Amongst the last big smartphone releases of 2019 is Google’s Pixel 4 series. Google’s own flagship devices come late in the generational product cycle whose timing is mostly dictated by the SoC release schedule – it’s always hard to be able to make a case for your product knowing in a few months’ time we’ll be seeing a barrage of new competing products raising the bar again. Google’s forte in this regard is that it promises to augment its products with features beyond what the hardware can provide, yet in a sense, the Pixel 4’s biggest improvements (and weaknesses) this year are actually mostly related to its hardware.

The new Pixel 4 is again a camera centric phone – it’s the topic that Google talked about the most and dedicated the most time to during its launch event in New York. The Pixel 4 adds for the first time a second camera module that acts as a telephoto unit, and also promises to have improved the capture quality on the new main camera. Whilst Google has a reputation for having good cameras, the Pixel 4 this year faces incredible competition as essentially every other vendor this year has launched devices with triple cameras and have stepped up in terms of their computational photography capabilities.

Other big features of the Pixel 4 include a new 90Hz capable display panel that allows for a new ultra-smooth device experience, a feature that’s still quite rare amongst flagship devices this year, but quickly catching up with many vendors. Another big change for the Pixel 4 is the dropping of the fingerprint sensor in favour for a new full-blown face unlock feature. This latter feature is augmented by another novelty of the Pixel 4: A radar sensor that’s able to detect movements and gestures pointed at the phone.

We’ll be putting the new Pixel 4 XL through our test benches and determine if Google has managed to create a compelling product worth your money.

Google Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL
AnandTech		Pixel 4	Pixel 4 XL (Reviewed)
SoC		Snapdragon 855 1 x 2.84 GHz Kryo 485 3 x 2.42 GHz Kryo 485 4 x 1.78 GHz Kryo 485 Adreno 640 Graphics
DRAM		6 GB LPDDR4X
Storage		64 GB or 128 GB UFS
Display		5.7" POLED 2280 x 1080 (19:9) 90 Hz	6.3" AMOLED 3040 x 1440 (19:9) 90 Hz
Size	Height	147.1 mm	160.4 mm
	Width	68.8 mm	75.1 mm
	Depth	8.2 mm	8.2 mm
Weight		162 grams	193 grams
Battery Capacity		2800 mAh	3700 mAh
Charging		18 W Wired Quick Charge 2.0 Qi Wireless Charging
Rear Cameras
	Main	12.2MP 1.4µm Dual Pixel PDAF f/1.7 1/2.55" sensor with OIS
	Telephoto	16 MP f/2.4 1.0 micron PDAF, OIS, 1.7x Optical Zoom
	Wide	-
	Extra	-
Front Camera		8MP 1.12µm f/2.0  + ToF 3D Camera
I/O		USB-C 3.1 (5 Gbps) No 3.5mm headphone jack
Wireless (local)		802.11ac Wave 2 Wi-Fi Bluetooth 5.0 LE + NFC
Cellular		UE Category 18 (DL) / Category 12 (UL) 1200 Mbit/s DL (5xCA 2x2 MIMO)  150 Mbit/s UL
Other Features		Stereo Speakers IP68 Android 10 Project Soli Radar Motion Sensng No fingerprint sensor, face ID only
Dual-SIM		1x nanoSIM + 1 x eSIM
Colors		White Black Orange
Launch Price		€749 / $799 for 64GB  $899 for 128GB	€899 / $899 for 64 GB $999 for 128 GB

As noted, the internal hardware of the Pixel 4 XL isn’t all particularly exciting at this point in time. The Snapdragon 855 is the same SoC that we’ve seen in devices launched in February and March. Google could have opted to use the slightly faster and better binned Snapdragon 855+ this year, but for whatever reason it didn’t make it. That being said, Google is known to be able to create amongst the best implementations of a given SoC, so we’re expecting a very fast device experience.

One big criticism that the Pixel 3 suffered from last year and that the Pixel 4 series partly addresses is the RAM. Android is quite memory hungry and Google has now updated the line-up from 4GB to 6GB which should help in keeping more applications alive. It’s still a step below what other vendors offer this year as 8 and 12GB variants have become relatively standard in the high-end.

One aspect that isn’t high-end at all is Google’s choice to go with 64GB of storage in the base models. This is a bit painful to see as more and more vendors go with 128GB as the minimum. The up-sell to 128GB costs $100 which is even more than Apple’s $50 premium for the same upgrade, putting the Pixel 4 in an even more awkward situation.

Key to the Pixel 4’s are the new display panels. The Pixel 4 XL goes for a more elongated 6.3” 3040 x 1440 resolution screen, resulting in a 19:9 aspect ratio, whilst the regular Pixel 4 remains at the smaller 2280 x 1080 for the smaller 5.7” form-factor. The big news here is the inclusion of 90Hz refresh rates. High refresh displays in mobile have really made an impact this year, with the OnePlus 7 Pro particularly making a lasting impression. Google’s implementation is slightly more subdued as it’s adaptive refresh rate switching feature between 60 and 90Hz is still a bit quirky – however one can force the devices to be in 90Hz mode all the time, although it comes at a cost in power consumption.

