Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarOppo A72 Smartphone Review - The affordable Oppo smartphone turns out an endurance champion
At a recommended retail price of 249 Euros (~$293), buyers of the Oppo A72 will receive a solid mid-range smartphone. The Oppo smartphone with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 chip offers a 1080p IPS panel with a 6.5-inch display diagonal and a 60 Hz refresh rate, as well as a modern punch-hole design and a quad-camera module on the back. The A72 offers 128 GB of internal UFS storage and 4 GB of working memory.
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77.3 % | 08/2020 | Oppo A72 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.8 % | 07/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M31 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
| 82.9 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.6 % | 06/2020 | Realme 6 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 |
Case - Oppo A72 with a hollow back
The 6.5-inch display has a punch-hole camera, providing the Oppo smartphone with a display-to-surface ratio of more than 83%, which is relatively generous for a smartphone of this price segment. However, with a weight of 192 grams (~6.8 oz) and thickness of 8.9 mm (~0.35 in), the A72 does not feel particularly good in the hand.
The slightly curved back is available in the colors "Twilight Black" and "Aurora Purple" and is made of plastic that does not feel very high-quality. This feeling is emphasized by the hollow back and the plastic frame. The hollow space below the plastic back turns out so massive in the Oppo A72 that the back can be pressed in by what feels like several millimeters. You can even feel a small hollow on the edges.
The impression of the deficit in the workmanship is further increased by the wobbly On/Off key, which also holds the integrated fingerprint sensor. The volume keys, on the other hand, show good workmanship.
Equipment - Oppo smartphone with a 3.5 mm audio port
The equipment of the Oppo A72 includes a 3.5-mm audio port, dual-SIM functionality with the ability to expand the storage via microSD card, Miracast, and USB OTG. Video content on streaming services can be viewed in HD quality on the mid-range smartphone, since Widevine is specified as Level 1.
Software - Oppo A72 with Android 10
The Oppo smartphone includes Google's Android version 10, which is expanded by the manufacturer's own ColorOS 7.1 user interface. At the time of our test, the security patches are at the level of March 2020.
Communication and GPS - Oppo smartphone with accurate GPS
The dual-SIM smartphone supports 19 LTE bands, which is very good for this price class. There is an NFC chip for wireless communication with peripheral devices. In addition, the Oppo smartphone supports Bluetooth version 5.0.
The transfer speeds we measured between the integrated WLAN module, which supports the IEEE-802.11a/b/g/n/ac standards, and our Netgear Nighthawk AX12 reference router are at a solid level, even if those of the Redmi Note 9 Pro turn out to be significantly better.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
In order to evaluate the locating accuracy of our test unit in practice, we record a route in parallel with the Garmin Edge 500 GPS bike computer for comparison. At 40 meters, the computed deviations of the GPS modules are relatively low. Although the route recorded by the A72 was besides the actual route at times, there is nothing in the way of using the Oppo smartphone for navigation. The position determination using the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and BeiDou satellite systems happens fairly fast.
Telephone Functions and Voice Quality - Inconspicuous Oppo A72
The voice quality is at a decent level. We find a Wi-Fi-calling option in the settings, and an option for Voice over LTE (VoLTE), which allows making voice calls using the 4G net, is also supported.
Cameras - Oppo smartphone with a quad-cam module
Selfies taken with the 16-MP front camera lack sharpness, and the front camera struggles with exposure even under an overcast sky.
The strengths of the main camera's 48-MP sensor also do not include the selection of the right exposure, and the relatively low photo sharpness only allows you to guess the image details. Yet the shots of the Oppo A72 are at a good level for this price range, and the object is illuminated fairly well even in the dark. However, low-light photos are not one of the strengths of the Oppo smartphone, since they turn out fairly blurry and grainy.
We liked the 8-MP ultra wide-angle lens less. During daylight, there are hardly any noticeable details in the images, they are blurry, and the noise level is high even in daylight. Here the A72 follows the bad ultra wide-angle qualities of the Oppo Find X2 Neo and Find X2 Lite models.
In terms of videos, recording in UHD is possible, but only at 30 fps. The 16-MP camera in front can record video at 1080p.
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Wide-angleLow lightUltra wide-angleWide-angle5x zoom
Accessories and Warranty - Oppo A72 with a protective case
Included with the Oppo A72 are a modular 18-Watt charger, a USB cable, headphones, and a protective silicone case.
