Vivo Y300i VS Vivo Y300t

The Vivo Y300i and Vivo Y300t are nearly identical in design, sharing the same 165.7 mm height, 8.1 mm thickness, and IP64 water and dust resistance rating — meaning both can handle splashes and light rain but are not suited for submersion. Neither features a rugged build or foldable form factor, placing them firmly in the standard slab category.

The only measurable physical differences lie in width and weight: the Y300t is 1 mm wider (76.3 mm vs. 75.3 mm), resulting in a marginally larger volume of 102.4 cm³ compared to the Y300i's 101.1 cm³. The weight gap is negligible — 204 g vs. 205 g — a difference that is imperceptible in everyday handling.

In practical terms, these two devices are essentially design twins. The Y300i is very slightly narrower, which could matter at the margins for users with smaller hands or those prioritizing one-handed usability, but the difference is so minimal that it should not be a deciding factor. This group is effectively a tie, with no meaningful real-world design advantage for either model.

Both phones use an LCD IPS panel with a 120Hz refresh rate, delivering smooth scrolling and responsive touch input at the same level. Their screen sizes are nearly identical — 6.68″ on the Y300i versus 6.72″ on the Y300t — so real-world viewing area is comparable. Neither device offers HDR support or damage-resistant glass, which is a shared limitation at this price tier.

Where these two displays diverge significantly is resolution. The Y300t's 1080 x 2408 px panel at 393 ppi is a substantial step above the Y300i's 720 x 1608 px at 264 ppi. In practice, that gap is visible: text appears noticeably crisper on the Y300t, fine details in images are better rendered, and on-screen content generally looks sharper. At 264 ppi, individual pixels can become discernible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances, whereas 393 ppi comfortably exceeds the threshold where pixel structure becomes imperceptible.

The Vivo Y300t holds a clear advantage in this category. The refresh rate parity means neither phone has an edge in smoothness, but the Y300t's full HD+ resolution makes a tangible, everyday difference for reading, media consumption, and general use — making it the stronger display choice of the two.

On the surface, these two devices look evenly matched — identical 512GB storage, 12GB RAM, 4nm fabrication, and DDR5 memory. Dig deeper, though, and meaningful differences emerge. The Y300t's MediaTek Dimensity 7300 pairs four performance cores at 2.5 GHz with four efficiency cores at 2.0 GHz, while the Y300i's Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 leads with only two cores at 2.3 GHz and six at 2.0 GHz. In sustained multi-threaded workloads — app loading, multitasking, video processing — the Y300t's configuration delivers more raw peak throughput.

The RAM speed gap is striking: the Y300t operates at 6400 MHz versus the Y300i's 3200 MHz — exactly double the memory bandwidth. This directly benefits tasks that are memory-bound, such as launching heavy apps, switching between multiple applications, and GPU-accelerated operations. Speaking of GPU, the Y300t's Mali G615 MC2 runs at a higher clock of 1047 MHz compared to the Y300i's Adreno 613 at 955 MHz, giving it a modest graphics edge for gaming and UI rendering. One area where the Y300i stands out is its support for 2 external displays versus the Y300t's single display output — a niche but real advantage for productivity use cases.

Overall, the Vivo Y300t holds the performance edge here. The combination of faster peak CPU cores, double the RAM bandwidth, and a higher GPU clock makes it the more capable chip in everyday and demanding scenarios alike, with the Y300i's dual-display support being the one spec that tips in its favor for a specific subset of users.

The primary cameras share a 50 MP main sensor, but the Y300t extends its rear system with an additional 2 MP secondary lens, making it a dual-camera setup versus the Y300i's single shooter. More impactful than the extra lens, however, is the video recording capability: the Y300t tops out at 4K (2160p) at 30fps, while the Y300i is capped at 1080p at 30fps. For anyone who values video quality — whether for social content, travel footage, or preserving memories — that is a concrete, significant difference.

On the front, the Y300t again pulls ahead with an 8 MP selfie camera versus the Y300i's 5 MP, offering greater detail in portraits and video calls. The front aperture is marginally narrower on the Y300t (f/2.1 vs. f/2.0), but the resolution advantage outweighs that negligible difference in light intake. Both phones share an extensive and identical feature set for manual controls — ISO, focus, exposure, white balance — along with HDR mode, panorama, and slow-motion, so neither has an edge in shooting flexibility.