Google promises that this year they’ve paid a lot more attention to the colour calibration of their screens. In the past we’ve seen some major oddities in terms of the target gamma that Google had employed and a few miscalibration issues in regards to the average picture level scaling of the screen. This year the Pixel displays are again dual-sourced between LG and Samsung. The regular Pixel 4 receives an LG panel, whilst the Pixel 4 XL we tested today employs a Samsung unit.

One aspect of the phone’s new designs is that they’re not trying to be that extravagant. Both have larger display bezels on the top (“foreheads”) instead of going for cut-outs or notches. Good riddance to monstrosity that was the double-height notch of the Pixel 3 XL.

Google needed to use a forehead design this year simply because the Pixel 4s are packed to the brim with sensors. Whilst the phones see a downgrade from dual front-facing cameras to a single unit this year, we see the addition of an IR camera, a flood illuminator and a dot projector, the usual array of hardware we’ve seen for the more advanced facial unlock implementations out there.

On the right side of the earpiece speaker, we see another big novelty: Project Soli. In essence this is a miniature radar emitter and receiver and is at the heart of Google’s take on motion gestures. I’ll be blunt here: the feature is very much a gimmick that serves very little practical purpose. We’ve seen gestures attempted in the past by vendors such as Samsung and LG, and they never managed to win any kind of adoption. Google’s implementation work “ok” in the few tasks that are currently available such as skipping between music tracks, but these are just coarse gestures that aren’t any different than what we’ve seen from other vendors. The one big actual practical advantage of the system is that it aids face unlocking: the phone is able to detect you reaching for it and is able to wake up sooner in order to fire up the face unlocking sensors and cameras – reducing the reaction time and unlock time, which is pretty good.

The back design of the phone is relatively simple as we see a glass backplate with only the camera square as the dominating feature. The back glass on the orange and white models this year is fully matte with an etched finish, similar to the one we’ve seen last year on the Pixel 3. The black unit however for some reason is a glossy finish which means it’ll be more prone to smudges; I would have hoped Google had went with the matte finish across all colours.

The frame of the Pixel 4 is very odd in terms of feeling. The frame is made of aluminium; however, it’s coated in a new special material. It doesn’t feel like metal anymore but it’s also not plastic feeling. Personally, I like it because it’s matte and gives good grip on the phone. What I didn’t like is the new ergonomics of the frame. Google this year no longer tappers/rounds off the edges towards the back of the phone, and what this results in is that the phone feels thicker than it is – the Pixel 3 had a much better in-hand feel in this regard.

Talking about thickness, it’s at 8.2mm for both devices. Oddly enough even though it’s at the higher end of the thickness spectrum, Google wasn’t able to employ quite as big batteries as one might expect. The Pixel 4 XL comes with a 3700mAh battery, which whilst still around 10-20% smaller than what we see from the competition, is still relatively adequate. The smaller Pixel 4 however only has a 2800mAh unit, which is not only quite far from what we see in competing devices of the same form-factor, but also an actual downgrade from the Pixel 3 last year. It’s really unfortunate we weren’t able to get the regular Pixel 4 for testing as I think the battery life is going to be especially problematic for that variant of the phone.

The camera “square” for the Pixel 4 is a bit of an odd design choice, simply because it’s really only housing two camera modules, whilst the square/circle design of other vendors was introduced because they needed to house three or more cameras. It’s a practical design in the Pixel 4, but feels a bit bare compared to Apple or Huawei’s implementations.

The main camera of the Pixel 4 remains similar to its predecessors in specification: It’s a 12.2MP sensor with 1.4µm pixels and Dual Pixel PDAF, but it’s not the same sensor as on the Pixel 3. The newer unit promises to have better noise characteristics and it’ll be able to perform better in low-light situations and also offering more dynamic range in daylight. The optics have been slightly improved as the aperture is upgraded from f/1.8 to f/1.7, allowing for more light.

The Pixel series’ first secondary rear camera module is a telephoto unit. Here Google has chosen a 16MP sensor with 1µm pixels and an f/2.4 aperture lens. The optical magnification compared to the main sensor isn’t 2x as what we’d expect, but more precisely 1.7x. It’s an odd combination what we hadn’t seen before and we’ll investigate the benefits and drawbacks later in the camera section.

There’s been a bit of a unanimous consent amongst media and users that Google’s choice to go with a telephoto lens instead of an ultra-wide-angle module as the second camera was a mistake, and I’m of the same opinion. 2019 saw essentially every single vendor adopt UWA modules in their cameras, not only because it’s in vogue, but because it’s a more worthwhile camera experience than a telephoto module.

