Notebookcheck

Oppo A52 Smartphone Review: cheaper, but not much weaker than its bigger brother A72

Price and performance. After the release of the A91, Oppo expanded its A series with the A72 and the 50-Euro (~$59) cheaper A52, both of which look identical at first glance. In our review, we examine the differences between the A72 and the A52 to find out whether the price cut offered by the A52 is worth it.
Inge Schwabe, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Stanislav Kokhanyuk),

The Oppo A52 has an MSRP of 199 Euros (~$235), which means that it is exactly 50 Euros (~$59) cheaper than the A72. Both smartphones offer different memory configurations and camera systems. However, in our review, we also examine the rest of the hardware. In this price range, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T and the Samsung Galaxy A21s are the two most notable competitors. The A21s does not feature a Qualcomm SoC and instead relies on Samsung’s proprietary Exynos CPU.

Oppo A52 (A Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.5 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 405 PPI, capacitive, 10-point multitouch, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 47.4 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm headphone jack, Card Reader: microSD with exFat support, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: geomagnetic sensor, proximity sensor, accelerometer, gravity sensor, gyroscope, USB-C
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850, 900, 1800, 1900 WCDMA: Band 1, 5, 8 LTE: Band 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.9 x 162 x 75.5 ( = 0.35 x 6.38 x 2.97 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Quad: 12MP (f/1.8) + 8MP ultra wide-angle (f/2.2, 13mm, 1/4.0", 1.12µm) + 2MP monochrome (f/2.4) + 2MP portrait (f/2.4); Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: stereo, Keyboard: virtual, Keyboard Light: yes, Oppo A52, power adapter, USB-C cable, headset, information packet and warranty card, quick start guide, SIM card removal tool, screen protector (already applied), protective case, ColorOS V7.1, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.44 W/kg, fanless
Weight
192 g ( = 6.77 oz / 0.42 pounds), Power Supply: 106 g ( = 3.74 oz / 0.23 pounds)
Price
199 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
77 %
09/2020
Oppo A52
SD 665, Adreno 610
192 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
77 %
08/2020
Oppo A72
SD 665, Adreno 610
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
79 %
01/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
SD 665, Adreno 610
200 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
76 %
08/2020
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2
192 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.5"1600x720

The Oppo A52 comes in the following colour schemes: Twilight Black and Stream White. Our review device features the latter colour scheme. There is a significant camera bump on the back. Putting on the transparent protective case, which is included in the box, will help ameliorate this issue. The glossy back shimmers with multiple colours when it is exposed to light. 

On the sides, there is a SIM card slot and a fingerprint sensor. On the bottom, there is a speaker grill, a microphone hole, a USB-C port and a 3.5-mm headphone jack. The housing of the A52 is very stiff. The A72 and the A52 have the same weight and dimensions. Weighing in at 192 grams, neither device is particularly light.

Size Comparison

163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs162 mm / 6.38 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs162 mm / 6.38 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs161.15 mm / 6.34 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs

Hardware Configuration – Oppo smartphone with stereo speakers

The A72, the A52 and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T feature a Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, 4 GB of RAM and an Adreno GPU. The Galaxy A21s offers only 3 GB of RAM. The A72 offers a quad-camera system with a 48-megapixel main sensor and 128 GB of internal memory, whereas the A52 packs a quad-camera system with a 12-megapixel main shooter and 64 GB of storage space. This means that the A52 offers only half as much storage as the A72. While the Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Note 8T have only one mono speaker, the A52 and its bigger brother A72 offer stereo speakers. 

Software - A52 comes with Oppo’s ColorOS

The A52 runs Android 10 with Oppo’s proprietary launcher known as ColorOS (version 7.1). Shortly after Google released Android 11, Oppo announced ColorOS 11, which is coming to the A52 in the fourth quarter.

The A52 features proprietary applications for music and video playback. Many other proprietary applications such as Oppo Relax, Game Space, Files and Phone Manager are also preinstalled. Additionally, we found some applications that should not be preinstalled such as the Opera browser and the ad-supported free version of OfficeSuite. 

Home screen
Home screen
Sidebar
Sidebar
Game Space
Game Space
All apps
All apps

Communication & Geolocation - A52 is suited for navigation

The A52 comes with Bluetooth 5.0. An NFS chip, which supports Google Pay, is also included. 