The Vivo Y300t is the clear winner in this category. The jump to 4K video recording alone sets it apart, and the higher-resolution front camera reinforces its advantage for users who prioritize camera output. The Y300i's camera system is competent but outclassed on the two metrics that matter most for everyday shooting.

Running identical software stacks, the Vivo Y300i and Y300t are complete mirrors of each other in this category. Both ship with Android 15 and offer the same breadth of features: dynamic theming, dark mode, split-screen multitasking, picture-in-picture, on-device machine learning, offline voice recognition, and a robust set of privacy controls covering location, camera, and microphone access. Neither device receives direct OS updates, which is a shared limitation worth noting for long-term software support expectations.

This is a straightforward tie — every single spec in this group is identical across both devices. No differentiation exists here, and the choice between the two should rest entirely on the hardware differences covered in other categories.

Battery is another category where the two devices are perfectly matched. Both carry a substantial 6500 mAh cell — well above the mainstream smartphone average — and both support 44W fast charging. A capacity this large comfortably targets all-day and into-two-day battery life for moderate users, making top-up anxiety largely a non-issue for either phone.

Neither device offers wireless charging, and neither has a removable battery, which are shared trade-offs typical at this segment. The 44W charging speed is a reasonable middle ground — fast enough to meaningfully replenish the large cell in a reasonable timeframe, though not in the league of the fastest wired charging available on higher-end devices.

This category is a complete tie. Every battery-related specification is identical, so endurance and charging behavior will be effectively indistinguishable between the two phones in real-world use. Battery life should not factor into a decision between these two models.

Audio is the one category in this comparison where each phone takes a distinctly different approach, and the trade-offs are real. The Y300i offers a 3.5mm headphone jack, stereo speakers, and a built-in FM radio — a combination that prioritizes versatility and speaker output for everyday, wired, and broadcast listening. The Y300t, by contrast, drops all three of those features and instead focuses on wireless audio quality, supporting both aptX and aptX HD codecs for Bluetooth headphones.

What this means practically: the Y300i is the stronger choice for users who rely on wired headphones, want richer loudspeaker sound from stereo output, or occasionally tune into FM broadcasts. The Y300t's aptX HD support, on the other hand, enables higher-resolution wireless audio transmission compared to standard Bluetooth — a meaningful upgrade for users with compatible wireless headphones who care about audio fidelity without a cable. However, without stereo speakers or a headphone jack, the Y300t is more dependent on Bluetooth audio gear to deliver a quality listening experience.

There is no single winner here — the result depends entirely on the user's listening habits. The Vivo Y300i has the edge for speaker and wired audio use cases, while the Vivo Y300t serves wireless audio enthusiasts better. Users who primarily use wired headphones or value loudspeaker quality should lean toward the Y300i; those invested in a wireless audio setup with quality Bluetooth headphones will find the Y300t's codec support more relevant.

Beneath a shared foundation of 5G, dual SIM, NFC, USB-C, and Wi-Fi 5, the Y300t pulls ahead in several connectivity areas. Its Bluetooth 5.4 is a substantial generational leap over the Y300i's Bluetooth 4.2, translating to better range, more stable connections, lower power consumption, and improved support for modern wireless accessories. The Y300t also adds a microSD card slot — absent on the Y300i — which is a meaningful practical advantage, allowing users to expand beyond the built-in 512GB or swap storage between devices.

The cellular speed gap is equally notable. Both support 5G, but the Y300t's upload speed reaches 3270 Mbits/s versus the Y300i's 900 Mbits/s — more than three times faster. For users who frequently upload large files, stream live video, or use cloud backup heavily, that difference is tangible. Download speeds also favor the Y300t at 3270 Mbits/s compared to 2500 Mbits/s. On sensors, the Y300t gains a gyroscope — useful for gaming, augmented reality, and accurate motion-based navigation — while the Y300i counters with an infrared sensor, handy for using the phone as a universal remote for TVs and appliances.

The Vivo Y300t holds a clear overall advantage in this category. The Bluetooth upgrade, expandable storage, and faster upload speeds are broadly useful improvements. The Y300i's infrared blaster is a niche but convenient feature that the Y300t lacks, but it does not offset the Y300t's wider connectivity gains for most users.

The miscellaneous specs for these two devices are completely identical — both include a video light and neither features sapphire glass, a curved display, or an e-paper display. There is nothing in this group that distinguishes one from the other. This category is a tie, and should play no role in a purchasing decision between the two models.