Google claims new HDR+ and Night Sight algorithms, and the computational photography aspect of the Pixel 4 is augmented by a new accompanying processing chip called the Pixel Neural Core which offloads computations from the SoC.

Finally, the last big change that’s notable for the Pixel 4 is that Google has dropped its dual-front facing speaker design. The Pixel 4 now instead uses a regular earpiece & bottom firing stereo speaker setup. It’s adequate enough, but doesn’t match the stereo balance and quality of Samsung’s Galaxy series or Apple’s iPhones.

Also related to the audio, the Pixel 4 doesn’t ship with any kind of headphones or even a 3.5mm adapter so you’ll have to have compatible USB-C units at hand or buy them extra (I really do not recommend the Pixel USB-C units). Or you can also be a schmuck and chose to spend a heavy premium getting wireless earbuds – but again, not the new Pixel Buds as they won’t even be available till sometime in early 2020.

Overall, the Pixel 4 XL’s hardware seems rather underwhelming, but that’s been the case of previous generation Pixel devices as well. What matters, is how the new phone performs and if the new cameras are up to the task. Let’s start with performance.

System Performance

One aspect Google Pixel devices have always excelled at is performance. With every generation, Google had opted to customise the BSP stack and improve on Qualcomm’s mechanisms to be able to extract as much performance out of the SoC as possible. In recent years these customisations haven’t been quite as evident as QC’s schedulers became more complex and also more mature. The Pixel 4 again makes use of Qualcomm’s scheduler mechanisms instead of Google’s own Android Common Kernel. The Pixel 4 also arrives with Android Q which is one of the very few devices in our testbench which comes with the new OS version.

We’re testing the Pixel 4 at three refresh rate settings: the default 60Hz mode, the automatic 90Hz mode, and the forced 90Hz mode. As with the OnePlus 7 Pro earlier in the year, we’re expecting to measure differences between the different display modes.

Starting off with the web browsing test, we’re seeing the Pixel 4 XL perform quite averagely. The odd thing here is that it’s showcasing worse performance and scaling than the Pixel 3 last year in all but the forced 90Hz mode. It’s also interesting to see how the forced 90Hz mode is able to post an advantage over the regular 90Hz mode even though the content of the benchmark doesn’t contain anything in particular that would have the automatic mode trigger to 60Hz.

In the video editing test, which isn’t all that significant in terms of its results, we do however see the differences between the 60 and 90Hz modes. Again, it’s odd to see the 60Hz mode perform that much worse than the Pixel 3 in this test, pointing out to more conservative scaling of the little CPU cores.

In the Writing test which is the most important sub-test of PCMark and has heavier workloads, we see the Pixel 4 perform very well and is in line with the better Snapdragon 855 devices out there.

The Photo Editing scores of the Pixel 4 are also top notch and the best Snapdragon 855 device we have at hand.

The data manipulation test is another odd one that I can’t really explain it performs better on the forced 90Hz mode over than the automatic 90Hz mode.

Finally, the Pixel 4 ends up high in the ranks in PCMark, really only trailing the Mate 30 Pro.

In the web benchmarks, the Pixel 4 performs quite average to actually quite bad, compared to what we’ve seen from other S855 phones. I’m really not sure why the degradation takes place, I’ll have to investigate this more once I have another S855 with Android Q.

Performance Conclusion

Overall, performance of the Pixel 4 is excellent, as expected. The big talking point here isn’t really the SoC or Google’s software, but rather the 90Hz screen of the phone. It really augments the experienced performance of the phone, making it stand out above other 60Hz phones this year.

That being said, unlike last year, I can’t say that the Pixel 4 is amongst the snappiest devices this year as that title was already taken by the new Huawei Mate 30 Pro with the newer generation Kirin 990. Unfortunately for Google, performance of the Pixel 4 will be a rather short-lived selling point as I expect the competition (which don’t already have the feature) to catch up with high refresh screens, and also surpass the Pixel as the new generation Snapdragon SoCs are just a month away from launch.

GPU Performance

3D and GPU performance of the Pixel 4, much like all other devices this year with the same Snapdragon 855 chipset, will only be able to differentiate itself from the pack if it has any kind of special heat dissipation or extremely lax thermal throttling designs. We’re not expecting any big surprises here, and do hope the Pixel 4 XL is able to fare competitively.

Starting off with the 3DMark Physics test, which is actually a CPU benchmark within a temperature constrained test scenario, we see the Pixel 4 XL fall in line with the middle of the pack of Snapdragon 855 devices in terms of the sustained performance scores. It’s interesting to see the peak performance standing out and being ahead by a measurable margin against other S855 devices. I’m not too sure why this would be other than maybe Google having extra optimisations in the scheduling of the workload, or maybe even DVFS behaviour of the CPUs, as the actual workload performance shouldn’t change based on any other external factors such as drivers or software.

