Notebookcheck

Oppo A72 Smartphone Review - The affordable Oppo smartphone turns out an endurance champion

Plastic bomber. A modern design. A lot of equipment. A high-resolution camera. Stereo speakers. With the A72 model, Oppo releases an attractive offering on paper. Find out in our test of the Oppo A72 whether purchasing the affordable mid-range smartphone is worth it.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (translated by Mark Riege),
Oppo A72 smartphone

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. 

Oppo A72 (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 touchscreen, IPS LCD, Corning Gorilla Glass 3, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 106 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio port, Card Reader: microSD (FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: geomagnetic sensor, proximity sensor, acceleration sensor, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850/900/1800/1900MHz, WCDMA: 1/2/4/5/6/8/19, FDD LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/17/18/19/20/26/28/66, TD-LTE: 38/39/40/41, 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: 48 MPix (f/1.7, 1/2.0", 0.8µm) + 8 MP (f/2.2, 119˚, 1/4.0", 1.12µm) + 2 MP (f/2.4) + 2 MP (f/2.4), Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix f/2.0, 1/3.1, 1.0µm
Additional features
Speakers: stereo, Keyboard: virtual, modular charger, protective cover, USB cable, headset, ColorOS 7.1, 24 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR: 0.48 W/kg, 0.92 W/kg, fanless
Weight
192 g ( = 6.77 oz / 0.42 pounds), Power Supply: 87 g ( = 3.07 oz / 0.19 pounds)
Price
250 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 %
08/2020
Oppo A72
SD 665, Adreno 610
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
80 %
07/2020
Samsung Galaxy M31
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
191 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.4"2340x1080
83 %
06/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
209 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
80 %
06/2020
realme 6 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
195 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.6"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. 

Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

Size Comparison

165.75 mm / 6.53 inch 76.68 mm / 3.02 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs163.8 mm / 6.45 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 195 g0.4299 lbs162 mm / 6.38 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs159.2 mm / 6.27 inch 75.1 mm / 2.96 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 191 g0.4211 lbs

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.

Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

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 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
619 (283min - 670max) MBit/s ∼100% +78%
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
347 (330min - 356max) MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
336 (282min - 350max) MBit/s ∼54% -3%
realme 6 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
292 (145min - 352max) MBit/s ∼47% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=604)
284 MBit/s ∼46% -18%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
551 (465min - 583max) MBit/s ∼100% +67%
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
330 (284min - 346max) MBit/s ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
297 (258min - 312max) MBit/s ∼54% -10%
realme 6 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
290 (137min - 336max) MBit/s ∼53% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=604)
270 MBit/s ∼49% -18%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø346 (330-356)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø330 (284-346)
GPS indoors
GPS indoors
GPS outdoors
GPS outdoors

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. 

Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Oppo A72
Oppo A72
Oppo A72
Oppo A72
Oppo A72
Oppo A72

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality - Inconspicuous Oppo A72

Oppo A72 smartphone

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

Picture taken with the front camera
Picture taken with the front camera

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. 

Ultra wide-angle
Ultra wide-angle
Ultra wide-angle
Ultra wide-angle
2x zoom
2x zoom
10x zoom (max)
10x zoom (max)
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

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
click to load images
ColorChecker
27 ∆E
44.5 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
32.7 ∆E
37.4 ∆E
53.1 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
28 ∆E
30.4 ∆E
24.1 ∆E
53.8 ∆E
54.4 ∆E
24.8 ∆E
40.9 ∆E
26.6 ∆E
56.7 ∆E
33.1 ∆E
39 ∆E
59.8 ∆E
59.9 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
34.4 ∆E
23 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A72: 38.32 ∆E min: 13.2 - max: 59.85 ∆E
ColorChecker
7.5 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
3 ∆E
10 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
3 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
4 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A72: 5.03 ∆E min: 2.51 - max: 10.02 ∆E

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. 

Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

Display - Oppo smartphone with IPS

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid
Clouding
Clouding

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). 