The dual SIM smartphone supports all the relevant LTE frequency bands (17 in total). With our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, all four competing devices achieve similar download and upload speeds. That being said, the Oppo smartphones are a tiny bit faster than the rest of the competition. 

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
347 (330min - 356max) MBit/s ∼100% +3%
Oppo A52
Adreno 610, SD 665, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
336 (289min - 344max) MBit/s ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
326 (280min - 333max) MBit/s ∼94% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Adreno 610, SD 665, 64 GB eMMC Flash
315 (157min - 352max) MBit/s ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼81% -16%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Oppo A52
Adreno 610, SD 665, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
332 (167min - 338max) MBit/s ∼100%
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
330 (284min - 346max) MBit/s ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
310 (269min - 342max) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Adreno 610, SD 665, 64 GB eMMC Flash
278 (218min - 305max) MBit/s ∼84% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼81% -19%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360Tooltip
Oppo A52 Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Qualcomm Adreno 610; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø336 (289-344)
Oppo A72 Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Qualcomm Adreno 610; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø346 (330-356)
Oppo A52 Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Qualcomm Adreno 610; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø327 (167-338)
Oppo A72 Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Qualcomm Adreno 610; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø330 (284-346)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

Indoors, the A52 has no trouble acquiring the user’s location. Outdoors, the Oppo smartphone determines the user’s location with a margin of error of about three metres, which is a good result. In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to geolocation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 500. The smartphone did a good job mapping our route. There were very few deviations. 

Oppo A52: Overview
Oppo A52: Overview
Oppo A52 (railway underpass)
Oppo A52 (railway underpass)
Oppo A52 (mixed-use zone)
Oppo A52 (mixed-use zone)
Garmin Edge 500: Overview
Garmin Edge 500: Overview
Garmin Edge 500 (railway underpass)
Garmin Edge 500 (railway underpass)
Garmin Edge 500 (mixed-use zone)
Garmin Edge 500 (mixed-use zone)

Telephony & Call Quality - Poor call quality

Whether you make phone calls in standard mode or in speaker mode, the call quality is always poor. Alternatively, you can make phone calls using the included headset. However, voices will still sound somewhat unnatural and there will still be an ever-present hissing noise.

Cameras - Ultra wide-angle lens disappoints

Photo taken with the front-facing camera
Photo taken with the front-facing camera

The Oppo A52 comes with a quad-camera system. It offers an ultra wide-angle lens and a depth sensor. The bokeh effect is well-realised as can be seen in the photograph of the flowers.

The 12-megapixel camera produces photographs that do not look as good as those produced by the LG Velvet, the Huawei P40 Pro Plus or the Canon EOS 70D. However, they are on a normal level for a 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone. 

The 8-megapixel ultra wide-angle lens fails to impress: The Oppo smartphone produces blurry, washed-out and colour-inaccurate images, which are not comparable to the rest of the competition. The A52 is also very weak when it comes to low-light photography despite its large f/1.8 aperture. The pictures it takes are just too noisy. Even though the Oppo A72 comes with a 48-megapixel sensor, it is not much better as the test photographs in our review of the A72 show.

The punch-hole camera on the front can take group selfies. However, the images taken with the front-facing camera appear washed-out.    

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 angleWide angle5X ZoomUltra wide-angleLow-light photography
click to load images

We use the ColorChecker Passport to further analyse the colour reproduction of the 12-megapixel image sensor. Under controlled lighting conditions, the A52 produces sharper photographs than under natural lighting conditions. The colours appear quite natural. However, they are overbrightened. 

ColorChecker
29.1 ∆E
48.4 ∆E
38.3 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
43.7 ∆E
58.7 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
34.9 ∆E
28.6 ∆E
59.3 ∆E
60.4 ∆E
31.2 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
31.4 ∆E
65.8 ∆E
39.7 ∆E
41 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
63.9 ∆E
49.1 ∆E
35.9 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A52: 42.51 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 65.78 ∆E
ColorChecker
21.2 ∆E
16.7 ∆E
22.8 ∆E
27.8 ∆E
20 ∆E
15.3 ∆E
15.5 ∆E
20.5 ∆E
17.7 ∆E
15.2 ∆E
16.7 ∆E
21.1 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
18.3 ∆E
18.3 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
18.6 ∆E
19.3 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
18.2 ∆E
19.4 ∆E
11 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A52: 16.74 ∆E min: 3.33 - max: 27.79 ∆E

Accessories & Warranty

The box contains a transparent protective case, a charger, a USB-C cable, a SIM card removal tool, a quick-start guide, an information packet and a warranty card. Moreover, the Oppo smartphone comes with a factory-applied screen protector, which will start to look quite hazy if you do not wipe it down frequently.