In the graphics workload, things are GPU bound and that’s the main limiting factor for the performance scores. Here the Pixel 4 XL again falls around the middle of the pack amongst other S855 devices.

This ranking is continued on over all the GFXBench tests as the Pixel 4 XL does adequately but still remains below medium amongst our Snapdragon 855 devices. A peculiarity we’re seeing in the benchmarks is that the peak performance of the Pixel 4 XL is a few percentages lower than that on other S855 phones. Again, I have no proper explanation for this other that it may be some regression in Qualcomm’s GPU drivers, or that maybe Google is being more relaxed on other DVFS behaviour such as on the memory controllers.

Again, whilst this performance isn’t outright bad, we have to keep in mind the pricing of the phone and its very late release date in the year. The contrast to Apple’s iPhone 11s here in the charts is pretty absurd, as it’s able to showcase scores essentially twice as fast as what the Pixel 4 XL can achieve.

Display Measurement

The display of the Pixel 4 is one of the phone’s main features thanks to the 90Hz refresh rate. As mentioned in the introduction, the displays on the Pixel 4 series this year is again dual-sourced between LG and Samsung. The regular Pixel 4 receives an LG panel, while the 4 XL that we’re testing and reviewing today, uses a Samsung display.

Android Q promised to have implemented a new iteration of Google’s colour management system, and for the first time, the Photos app is actually able to properly display wide gamut pictures. Unfortunately, it’s still a very limited system in apps as they cannot display differing gamut pictures side-by-side, so for example the thumbnail view is shown only in sRGB. Most importantly, Chrome by default still doesn’t support wide-gamut content as you have to force it in the engine settings, and this implementation doesn’t use the OS’s CMS handling.

We move on to the display calibration and fundamental display measurements of the Pixel 4 XL screen. As always, we thank X-Rite and SpecraCal, as our measurements are performed with an X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer, with the exception of black levels which are measured with an i1Display Pro colorimeter. Data is collected and examined using SpectraCal's CalMAN software.

Starting off with the brightness, the Pixel 4 XL is relatively conservative as it peaks out at 438 nits in all scenarios. It’s again very odd here as Google can’t seem to make up its mind on whether it wants to offer an auto-brightness boost or not. Last year, the Pixel 3 only had it available in its Adaptive mode, whilst this year the Pixel 4 doesn’t offer it all, even though the display drivers actually has the high-brightness mode implemented. 

 
SpectraCal CalMAN

In terms of greyscale calibration and accuracy, on my unit things differed greatly based on brightness. At maximum brightness, the Pixel 4 XL was seemingly quite accurate with good colour balance and gamma reproduction. At our standard 200cd/m² measurement point however, things are quite worse. First off, all there’s a more notable colour shift towards greens on the unit which isn’t great. Following that, there’s also creeping issues with the gamma calibration as it’s non-linear and deviates a lot more from the 2.2 target. What this results in is some shades, especially at the higher levels, appear darker than they should be.

I’ve also noted and captured some sort of bug in the display behaviour; when I was measuring at minimum brightness, I encountered some really bad results. I’ve seen this mentioned by some other reviewers and the issue went away when I toggled the screen refresh rate. The odd thing though, is that I wasn’t able to immediately reproduce it afterwards and results on the new measurements were quite ok. The colour shift the phone took was extremely noticeable at the time the bug took place.

SpectraCal CalMAN
"Natural" Greyscale colours

In terms of dE2000, the biggest culprit to the average 2.29 result for me is the green tint of whites as well as the slightly off gamma.

SpectraCal CalMAN
sRGB Gamut

In the sRGB gamut, the Pixel 4 XL does well with a dE2000 of 1.71. The biggest issue again is a shift in the tones towards green, but also seemingly very slight oversaturation of all the tones.

SpectraCal CalMAN
Display P3 Gamut

The Display P3 gamut performs a lot better. Here while the green tint is still present, the saturation levels are better and thus the Pixel 4 XL ends up with an excellent dE2000 of 1.17.

SpectraCal CalMAN
Gretag-Macbeth

Finally, in the GMB test, the Pixel 4 XL ends up quite average with a score of 2.34 as it’s showcasing tones that are too dark, a green tint in the whites, with some hue errors for a few tones.

Display Conclusion – Good, but not A+

Overall, the Pixel 4 XL’s display characteristics beyond it’s 90Hz refresh rate are quite average. Whilst Google has been able to improve the calibration compared to what we measured on the regular Pixel 3 last year and the 2 XL the year before that, it’s still quite a bit behind what some other vendors are able to achieve. The display’s lower brightness is also a bit of an issue in direct sunlight as it lacks any kind of boost behaviour. Finally, the remaining characteristics such as viewing angles and sharpness are excellent, but that’s just generally a common characteristic of panels with these specifications.