472
cd/m²
496
cd/m²
476
cd/m²
470
cd/m²
505
cd/m²
473
cd/m²
472
cd/m²
494
cd/m²
477
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 505 cd/m² Average: 481.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 505 cd/m²
Contrast: 918:1 (Black: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.3 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
Oppo A72
IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.5
Samsung Galaxy M31
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
realme 6 Pro
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.6
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 DeltaE2000 *
6.3
2.25
64%
1.8
71%
6.1
3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.1
6.22
38%
3
70%
9.7
4%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)

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 9588 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) 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. 

CalMan Color Accuracy (sRGB color space)
CalMan Color Accuracy (sRGB color space)
CalMan Color Space (sRGB color space)
CalMan Color Space (sRGB color space)
CalMan Grayscale (sRGB color space)
CalMan Grayscale (sRGB color space)
CalMan Saturation (sRGB color space)
CalMan Saturation (sRGB color space)

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
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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 32 % 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↗ 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 0.8 (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).

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. 

Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

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. 

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
OpenCL Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
387 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1605 Points ∼78% +315%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (369 - 387, n=3)
375 Points ∼18% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 5532, n=36)
2069 Points ∼100% +435%
Vulkan Score 5.2 (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
453 Points ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1345 Points ∼78% +197%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (453 - 457, n=3)
456 Points ∼26% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 4789, n=40)
1729 Points ∼100% +282%
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
982 Points ∼60%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1063 Points ∼65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (432 - 483, n=5)
455 Points ∼28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=66)
1633 Points ∼100%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1163 Points ∼66%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1201 Points ∼68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (363 - 368, n=5)
366 Points ∼21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (272 - 4739, n=61)
1759 Points ∼100%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1256 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1325 Points ∼67% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1771 Points ∼90% +41%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1759 Points ∼89% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1256 - 1405, n=7)
1346 Points ∼68% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 4160, n=130)
1976 Points ∼100% +57%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
309 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
348 Points ∼61% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
569 Points ∼99% +84%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
567 Points ∼99% +83%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (309 - 313, n=7)
311 Points ∼54% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1604, n=130)
573 Points ∼100% +85%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11432 Points ∼100%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
5587 Points ∼49% -51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7829 Points ∼68% -32%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
10106 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6189 - 11432, n=11)
7048 Points ∼62% -38%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=529)
5991 Points ∼52% -48%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7651 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6202 Points ∼45% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9091 Points ∼66% +19%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
13777 Points ∼100% +80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7437 - 9051, n=10)
8163 Points ∼59% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=687)
6576 Points ∼48% -14%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2287 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2163 Points ∼79% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2721 Points ∼100% +19%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2562 Points ∼94% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2185 - 2444, n=11)
2284 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=180)
2667 Points ∼98% +17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1442 Points ∼47% +47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2250 Points ∼73% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2255 Points ∼73% +130%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (897 - 995, n=11)
933 Points ∼30% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=180)
3071 Points ∼100% +213%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1123 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1557 Points ∼57% +39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2340 Points ∼86% +108%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2317 Points ∼85% +106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1035 - 1140, n=11)
1074 Points ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=180)
2735 Points ∼100% +144%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2154 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2332 Points ∼72% +8%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3236 Points ∼100% +50%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3067 Points ∼95% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2154 - 2541, n=10)
2378 Points ∼73% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=534)
2237 Points ∼69% +4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
987 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1533 Points ∼60% +55%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2539 Points ∼99% +157%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2558 Points ∼100% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (980 - 999, n=10)
988 Points ∼39% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10348, n=534)
2189 Points ∼86% +122%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1097 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1659 Points ∼62% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2667 Points ∼100% +143%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2656 Points ∼100% +142%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1097 - 1151, n=10)
1135 Points ∼43% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=535)
2036 Points ∼76% +86%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2199 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2308 Points ∼72% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3226 Points ∼100% +47%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3125 Points ∼97% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2199 - 2503, n=11)
2365 Points ∼73% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=566)
2162 Points ∼67% -2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1653 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1993 Points ∼52% +21%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3785 Points ∼99% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3835 Points ∼100% +132%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1650 - 1692, n=11)
1668 Points ∼43% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20511, n=566)