In the box, there is also a set of earbuds with a 3.5-mm plug. This is not something that 200-Euro (~$236) smartphones typically offer.

The smartphone comes with a 24-month warranty. 

Input Devices & Handling - Oppo smartphone with a side-mounted fingerprint sensor

The side-mounted fingerprint scanner can be used not only to unlock the smartphone but also to protect data and make applications more secure. The initial setup was a bit tedious. However, subsequently, the fingerprint sensor functioned very well. 

Even though the A52 comes with a proprietary music player and a proprietary gallery application, it uses Android’s default keyboard known as GBoard. It works very well and supports haptic feedback, which users can enable if they so desire.

Keyboard in landscape mode
Keyboard in landscape mode
Keyboard in portrait mode
Keyboard in portrait mode

Display - Mid-range IPS screen

Pixel arrangement
Pixel arrangement

The Oppo smartphones offer a screen resolution of 2400x1000. The Xiaomi smartphone also offers a very similar resolution. The A21s, which also has a 6.5-in screen, features a display with a very low resolution of 1600x720. Thanks to a low black value, the IPS panel of the Oppo A52 has a very good contrast ratio. The display brightness is quite mediocre, though. The A52 has a ColorChecker deltaE 2000 average of 3.9 and a greyscale deltaE 2000 average of 2, which means that its screen is rather colour-accurate. Here, the Xiaomi smartphone manages to achieve even better results. 

464
cd/m²
479
cd/m²
472
cd/m²
456
cd/m²
492
cd/m²
472
cd/m²
458
cd/m²
481
cd/m²
478
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 492 cd/m² Average: 472.4 cd/m² Minimum: 2.29 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 492 cd/m²
Contrast: 1587:1 (Black: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.9 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
Oppo A52
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.5
Oppo A72
IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Samsung Galaxy A21s
PLS, 1600x720, 6.5
Screen
-55%
-5%
-42%
Brightness middle
492
505
3%
628
28%
540
10%
Brightness
472
482
2%
631
34%
509
8%
Brightness Distribution
93
93
0%
93
0%
91
-2%
Black Level *
0.31
0.55
-77%
0.54
-74%
0.36
-16%
Contrast
1587
918
-42%
1163
-27%
1500
-5%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.9
6.3
-62%
2
49%
6.58
-69%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.3
10.1
-22%
5.1
39%
11.55
-39%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2
6.8
-240%
3.7
-85%
6.4
-220%
Gamma
2.29 96%
2.29 96%
2.17 101%
2.206 100%
CCT
6910 94%
8161 80%
6230 104%
8482 77%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17495 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Right out of the box, the colours appear rather cold, because of a slightly elevated colour temperature. Users can adjust the colour reproduction in the settings menu. By lowering the colour temperature, we were able to achieve a very accurate colour reproduction in our target colour space (sRGB). 

Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB)
Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB)
Colour-space coverage (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Colour-space coverage (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Colour-space coverage (colour space: sRGB)
Colour-space coverage (colour space: sRGB)
Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Colour accuracy (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Saturation (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)
Grayscale (colour space: sRGB; colour temperature: warm)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
23.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.8 ms rise
↘ 12.4 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 35 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.2 ms rise
↘ 21.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 49 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms).


Reflection handling outdoors
Reflection handling outdoors

Thanks to an ambient light sensor, the Oppo A52 can automatically decrease or increase the display brightness depending on the environment. When viewed head-on, the screen content is readable even outside.