The results today aren’t really a surprise to me given Google’s track record with the displays on the Pixel series, however it does stand in contrast to what the company was proclaiming at launch: “A+ rating Best Smartphone Display Awards” really doesn’t mean anything at all if, first of all, it’s a sponsored award, and secondly, if the measurements aren’t representative of a random production unit. Make of it what you will.

Battery Life

Battery life of the Pixel 4 series was a concern from the very first moment we had confirmation about the phone having a 90Hz panel, yet doing nothing special or even regressing in terms of the battery capacity of the two models. I put the Pixel 4 XL through the paces in all three display modes, testing the battery life at 60Hz, 90Hz auto, and 90Hz forced refresh rates.

Unfortunately, as expected, the results aren’t too fantastic. The device that we should be comparing things to is the OnePlus 7 Pro – both devices feature 1440p 90Hz displays with the same SoC, it’s just that the Pixel 4 XL has a smaller battery at 3700mAh. While the Pixel 4 XL is lagging behind the OP7Pro, the interesting thing is that Google’s 90Hz seemingly uses less of a power hit than OnePlus’ implementation, degrading by 7.7% versus 8.7% when comparing full 90Hz versus 60Hz.

Given the results and the fact that Google dual-sources with LG, I very much doubt the Pixel 4 XL is taking advantage of Samsung’s newest more efficient OLED emitter generation which is said to be 15% more efficient.

In PCMark, the results are also average to bad. 60Hz to full 90Hz incurs a 12.3% penalty, which is again slightly less than the 13.6% of the OnePlus 7 Pro. Naturally we can’t come to a conclusion of saying Google’s 90Hz is more efficient, maybe OnePlus’ 60Hz power management is just better implemented.

Battery Life Conclusion - Average to meagre, still useable for the 4 XL

Overall, the Pixel 4 XL’s battery life isn’t very competitive. It’s amongst the worst results we’ve had for a 2019 device. I have to be accountable to myself here as whilst the phone has worse battery life than the OP7Pro, it’s not that much worse. Having said that the OP7Pro battery life was still completely useable, the Pixel 4 XL is also still very useable as it is. The problem again is that the Pixel came 6 months later, and in the face of a new iPhone generation which brought immense leaps in battery life, the Pixel 4 XL doesn’t seem to be that wise a purchase.

I really find it unfortunate that we weren’t able to test the battery life of the smaller Pixel 4. This model’s 2800mAh battery is 25% smaller and also comes with the wildcard of having an LG panel which historically have always been less power efficient. I can easily imagine that the battery life of that model is outright disastrous, and given coverage by other reviewers, it seem this would be an apt description of the situation.

Camera - Daylight Evaluation

Naturally, the main selling point of the Pixel series is the phone’s camera(s). Google puts a lot of thought into the software processing of the Pixel’s camera and it’s able to differentiate itself by means of software trickery. The Pixel 4 this year upgrade the main camera sensor to a new unit which features better noise handling and dynamic range, and Google also claims to have improved the HDR+ algorithm for daylight pictures. Let’s see if this pans out.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

In the first scene, the one thing that immediately pops out is that the Pixel 4’s colour temperature is a lot warmer than the Pixel 3’s. Unfortunately, this is a degradation as the scene is too warm and the sky starts to become far to grey compared to the actual scene.

The composition and exposure is otherwise extremely similar to that of the Pixel 3, which again for this particular scene, isn’t good because it’s far too dark and the scene is lacking highlights. Looking at the histogram of the picture we see there’s barely any content in the last 20% of the levels even though we’re capturing this on a clear sky with bright sun. The left building in particular is very muted on the Pixel compared to the more representative results of the iPhone 11 or Galaxy S10.

On the new telephoto lens, colour temperature is also off. The exposure and composition is extremely similar to the iPhone 11 here, both suffering from limited dynamic range compared to the S10.

Cropping on the viewfinder and taking super resolution zoom photos, we can see that the Pixel 4 XL does better than other phones with just 2x optical magnification, however when viewing the picture at its native resolution we still clearly see we’re a ways off from achieving equivalence to a higher optical magnification module such as the 3x zoom module on the Mate 30 Pro.

Detail on both the main and telephoto cameras are comparable and competitive with the best phones out there.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

In this shot, the Pixel 4 is able to showcase its higher dynamic range compared to the Pixel 3. The phone has better exposure and the shadows are much better defined. It’s still behind the iPhone and in particularly the S10’s, at least the Snapdragon variant as the Exynos fell flat on its face with the local tone mapping of the HDR processing.

The colour temperature of the telephoto again is off here as it’s much too warm and the highlights are again a bit weak given the sunlight.