The warranty period covers 24 months beginning from the purchase date.
Input Devices and Operation - Oppo smartphone with a fingerprint sensor on the side
The capacitive multi-touchscreen recognizes input quickly and accurately. However, the relatively bad lipophobic coating of the Oppo smartphone is very noticeable, since it preserves the fingerprints on the panel well.
The active fingerprint sensor located in the power button of the A72 is neither among the fastest nor most accurate sensors on the market. The 2D face unlock function is a bit faster here, but this also means that the fingerprint sensor (even during the recognition) often deactivates as soon as the user is recognized by the front camera, necessitating an additional swiping gesture in order to avoid the start screen.
Display - Oppo smartphone with IPS
With a resolution of 2440x1080 pixels and a diagonal of 6.5 inches, the IPS panel of the Oppo A72 achieves a pixel density of 411 ppi, which ensures sufficiently sharp display contents with regular usage and viewing distance. The combination of an LCD display and the punch-hole design also creates some small shadows and clouding in the area of the front camera.
The maximum brightness of 505 cd/m² that we measured is (still) satisfactory for an affordable 2020 mid-range smartphone, but some of the competitors are significantly brighter in our measurements. The realistic APL50 test (Average Picture Level) with evenly distributed bright and dark areas does not change that fact either (463 cd/m²).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 505 cd/m²
Contrast: 918:1 (Black: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
| Oppo A72 IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Samsung Galaxy M31 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.40 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Realme 6 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 36% | 45% | 7% | |
| Brightness middle | 505 | 622 23% | 610 21% | 442 -12% |
| Brightness | 482 | 615 28% | 579 20% | 419 -13% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 97 4% | 92 -1% | 90 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.55 | 0.37 33% | 0.37 33% | |
| Contrast | 918 | 1649 80% | 1195 30% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.3 | 2.25 64% | 1.8 71% | 6.1 3% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.1 | 6.22 38% | 3 70% | 9.7 4% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.8 | 2.7 60% | 2.5 63% | 5.9 13% |
| Gamma | 2.29 96% | 2.019 109% | 2.31 95% | 2.35 94% |
| CCT | 8161 80% | 6810 95% | 6864 95% | 7631 85% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
At 0.55 cd/m², the black value of the panel is slightly high, resulting in a contrast ratio of less than 1000:1, which is too small, considering the competitors. In the realistic APL50 test, we measure a black value of 0.57 cd/m², which slightly reduces the contrast ratio even more.
We evaluate the color reproduction of the display by using the X-Rite i1pro 2 photo spectrometer and the CalMAN analysis software. The average Delta-E deviations in the grayscale and the mixed colors are acceptable for this price class, but the competitors from Xiaomi and Samsung are also within the ideal target range of <3 here.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 22.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 40.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 58 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
On sunny days, the panel in the Oppo A72 does not offer sufficient brightness to read the display contents without any trouble. On the other hand, the viewing-angle stability is good.
Performance - Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 and 4 GB of RAM
The Qualcomm SoC inside the Oppo smartphone has 8 cores, which are arranged in two clusters. The four Cortex-A73 cores (Kryo 260 Gold) have a clock speed of up to 2 GHz, while the rest of the Cortex-A53 cores (Kryo 260 Silver) operate at a clock speed of up to 1.8 GHz. The integrated graphics unit is an Adreno 610.
The Snapdragon 665 ensures a satisfactory system performance, and the navigation of the Android user interface runs to a large extent smoothly. However, some repeated delays are noticeable. In the benchmarks, the A72 chipset in combination with the 4 GB of RAM does not perform at the same level as the Android competitors we included in our test. Particularly the much better performing Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G in the Redmi Note 9 Pro and the realme 6 Pro show the performance limitations of the Oppo smartphone. In everyday operation, the Note 9 Pro also feels more responsive.
Considering the storage type, the internal UFS-2.1 storage of the A72 is below average, and the speed of the card slot is also relatively slow.