Outdoors, the display is not legible when viewed at acute angles due to screen reflections. However, indoors, the screen content can be read even at acute angles.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance - Qualcomm SD 655 is ahead of Exynos 850

In the benchmarks, all devices that we selected for this review performed as expected. What we found quite interesting, though, was that the Exynos 850 in the Galaxy A21s, generally, performed worse than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 in other smartphones, even though the Samsung SoC does not feature a cluster-based CPU design. Unlike the Qualcomm chip, which has four high-efficiency cores clocked at 1.8 GHz and four high-performance cores clocked at 2 GHz, the Exynos 850 offers eight high-performance cores, all of which are clocked at 2 GHz. This is why the Exynos chip should be faster, in theory.

In the browser benchmarks, the Oppo smartphone performs quite well and is way ahead of the Samsung Galaxy A21s

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
OpenCL Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
370 Points ∼18%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
387 Points ∼19% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
593 Points ∼29% +60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (369 - 387, n=3)
375 Points ∼18% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 5532, n=34)
2048 Points ∼100% +454%
Vulkan Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
457 Points ∼26%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
453 Points ∼26% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
565 Points ∼32% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (453 - 457, n=3)
456 Points ∼26% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 4789, n=36)
1750 Points ∼100% +283%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6220 Points ∼54%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11432 Points ∼100% +84%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6587 Points ∼58% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5457 Points ∼48% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6189 - 11432, n=11)
7048 Points ∼62% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=528)
5988 Points ∼52% -4%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7437 Points ∼91%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7651 Points ∼94% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
7113 Points ∼87% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7437 - 9051, n=10)
8163 Points ∼100% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=686)
6572 Points ∼81% -12%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2247 Points ∼84%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2287 Points ∼86% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2232 Points ∼84% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2059 Points ∼77% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2185 - 2444, n=11)
2284 Points ∼86% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=179)
2668 Points ∼100% +19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
971 Points ∼32%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼32% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
897 Points ∼29% -8%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
775 Points ∼25% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (897 - 995, n=11)
933 Points ∼30% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=179)
3070 Points ∼100% +216%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1111 Points ∼41%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1123 Points ∼41% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1035 Points ∼38% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
900 Points ∼33% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1035 - 1140, n=11)
1074 Points ∼39% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=179)
2734 Points ∼100% +146%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2154 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2410 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2168 Points ∼90%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2154 - 2541, n=10)
2378 Points ∼99%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=531)
2236 Points ∼93%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
987 Points ∼45%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
990 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
784 Points ∼36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (980 - 999, n=10)
988 Points ∼45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=531)
2174 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1097 Points ∼54%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1139 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
914 Points ∼45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1097 - 1151, n=10)
1135 Points ∼56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=532)
2027 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2253 Points ∼94%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2199 Points ∼92% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2399 Points ∼100% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2190 Points ∼91% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2199 - 2503, n=11)
2365 Points ∼99% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=563)
2153 Points ∼90% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1650 Points ∼56%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1653 Points ∼56% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1663 Points ∼57% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1157 Points ∼40% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1650 - 1692, n=11)
1668 Points ∼57% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=563)
2928 Points ∼100% +77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1754 Points ∼71%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼72% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1785 Points ∼73% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1292 Points ∼53% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1754 - 1810, n=11)
1786 Points ∼73% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=563)
2457 Points ∼100% +40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2212 Points ∼90%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2246 Points ∼91% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2468 Points ∼100% +12%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2037 Points ∼83% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2212 - 2580, n=11)
2417 Points ∼98% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=612)
2114 Points ∼86% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
976 Points ∼53%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
980 Points ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
927 Points ∼51% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
788 Points ∼43% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (927 - 999, n=11)
968 Points ∼53% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=612)
1833 Points ∼100% +88%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1114 Points ∼64%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1134 Points ∼65% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1076 Points ∼62% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
912 Points ∼52% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1076 - 1152, n=11)
1118 Points ∼64% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=613)
1743 Points ∼100% +56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2336 Points ∼96%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2282 Points ∼94% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2412 Points ∼99% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2034 Points ∼84% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2282 - 2596, n=11)
2429 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=655)
1985 Points ∼82% -15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1601 Points ∼66%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1564 Points ∼64% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1616 Points ∼67% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1157 Points ∼48% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1564 - 1663, n=11)