In the maximum zoom at 8x, again, the Pixel 4 is able to showcase an advantage in quality over other 2x units such as from Samsung and Apple, but the benefit is relatively limited as it again falls behind Huawei’s 3x module.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

While maintaining a relatively similar signature, the Pixel 4 here is able to showcase better dynamic range compared to the Pixel 3; it’s able to more accurately resolve the trees in the scene and actually capture the leaves while the P3’s shadows were quite crushed. The iPhone does better with the foreground brightness while the Snapdragon S10 further has the best dynamic range in the background elements.

Again for the telephoto module, Google’s super zoom is a benefit along with the 16MP higher resolution sensor, however it’s again not comparable to a sensor with higher magnification.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

This shot was taken facing the sun which is always a very tough situation for most cameras. Google’s worst attribute here is again the colour temperature is warmer than it should be and also a degradation compared to the Pixel 3. We notice the much-improved dynamic range in the shadows. Google here opts to raise the shadows more while Apple was better able to supress the halo of the sun. Samsung still remains ahead as it’s able to do both. We see similar results in the telephoto shots.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The scene here had a lot of contrast in it comparing the sunlit left side versus the dark and shadow-cast right. It’s a good example of the differences between the shadow handling between the Pixel 4 and 3. Previously, the Pixel 3 would just clip things to black with too dark shadows, whilst the Pixel 4 is making efforts to actually retain the scene. This hits some limits as we’re seeing extremely pronounced noise in the P4’s result. Samsung has issues with shadows on the S10/S while the S10/E has very blurry details. Apple and Huawei both have the best overall results.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

Facing away from the sun the results aren’t quite as drastically different. The Pixel 4 is competitive but I think the iPhone produces the overall best results here.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ]

The Pixel 3’s sky here is again just more blue and in line with what other phones are capturing, whilst the P4’s rendition is warmer.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The Pixel 4’s most obvious change here is again better shadow renditions and more visible presence of the trees. Again very conservative conservation of highlights compared to Apple and Samsung, most notable in the trees and leaves.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The forest is also a strenuous test for detail retention. The Pixel phones here have the best behaviour as they do not suffer from HDR merging issues or from degrading noise reduction filters, and are able to retain the details of the leaves throughout the scene.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

In this next shot in easier indoor lighting, differences between the phones again diminish. Again for me the issue here is again colour temperature as things are yet again too warm and the yellows are too strong.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The Pixel 4’s dynamic range here is again evident as it’s able to much better preserve the shadows. The composition and colours are very close to the iPhone 11.

Camera Daylight Conclusion

Overall, the Pixel 4’s camera performance was a relatively mixed bag for me. The biggest downside in my opinion was that the phone had a ton of scenarios where it simply got the colour temperature wrong. This is a bit ironic because it’s one of the key points Google made about the new Pixel 4 camera software which is meant to use machine learning to better identify scenes. I just didn’t see the benefit in my time with the phone and more often than not it reproduced more inaccurate colours than the Pixel 3.

Where the P4 definitely made a big upgrade is in the dynamic range ability of the new sensor. The P2 and P3’s lack of shadow detail was for me the one of the phone’s largest weaknesses as I just wasn’t very fan of the captures. There’s actually a lot of people who were fan of this look because it looked more “contrasty”, with some vendors such as OnePlus even going as far as degrading their cameras in software updates and destroying shadow detail just to copy the past Pixel’s look. I’m really glad that Google has fixed this aspect of the Pixel camera and I think it’s a notable upgrade for the picture quality.

In terms of detail, the Pixel 4 does very well. There’s not much difference to the P3, and you’d also have to go pixel peeping to see major differences compared to Apple and Samsung. There’s going to be more differences in the HDR tone-mapping, and Google is falling behind a bit in terms of the dynamic range it can capture compared to the competition.

The telephoto module on the Pixel 4 is ok. A lot of the times it suffered similar colour temperature issues as the main sensor, and it’s also quite weaker in dynamic range compared to the S10 and iPhone 11’s telephoto cameras. The detail of the 16MP sensor is very good, and the inclusion of super zoom does improve digital zooming results, however I wouldn’t say it goes far enough as to it being a definitive competitive advantage as it’s not that major in terms of quality leap – Huawei’s 3x telephoto unit for example is clearly a better sensor.

My biggest problem with the Pixel 4 camera was the capture experience. The phone really needed to somehow impress me with the telephoto module in order for me to be able to rationalise Google’s decision of not adopting an ultra-wide-angle lens. The best anecdote I can talk about here is my own experience at Google’s launch event in New York. As I was visiting the city and walking down the streets with the Pixel 4 in one pocket and the S10 in the other, I found myself taking essentially all my shots with the S10, with most of them using the UWA simply because the city’s impressive buildings and skyline was just impossible to capture and properly frame on a regular angle camera module. LG, Samsung, and Apple all have figured out that the UWA takes precedence over the telephoto module if having to make a choice between the two, and in this regard, it feels like Google is still stuck in 2017/2018, and the omission is a definitive mistake for the Pixel 4.

