No "secret sauce" or magical performance boosts in sight, but that's alright with us. Perhaps, if Razer had thrown in a Chroma-compatible logo on the back, the numbers might have been a little different.

Geekbench 4 Compute

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  8193
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  8003
• HTC U11
  7992
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  7853
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  7753
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  7709
• Razer Phone
  7584
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  7577
• LG G6
  6484

Kidding aside, more compound benchmarks, like AnTuTu paint the exact same picture. Again, don't get us wrong, it is a worthy 2017 flagship picture, but not nearly as "insane" as Razer seems to perceive it.

AnTuTu 6

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  181570
• Razer Phone
  179357
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  178674
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  178510
• HTC U11
  177343
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  177326
• Nokia 8
  175872
• Huawei Mate 10
  175426
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  175153
• LG V30
  174330
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  174070
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  172425
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  170407
• Google Pixel 2
  168648
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  168133
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  160319
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  144462
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  144223
• LG G6
  143639
• Huawei P10
  126629

The exact same goes for Basemark OS 2.0. Since there are no surprises thus far, we will use this opportunity to comment of the allegedly amazing cooling solution. While the phone never actually throttled, at least not during our tests, it got really hot.

Basemark OS 2.0

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  3612
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  3609
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  3578
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  3547
• Nokia 8
  3503
• Razer Phone
  3492
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  3425
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  3424
• Huawei Mate 10
  3415
• Google Pixel 2
  3387
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  3379
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  3333
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  3319
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  3298
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  3174
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  2986
• HTC U11
  2970
• Huawei P10
  2910
• LG V30
  2705
• LG G6
  2126

Using the large metal unibody as a heat spreader might very well be beneficial for cooling the internals, but this also leaves you with an unpleasantly toasty phone to hold in long gaming sessions. For many out there, especially laptop gaming fans this might be a fair trade-off. Plus, if you opt for a nice Bluetooth controller solution, like we did, it becomes a non-issue.

It really is a shame Razer isn't offering any such accessories of its own. At least not yet, that is. Having tactile controls is a definite advantage in most gaming situations, so, hopefully, we get to see some proper accessories soon.

Speaking of which, it is high time we moved to graphics performance, since this is what most of you likely came here to see. Plus, we do have quite a bit of actual gaming experience to share with you. But first, synthetics.

These are, well, as expected. Again, the Razer phone does not have the benefit of any mysterious new silicon. It just manages to leverage the Snapdragon 835 and its Adreno 540 GPU perfectly adequately to be on par with the competition.

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  65
• Huawei Mate 10
  65
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  63
• Razer Phone
  61
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  61
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  61
• LG V30
  60
• HTC U11
  60
• Google Pixel 2
  60
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  59
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  57
• Nokia 8
  57
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  54
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  53
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  51
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  50
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  50
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  49
• LG G6
  41
• Huawei P10
  29

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Xiaomi Mi 6
  56
• Google Pixel 2
  56
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  55
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  50
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  49
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  48
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  47
• Huawei Mate 10
  43
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  42
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  40
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  40
• Razer Phone
  39
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  37
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  36
• LG V30
  35
• HTC U11
  35
• Huawei P10
  35
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  34
• Nokia 8
  33
• LG G6
  24

It is worth noting that, as per our usual methodology, the tests were all carried out at the native QHD resolution of the panel. This takes its toll, as expected, in on-screen rendering.

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  43
• Razer Phone
  42
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  42
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  42
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  42
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  42
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  42
• LG V30
  41
• HTC U11
  41
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  41
• Google Pixel 2
  41
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  39
• Nokia 8
  39
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  39
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  39
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  38
• Huawei Mate 10
  38
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  37
• LG G6
  26
• Huawei P10
  22

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Google Pixel 2
  43
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  41
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  41
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  40
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  35
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  32
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  32
• Huawei P10
  30
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  23
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  23
• Huawei Mate 10
  23
• Razer Phone
  22
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  22
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  21
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  20
• LG V30
  19
• HTC U11
  19
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  18
• Nokia 8
  18
• LG G6
  12

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Nokia 8
  32
• Razer Phone
  25
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  25
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  25
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  25
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  25
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  25
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  25
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  25
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  25
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  25
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  24
• LG V30
  24
• HTC U11
  24
• Google Pixel 2
  24
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  23
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  22
• Huawei Mate 10
  21
• LG G6
  16
• Huawei P10
  14

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Google Pixel 2
  26
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  25
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  25
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  25
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  24
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  24
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  21
• Huawei P10
  16
• Razer Phone
  15
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  15
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  13
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  13
• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  13
• LG V30
  13
• HTC U11
  13
• Huawei Mate 10
  13
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  13
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  12
• Nokia 8
  12
• LG G6
  8.5

We also can't help but remember a few benchmark numbers Razer shared on stage at the unveiling.

Hopefully, this doesn't come off as senseless bashing, since it isn't intended as such. Synthetics are far from exact science and a quick glance at one of the big online score databases proves you can stretch these scores a lot in both directions on any hardware.

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy Note8
  1268
• Huawei Mate 10 Pro
  1183
• Huawei Mate 10
  1142
• Samsung Galaxy S8+
  1111
• Samsung Galaxy Note8 (SD 835)
  875
• Google Pixel 2 XL
  874
• Razer Phone
  868
• Motorola Moto Z2 Force
  867
• Xiaomi Mi 6
  861
• LG V30
  860
• Nokia 8
  855
• Sony Xperia XZ1
  853
• Sony Xperia XZ Premium
  842
• Google Pixel 2
  839
• HTC U11
  836
• Samsung Galaxy S8+ (SD 835)
  817
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (MIUI 9 Beta)
  742
• Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
  739
• Huawei P10
  716
• LG G6
  541

In real world terms, the Razer Phone is not any better or any worse at performing these artificial tasks than the Samsung Galaxy S8+. And it would probably be in Razer's best interest to ease off on the convenient numbers and lofty claims at least a bit if it plans to stick around on the mobile scene and build a respectable image.