1622 Points ∼67% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=654)
2430 Points ∼100% +52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1721 Points ∼83%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1675 Points ∼80% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1744 Points ∼84% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1280 Points ∼61% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1675 - 1795, n=11)
1750 Points ∼84% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=657)
2083 Points ∼100% +21%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17865 Points ∼85%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19349 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
18816 Points ∼90%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (17865 - 24652, n=10)
20916 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=799)
15611 Points ∼75%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24321 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24871 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
16301 Points ∼59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15403 - 25351, n=10)
23960 Points ∼87%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=797)
27419 Points ∼100%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
22445 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23388 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
16800 Points ∼70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (22445 - 25046, n=10)
23870 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=797)
21279 Points ∼89%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
35 fps ∼76%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
35 fps ∼76% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
24 fps ∼52% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (35 - 36, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼78% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=800)
46.1 fps ∼100% +32%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
31 fps ∼87%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
32 fps ∼89% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
34 fps ∼95% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (30 - 52, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼100% +15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=809)
31.6 fps ∼88% +2%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19 fps ∼70%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19 fps ∼70% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
15 fps ∼55% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (19 - 20, n=9)
19.2 fps ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=705)
27.3 fps ∼100% +44%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17 fps ∼61%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17 fps ∼61% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
28 fps ∼100% +65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15 - 34, n=9)
21.1 fps ∼75% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=713)
22.8 fps ∼81% +34%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
13 fps ∼59%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
13 fps ∼59% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
9.4 fps ∼43% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (13 - 13, n=9)
13 fps ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=568)
21.9 fps ∼100% +68%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11 fps ∼56%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11 fps ∼56% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
19 fps ∼96% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (10 - 27, n=9)
15 fps ∼76% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=570)
19.8 fps ∼100% +80%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.3 fps ∼37%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4 fps ∼35% -7%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.4 fps ∼38% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
7.2 fps ∼63% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (3.9 - 9.1, n=11)
5.65 fps ∼49% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=324)
11.5 fps ∼100% +167%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.7 fps ∼33%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.7 fps ∼33% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼34% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2.2 fps ∼27% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2.7 - 2.8, n=11)
2.77 fps ∼34% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=322)
8.13 fps ∼100% +201%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.1 fps ∼42%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.2 fps ∼36% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.4 fps ∼43% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
12 fps ∼70% +69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.2 - 15, n=11)
9.31 fps ∼54% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=328)
17.1 fps ∼100% +141%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8 fps ∼41%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.8 fps ∼40% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.1 fps ∼41% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
6.2 fps ∼31% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7.8 - 8.4, n=11)
8.13 fps ∼41% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=327)
19.7 fps ∼100% +146%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.9 fps ∼47%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.9 fps ∼47% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5.9 fps ∼40% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.9 - 7.2, n=9)
7.06 fps ∼48% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=493)
14.7 fps ∼100% +113%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6 fps ∼46%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6 fps ∼46% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
11 fps ∼85% +83%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (5.7 - 13, n=9)
7.86 fps ∼60% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=497)
13 fps ∼100% +117%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
181432 Points ∼56%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
177251 Points ∼55% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
124232 Points ∼38% -32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (167305 - 181432, n=9)
171951 Points ∼53% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=122)
322931 Points ∼100% +78%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1144 Points ∼93%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1231 Points ∼100% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
990 Points ∼80% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (926 - 1400, n=9)
1101 Points ∼89% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=739)
828 Points ∼67% -28%
Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1890 Points ∼74%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1897 Points ∼74% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1159 Points ∼45% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1881 - 1932, n=9)
1906 Points ∼75% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=739)
2557 Points ∼100% +35%
Memory (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2645 Points ∼99%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2451 Points ∼91% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1884 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1804 - 3174, n=9)
2681 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=739)
1910 Points ∼71% -28%
System (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4731 Points ∼98%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4787 Points ∼99% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
3382 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (4391 - 5089, n=9)
4825 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=739)
3510 Points ∼73% -26%
Overall (sort by value)
Oppo A52
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2281 Points ∼100%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2232 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1644 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2001 - 2556, n=9)
2271 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=739)
1797 Points ∼79% -21%


JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Oppo A52 (Chrome 85)
49.576 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=628)
47.8 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (33.4 - 51, n=8)
47.5 Points ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
28.012 Points ∼57% -43%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=266)
69.9 Points ∼100% +37%
Oppo A52 (Chrome 85)
51 Points ∼73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (38 - 58, n=9)
50.9 Points ∼73% 0%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
50 Points ∼72% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
35 Points ∼50% -31%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Oppo A52 (Chrome 85)
9359 Points ∼100%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
9345 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6133 - 9671, n=9)
8901 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=797)
7984 Points ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
4976 Points ∼53% -47%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=823)
9690 ms * ∼100% -117%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
9174.1 ms * ∼95% -106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4434 - 6719, n=9)
4783 ms * ∼49% -7%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
4487.2 ms * ∼46% -1%
Oppo A52 (Chrome 85)
4460.6 ms * ∼46%

* ... smaller is better

The A52 offers 64 GB of internal memory, which is normal for a device in this price range. However, only 47 GB is available to the user. The rest of the storage space is occupied by Oppo’s ColorOS launcher and preinstalled applications. Here, the 64 GB Note 8T offers 57 GB of available storage space.

Both Oppo smartphones offer slower read and write rates than the Samsung Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T. However, the Oppo devices perform better with our reference-grade microSD card (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501). This is good news for those who use SD cards to store high-quality photographs. 

Oppo A52Oppo A72Xiaomi Redmi Note 8TSamsung Galaxy A21sAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
1%
2%
5%
18%
-12%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
33.38 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
31.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-7%
52.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
58%
66.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
99%
51.4 (17.1 - 71.9, n=31)
54%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=536)
53%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
40.16 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
37.76 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-6%
71.63 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
78%
80 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
99%
67.5 (18 - 87.1, n=31)
68%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=536)
72%
Random Write 4KB
146.98
152.9
4%
91.15
-38%
89.5
-39%
67.6 (8.77 - 165, n=42)
-54%
37.1 (0.14 - 319, n=895)
-75%
Random Read 4KB
136.2
135.91
0%
90.38
-34%
77.2
-43%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=42)
-2%
60.3 (1.59 - 324, n=895)
-56%
Sequential Write 256KB
220.6
234.61
6%
173.95
-21%
104.3
-53%
199 (133 - 388, n=42)
-10%
131 (2.99 - 911, n=895)
-41%
Sequential Read 256KB
475.93
504.32
6%
315.75
-34%
307
-35%
708 (476 - 895, n=42)
49%
348 (12.1 - 1802, n=895)
-27%

Gaming - Not suited for demanding games

The 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone struggles in demanding racing games. These are not the titles that the Adreno 610 can handle. However, the motion sensor worked very well in Temple Run. These are the titles for which the A52 is suited.

Riptide GP Renegade
Riptide GP Renegade
Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2

Emissions - Low-priced stereo smartphone

Temperature

The A52 does not become warm. Under load, the surface temperatures peak at only 35 °C (95 °F).

Max. Load
 35.3 °C
96 F
35.1 °C
95 F
33.3 °C
92 F
 
 35 °C
95 F
34.1 °C
93 F
33.1 °C
92 F
 
 34 °C
93 F
33 °C
91 F
33.1 °C
92 F
 
Maximum: 35.3 °C = 96 F
Average: 34 °C = 93 F
30.5 °C
87 F
32.3 °C
90 F
32 °C
90 F
30.1 °C
86 F
32 °C
90 F
32.6 °C
91 F
29.2 °C
85 F
31.6 °C
89 F
32.2 °C
90 F
Maximum: 32.6 °C = 91 F
Average: 31.4 °C = 89 F
Power Supply (max.)  24.2 °C = 76 F | Room Temperature 21.8 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.3 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.2 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

While the Samsung Galaxy A21s and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T offer mono speakers, both low-priced Oppo smartphones comes with stereo speakers. However, the sound quality is not that impressive and can only be described as satisfactory. The A52 is somewhat louder than the A72, though.