Camera - Low Light Evaluation

Night-time photography was starting with the Pixel 3 and the introduction of Night Sight, one of Google’s fortes. The new Pixel 4 is able to improve in this aspect through a few different means: A new and improved camera sensor, a larger lens aperture to capture more light, and a new Night Sight algorithm that promises to improve and iterate upon the existing implementation.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ S10+ (S) ] - [ S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

Starting off with the first sample, the differences to the Pixel 3 are quite minor. Besides the different colour of the lighting, the overall composition of the scene and details are pretty much the same between both phones. There is a difference in noise levels between the two, but it’s hard to conclude any one is better than the other.

The Pixels still lead Samsung’s devices, but Apple and Huawei are ahead of the Pixel 4 in terms of detail retention.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ S10+ (S) ] - [ S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ]

In the next shot the differences between the Pixel 4 and 3 are more evident. The new phone has better dynamic range and thus is able to resolve more information in the darker shadows of the scene, such as the main buildings facades.

Apple’s night mode didn’t trigger here which leaves Huawei’s devices as the contenders.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ S10+ (S) ] - [ S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ]
[ Xperia 1 ]

We’re only seeing minor differences in the P3 <> P4 comparison here. The P4 has slightly better shadow detail and noise handling. Google, Samsung and Huawei all produce great results as Apple falls behind here as again Night Mode doesn’t trigger.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The darker it gets, the more evident the improvements of the Pixel 4. The new phone here holds a clear edge over the Pixel 3. The result is actually not that far off from the Exynos S10, with the Pixel having slightly better noise handling. The Snapdragon S10’s night mode seems to continue to be algorithmically inferior. The iPhone 11 is able to get a lot of detail out of the visible areas, but algorithmically isn’t able to extract much light out of the shadows which remain pitch black. Of course, Huawei’s large RYYB sensor is able to capture a stupid amount of light.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (S) ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (E) ] - [ iPhone 11 Pro ]
[ Mate 30 Pro ] - [ P30 Pro ]
[ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The phones here are quite in line. The Pixel 4 has an edge in detail which it shares with the Huawei phones, with Apple and Samsung closely behind.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

The Pixel 4 is able to get a little bit more light than the P3 but it’s not too much a major upgrade. Google lags behind Apple in terms of detail here as the iPhone is able to get a much sharper picture, although lacking details in the darker areas where the sensor just doesn’t pick up any light.

[ Pixel 4 ] - [ Pixel 3 ]
[ Galaxy S10+ (S) ] - [ Galaxy S10+ (E) ]
[ iPhone 11 Pro ] - [ Mate 30 Pro ]
[ P30 Pro ] - [ G8X ] - [ Xperia 1 ]

This last shot again showcases the Pixel 4’s better light capture ability as it’s able to notably turn down the ISO levels compared to the Pixel 3, with the resulting shot being significantly sharper. The Pixel 4 is far ahead Samsung and Apple, only trading blows with Huawei.

Low-Light Conclusion – Excellent Upgrades

Overall, the low-light ability of the Pixel 4 is closely tied to how Night Sight performs. Google’s camera here is excellent and the algorithm tweaks are augmented by new main sensor which is able to reduce noise levels more significantly. The differences between the Pixel 4 and Pixel 3 grow the darker it gets as the latter’s sensor just isn’t able to capture enough light.

Google and Apple are battling with each other over their implementations. Sometimes Apple gets the better and sharper shots, however this only ever rarely happens as Night Sight generally provides the better results and isn’t limited by an uncontrollable automatic activation such as on the iPhone 11. Samsung Exynos devices are closely following the Pixel 4 in terms of quality. Huawei generally still has the low-light leadership amongst current flagships.

One aspect that I didn’t test in this review was astrophotography. The reason for this was pretty stupid but also very revealing of the feature’s real-world usability: I wasn’t able to get out of my city’s light pollution area and 90% of the nights since I’ve had the phone were under cloud cover. Whilst I’m sure there’s other people who’ll be able to take advantage of the feature for some good shots, it’s also pretty much a gimmick given its very limited usability.

Video Recording

Conclusion & End Remarks

We’re are the end of 2019 and the Pixel 4 is amongst the last devices released this generation. I’ll be fully honest here and say that the expectations for the phone for me weren’t all that great, something quite unfortunate to say for any product but just a fact of reality given Google’s Pixel track record of hit and miss. What Google needed to provide was not just being able to deliver on their vision of a camera-centric phone, but also be able to execute on all the other core aspects that make a phone. So, did Google manage it this time around?