But, what happened to the promise of ultra-smooth 120Hz goodness? Valid question and one we made sure to test thoroughly. Besides getting to play games at work, we did actually pinpoint what we think are a few interesting details about the new ULTRAMOTION display.

From the very get-go Razer mentioned 120Hz on stage, we have been incredibly suspicious of the claim. Firstly, however, we have to give credit where credit is due, Razer definitely managed to optimize its Android UI to take full advantage of the variable, high-refresh rate panel. Every motion looks buttery smooth.

And it's not just system animations. Every scroll on a web page instantly results in a rendering fps hike all the way up to 120 fps and an incredibly sharp scroll effect. No blurring or tearing whatsoever. Browsing on the Razer Phone is a great experience, even if most multimedia content online is still played back at 30 fps. Plus, every intermittent moment before the hardware manages to react to the motion and ramp up the fps count, everything remains perfectly smooth as well, thanks to the variable refresh rate.

As for the suspicion part, it mostly stems from our fairly extensive experience with Android and the fact that it is simply not adapted to handle anything beyond 60 fps. And it's not necessarily that the Adreno 540 is not powerful enough to push all the frames, it's just that most of the existing app ecosystem, including game engines, is not designed to work under such conditions. Perhaps a second "Project Butter" will happen at some point to make that a reality, but currently, Razer is stuck in a mostly unfavorable early-adopter position.

This is Arena of Valor - one of the games Razer showcased on stage, as a title specifically optimized to take advantage of the Razer Phone's hardware. The little green frame counter is actually a built-in debug function, which was incredibly convenient and ensured our tests were as accurate as possible.

Arena of Valor hitting 40-ish fps at QHD

At native resolution, the game only managed to get as high as 50 fps on occasion. Far from the 120 mark, required to saturate the full 120Hz refresh potential of the panel. So, our first instinct was to lower resolution.

We briefly touched on this in the software section, but to re-iterate, the Razer Phone has two sets of resolution and frame rate/refresh rate controls. One of these is in the display settings menu and affects the resolution of the entire OS and the refresh rate cap of the panel. The other is within Game Booster and can be set on a per-app level.

After a lot of experimenting, we discovered these seem to be separate from one another. So, in order to avoid weird small window glitches or touch input problems, we advise you to change them in sync. To give the chipset the best possible chance, we set the CPU frequency to the max 2.36 GHz, left the 120 fps cap and proceeded to lower resolution.

Arena of Valor at 1080p and 720p

All that work and literally no fps gain. That can only mean one thing - the game engine is just not designed to push any more frames. Bummer.

How about Gear.Club - another title Razer ships with its Phone pre-installed. Well, with it, we did manage to get higher fps readings in the 75 range, but again, literally no change with resolution.

Gear.Club at QHD, 1080p and 720p

Still, we count that as progress, since it does prove engines differ from one another in their fps cap. On to the Google Play store then and the top games chart to start the hunt. Asphalt 8? No, not really.

Asphalt 8 at QHD, 1080p, hitting 40-ish fps

DeadTrigger2? Perhaps the Razer likes zombie-mashing better. No, 40-ish cap again, regardless of resolution.

DeadTrigger2 at QHD, 1080p and 720p

OK, perhaps we are going about this the wrong way. Maybe these heavy 3D games are purposefully built with more restrictions in place to ensure performance. So, we tried some simpler graphics titles.

CrossyRoad can easily do 60 fps, but not any more. We tried mixing things up in the settings department one more time, just in case. So, we left the system at QHD and only changed the internal game render resolution through Game Booster. Still no luck.

CrossyRoad

OK, enough teasing, in case you were wondering, yes, games capable of pumping out 120 fps do exist. Alto's Adventure is one of them and it looks even better with the extra fluidity of motion. Sadly, it's not something we can show you, since we would have to record the footage at 120 frames and you would have to watch it on a 120Hz monitor. So, you have to take our word for it. Once you try high refresh rate gaming, especially on a variable refresh rate platform, you never want to go back.

Alto's adventure hitting 120 fps

Another title we managed to find was BADLAND2. Out of all the games we tested, it also behaved most like a PC title, as in, lowering the resolution actually helped it keep 120 fps easily and more comfortably.

BADLAND2 can go up to 120fps as well

All things considered, Razer's coveted headlining feature for the Razer Phone, the 120Hz refresh rate, is far from a game-changer at this point in time. Actually taking full advantage of it is a wild goose chase. To prove our point further, we went one step deeper down the rabbit hole and tried to find other titles from the studio that made Alto's Adventure, hoping to stumble on some consistency. Unfortunately, even that is not a foolproof strategy, since Leap On! only went as high as 70 fps.

No luck with LeapOn!

We also looked into remote play for some of our favorite PC games on the Razer Phone to potentially take advantage of the high refresh rate. A couple of solutions do exist, like Nvidia's Game Stream with a compatible client (Moonlight). Unfortunately, all the apps we checked out are currently capped at 60 fps for one reason or another. Perhaps, we'll see how things evolve over the following months. Here's hoping Razer releases a solution of its own, perhaps accompanied by a gamepad accessory for the best possible experience.

Still, even in its current flawed state, we see potential in Razer's ULTRAMITION panel. It is an important early effort to spearhead high refresh rate gaming on mobile devices. If the PC realm is anything to go by, it is a good and logical upgrade path to explore in the future. Definitely one mobile gamers will eventually come to appreciate.