Frequency response (speakers)
Frequency response (speakers)
Frequency response (3.5-mm headphone jack)
Frequency response (3.5-mm headphone jack)
3.5-mm headphone jack
3.5-mm headphone jack
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.935.9252929.93121.931.9402229.75029.937.6632237.18019.335.310016.338.11251438.216016.942.920014.946.825014.152.431510604001164.550011.769.463010.972.580011.975.210001178125010.279.8160011.479.5200012.879.9250012.981.4315012.580.740001381.7500013.182.1630013.478.5800015.773.61000013.571.11250014661600013.758.7SPL24.891.2N0.686.3median 13median 72.5Delta1.112.531.732.428.73130.626.623.725.230.733.423.829.324.222.724.624.420.52218.335.118.740.716.650.51758.414.7621468.715.269.614.272.114.674.613.87614.174.514.875.814.576.91576.614.874.314.875.614.970.615.166.915.262.815.455.415.345.526.986.20.964.4median 15median 68.71.313.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo A52Oppo A72
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo A52 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

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 (23.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 47% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life

Energy Consumption

The comparison between the Exynos 850 and the Snapdragon 665 reveals how much of a difference the cluster-based design makes when it comes to energy efficiency. The A52, A72 and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T are much more energy-efficient than the Galaxy A21s, which features an SoC with eight high-performance cores.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.23 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.62 / 1.91 / 1.94 Watt
Load midlight 3.57 / 6.09 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oppo A52
5000 mAh
Oppo A72
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-5%
3%
-48%
-23%
-11%
Idle Minimum *
0.62
0.7
-13%
0.62
-0%
1.5
-142%
1.036 (0.62 - 1.7, n=10)
-67%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
-44%
Idle Average *
1.91
1.97
-3%
1.77
7%
2.1
-10%
1.942 (1.3 - 2.3, n=10)
-2%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
8%
Idle Maximum *
1.94
1.98
-2%
1.8
7%
2.9
-49%
2.43 (1.6 - 3.5, n=10)
-25%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
-5%
Load Average *
3.57
3.83
-7%
3.42
4%
4.6
-29%
3.88 (3.2 - 4.7, n=10)
-9%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
-15%
Load Maximum *
6.09
6.2
-2%
6.14
-1%
6.6
-8%
6.82 (6.09 - 7.7, n=10)
-12%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
-0%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In our practically oriented Wi-Fi test, the battery of the Redmi Note 8T dies first, because it has the lowest capacity. The A72, which has the exact same battery capacity, lasts slightly longer than our review device. Both Oppo devices last about one hour longer than the A21s in our battery test.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
16h 27min
Oppo A52
5000 mAh
Oppo A72
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8T
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
987
1018
3%
764
-23%
943
-4%

Pros

+ stereo speakers
+ headphone jack
+ good battery life
+ NFC
+ protective case and earbuds in the box
+ cheap

Cons

- poor call quality
- mediocre camera

Verdict

Oppo A52 review. Device provided courtesy of: notebooksbilliger.de
Oppo A52 review. Device provided courtesy of: notebooksbilliger.de

The Oppo A52 is a stylish 200-Euro (~$236) smartphone that offers a good level of performance in its price range. The camera and the storage capacity are the only things that differentiate the A52 from the A72. There are no other differences. The A72 is no better than its smaller sibling A52, except for the camera.  

Well-calculated: The actual differences between the Oppo A52 and the A72 are well-reflected in the price difference. 

There is another advantage that the A72 brings to the table, namely twice as much storage space, which is going to be needed for high-resolution photos and videos that its camera produces. If you do not need a high-resolution camera, then you will be able to save 50 Euros (~$56) or so. The price differential between the two devices has remained the same despite falling prices: At the time of our review the A52 retails for as little as 170 Euros (~$201) while the A72 sells for as little as 220 Euros (~$260).

Oppo A52 - 09/11/2020 v7
Inge Schwabe

Chassis
76%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
86%
Connectivity
48 / 70 → 68%
Weight
89%
Battery
91%
Display
86%
Games Performance
11 / 64 → 16%
Application Performance
59 / 86 → 68%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
75 / 90 → 83%
Camera
57%
Average
72%
77%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo A52 Smartphone Review: cheaper, but not much weaker than its bigger brother A72
Inge Schwabe, 2020-09-16 (Update: 2020-09-21)
Inge Schwabe
Editor of the original article: Inge Schwabe - Editor - @mobilewelten
Unlike many techies, I didn't find my way to technology by using a C64 or something like that; I was rather fascinated by the last meter of copper wire, about which a friend on the other end of the line could be heard so crystal clear. I studied computer science and followed the development of the phone into a smartphone for many years. Currently, innovations are becoming less and less, but getting to the bottom of them remains exciting and interesting.