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (15 - 34, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (19 - 20, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (10 - 27, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (13 - 13, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (167305 - 181432, n=9) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (22.9 - 31.2, n=6) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (25.4 - 30.8, n=6) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6133 - 9671, n=9) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4434 - 6719, n=9) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Oppo A72 | Samsung Galaxy M31 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | Realme 6 Pro | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 30% | 19% | 40% | 45% | 184% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 504 | 489.5 -3% | 498.1 -1% | 513 2% | 760 ? 51% | 1508 ? 199% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 234.6 | 221.7 -5% | 171.1 -27% | 203.3 -13% | 297 ? 27% | 1118 ? 377% |
| Random Read 4KB | 135.9 | 128.9 -5% | 122.6 -10% | 158.7 17% | 152.9 ? 13% | 247 ? 82% |
| Random Write 4KB | 152.9 | 152.4 0% | 112.9 -26% | 154 1% | 131.6 ? -14% | 272 ? 78% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 37.76 ? | 74.5 ? 97% | 76.7 ? 103% | 86.4 ? 129% | 76 ? 101% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 31.2 ? | 60.8 ? 95% | 54.9 ? 76% | 63.4 ? 103% | 59.6 ? 91% |
Games - The Oppo smartphone with the Adreno 610 is not a gaming phone
In 2020, the Adreno 610 cannot be attested with a high performance and correspondingly high frame rates anymore. More-demanding 3D games from the Android Play Store, such as PUBG Mobile or Asphalt 9 Legends, are not smoothly playable at high graphics detail settings anymore. Even at minimum detail settings, some significant frame-rate drops are noticeable.
Thanks to the satisfactory accuracy of the display and sensors that work well, the control responds to input successfully without any problems.
Emissions - The A72 remains cool
Temperature
The surface temperatures turn out low in our measurements. At 36 °C (97 °F), the temperature development under load is hardly noticeable.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.8 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.8 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speakers
Even though the A72 is an affordable mid-range smartphone, it has two speakers that produce a maximum volume of almost 86 dB(A). The quality of the speakers is satisfactory, but the Oppo smartphone loses its power with very high frequencies. The sound spectrum is dominated by middle frequencies, which are reproduced linearly.
To connect headphones, you can either use the 3.5-mm audio port, which does not add any noise, or Bluetooth 5.0.
Oppo A72 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery Life - An Oppo smartphone with a long battery life
Power Consumption
Using the included 18-Watt charger, the 5000 mAh battery can be completely recharged in almost two hours. Compared to the competitors, the power consumption of the A72 turns out to be low.
| Off / Standby |   0.02 / 0.24 Watt |
| Idle |  0.7 / 1.97 / 1.98 Watt |
| Load |
3.83 / 6.2 Watt |
    
| |
| Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -72% | -6% | -16% | -13% | -13% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.7 | 1.6 -129% | 0.75 -7% | 0.92 -31% | 1.017 ? -45% | 0.897 ? -28% |
| Idle Average * | 1.97 | 2.3 -17% | 2.19 -11% | 1.79 9% | 1.893 ? 4% | 1.452 ? 26% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.98 | 3.7 -87% | 2.24 -13% | 1.88 5% | 2.36 ? -19% | 1.629 ? 18% |
| Load Average * | 3.83 | 6.7 -75% | 3.88 -1% | 5.41 -41% | 3.77 ? 2% | 5.55 ? -45% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.2 | 9.4 -52% | 5.97 4% | 7.59 -22% | 6.66 ? -7% | 8.31 ? -34% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
In our WLAN test with an adjusted brightness, the Oppo A72 lasts for almost 17 hours. This is a very good value, even if the competitors do better.
| Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 1018 | 1324 30% | 1175 15% | 1031 1% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict on the Oppo A72 - A lot of equipment combined with weak haptics
Oppo does a lot of things right with its affordable mid-range smartphone, but there are also some things not done right. Despite the affordable price, the design is modern, even if the display bezels turn out relatively large. The list of hardware equipment is long. The A72 offers a very long battery life and a solid main camera that scores unexpectedly well particularly in the low-light area.
However, the Chinese manufacturer made some blunders in several areas that play an important role in everyday use. The system performance of the Snapdragon 665 being low compared to the competitors might still be tolerated, since for non-gamers, the A72 offers really sufficient reserves for everyday tasks, as long as the user is not too demanding. The IPS panel with its weaknesses (clouding, shade forming) is not even 100% convincing in this price range, because the Samsung Galaxy M31, as well as Redmi's Note 9 Pro, are brighter and offer significantly more contrast. Where the Oppo A72 really needs some improvement is the impression of low quality given by the thin and hollow plastic back.
However, for those who cover their smartphone with a case anyway, our largest issue of complaint might not make any difference.
Oppo A72
-
07/21/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich
Pricecompare