Design-wise, the Google Pixel 4 is quite different from what we’ve seen from the recent competition. Much like previous iterations of Pixel devices, there’s a certain uniqueness about the industrial design of the phone that doesn’t match up with other phones in the market. The Pixel 4 in particular is unique in terms of its frame and the finish of this detail. The matte back glass (On the white & orange variants, the black on is glossy) along with the matte frame make for an interesting in-hand feel that makes it stand out from the standard glossy and slippery designs out there. I think it works well for the phone. What I didn’t like about it is that the ergonomics have regressed this year. No longer having a rounded off back means the phone feels thicker and bigger in the hand.

Google’s choice of going with a regular larger “forehead” design works well, at least certainly a lot better than past notch designs. Google has populated this area with a variety of sensors, the two most notable functions being the device’s face unlock hardware as well as the new Project Soli radar. The face unlock is well implemented and is fast, but I would have wished Google had also gone for an optional fingerprint scanner. It feels like this design decision was made in 2017 or early 2018 in response to Apple and before under-screen fingerprint sensors started to become the standard.

Project Soli, other than facillitating the face unlock function response time, feels like a gimmick. It’s been attempted and implemented in the past, and even LG’s recent attempt in the G8 was honestly underwhelming and quite pointless. Google’s promotional videos of Project Soli certainly aren’t representative of how it’s implemented in the Pixel 4, and its uses are extremely limited.

The screen of the Pixel 4 is a major feature thanks to its 90Hz refresh rate. On the Pixel 4 XL we tested, it worked quite flawlessly, although there’s concerns about Google’s power management and how it currently automatically switches to 60Hz when under 75% brightness. It’s easy to force the phone 90Hz all the time and the battery hit is (In the grand scheme of things) minor.

The display panel itself is good, although it’s definitely not an “A+ grade” as Google wants to promote it as. The first hurdle is that it doesn’t get very bright and maxes out at 436 nits – quite significantly below any other flagship this year. Colour calibration is adequate enough and definitely an improvement over past Pixel devices, but with still some evident issues such as non-linear gamma or in our case a green tint to the colour balance.

Performance of the Pixel 4 was excellent, but nothing that differed too majorly from other good implementations of the Snapdragon 855. GPU performance was average and also in line with what we’ve seen from other S885 phones. It’s just a pity that Google is on this weird product cycle where they release their newest flagships at the tail-end of a SoC generation. I’m having a hard time justifying Pixel phones at their price range knowing well that you’re not getting the fullest return on investment over initial lifetime of a device.

The camera on the Pixel 4 is inarguably its main selling point. Google has made definitive improvements to the camera quality with the newer generation sensor and the new HDR+ algorithm – the most notable change being that the new camera no longer has such a poor grip on shadows, and showcases improved dynamic range. Whilst it was meant to be a feature of the Pixel 4, Google’s new colour balance algorithm this time around had more misses than hits, with a tendency of producing too warm pictures.

In low-light, the new camera sensor upgrade is again visible as it’s able to achieve lower noise levels when having to capture more of a scene when in lack of light. In general, while the upgrades are good and healthy, it’s naturally not as big an upgrade and jump compared to when Google first introduced Night Sight.

The telephoto module of the Pixel 4 is ok. The quality is good, but sometimes suffers from a lack of dynamic range as well as inaccurate colour balance. Super-zoom is a positive feature of the camera, but I feel like Google is maybe overstating its use and quality impact. In general, the Pixel 4’s camera is about equivalent to a 2.5x telephoto module in terms of the spatial resolution it’s able to produce in zoomed in images.

The problem for me is, that I have a hard time actually really differentiating the Pixel cameras to what other vendors are offering. Google has some edges here and there in the processing, but sometimes also falls behind. Generally, I feel that Google hasn’t caught up with Samsung, Huawei and Apple in the capture experience. The choice of going with a telephoto module instead of a wide-angle is I think a mistake for the average user. When you’re the only company in 2019 to not adopt a UWA module, it should give you pause to think.

Finally, the biggest draw-back of the Pixel 4 series in our testing was the battery life. There’s no mistake whom to blame here: adopting 90Hz whilst still featuring second-rate display panels and combining this with stagnant or even smaller battery capacities is a deadly combination for battery life, and there shouldn’t be any surprises that the Pixel 4s don’t fare well. In our testing with the 4 XL, the absolute end results are still somewhat adequate and the phone is still useable, but it just doesn’t compete with any other 2019 flagship. The regular Pixel 4 is likely a disaster.

Overall, the Pixel 4 frankly feels more like a device that would have been extremely successful if it had been released in 2018. Google releasing the phone this late in 2019 for prices of $799 for the regular version and $899 for the XL version just doesn’t make much sense. Those are also 64GB base variant versions by the way, you’ll have to pay an extra $100 for the 128GB models. I just can’t rationalise recommending the phones to anyone at their current price and given their compromises – Google has to either design and execute better, or give up on pretending they’re competing in the premium flagship segment and launch with prices about 25-30% lower.