2989 Points ∼78% +81%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2055 Points ∼56% +16%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3645 Points ∼100% +107%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3651 Points ∼100% +107%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1754 - 1810, n=11)
1786 Points ∼49% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=566)
2489 Points ∼68% +41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2246 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2258 Points ∼71% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3170 Points ∼100% +41%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3083 Points ∼97% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2212 - 2580, n=11)
2417 Points ∼76% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=616)
2117 Points ∼67% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
980 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1478 Points ∼62% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2356 Points ∼99% +140%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2388 Points ∼100% +144%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (927 - 999, n=11)
968 Points ∼41% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=616)
1850 Points ∼77% +89%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1134 Points ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1601 Points ∼64% +41%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2499 Points ∼99% +120%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2514 Points ∼100% +122%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1076 - 1152, n=11)
1118 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=617)
1755 Points ∼70% +55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2282 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2195 Points ∼67% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3263 Points ∼100% +43%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3076 Points ∼94% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2282 - 2596, n=11)
2429 Points ∼74% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=657)
1991 Points ∼61% -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1564 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2020 Points ∼55% +29%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3620 Points ∼98% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3683 Points ∼100% +135%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1564 - 1663, n=11)
1622 Points ∼44% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=656)
2456 Points ∼67% +57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1675 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2056 Points ∼58% +23%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3534 Points ∼100% +111%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3528 Points ∼100% +111%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1675 - 1795, n=11)
1750 Points ∼50% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=659)
2100 Points ∼59% +25%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17865 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
20128 Points ∼96% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
20054 Points ∼96% +12%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
14849 Points ∼71% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (17865 - 24652, n=10)
20916 Points ∼100% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=802)
15698 Points ∼75% -12%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24321 Points ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
25160 Points ∼47% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
51789 Points ∼97% +113%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
53600 Points ∼100% +120%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15403 - 25351, n=10)
23960 Points ∼45% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 221179, n=800)
27832 Points ∼52% +14%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
22445 Points ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
23836 Points ∼62% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
38315 Points ∼100% +71%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
33926 Points ∼89% +51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (22445 - 25046, n=10)
23870 Points ∼62% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=800)
21512 Points ∼56% -4%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
35 fps ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
36 fps ∼42% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
85 fps ∼100% +143%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
85 fps ∼100% +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (35 - 36, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼42% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=803)
46.8 fps ∼55% +34%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
32 fps ∼53%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
32 fps ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +88%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (30 - 52, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼60% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=812)
31.7 fps ∼53% -1%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19 fps ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18 fps ∼44% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
41 fps ∼100% +116%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
41 fps ∼100% +116%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (19 - 20, n=9)
19.2 fps ∼47% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 180, n=708)
27.8 fps ∼68% +46%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17 fps ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19 fps ∼49% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
39 fps ∼100% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
38 fps ∼97% +124%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15 - 34, n=9)
21.1 fps ∼54% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=716)
23 fps ∼59% +35%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
13 fps ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
16 fps ∼53% +23%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
30 fps ∼100% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
30 fps ∼100% +131%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (13 - 13, n=9)
13 fps ∼43% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=571)
22.3 fps ∼74% +72%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11 fps ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
14 fps ∼48% +27%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
29 fps ∼100% +164%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
27 fps ∼93% +145%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (10 - 27, n=9)
15 fps ∼52% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=573)
20 fps ∼69% +82%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4 fps ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
5.7 fps ∼49% +43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
11 fps ∼94% +175%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
11 fps ∼94% +175%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (3.9 - 9.1, n=11)
5.65 fps ∼48% +41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=328)
11.7 fps ∼100% +193%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.7 fps ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3.6 fps ∼44% +33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6.9 fps ∼84% +156%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
7 fps ∼85% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2.7 - 2.8, n=11)
2.77 fps ∼34% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=326)
8.25 fps ∼100% +206%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.2 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9.4 fps ∼54% +52%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼98% +174%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼98% +174%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.2 - 15, n=11)
9.31 fps ∼54% +50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=332)
17.4 fps ∼100% +181%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.8 fps ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 fps ∼50% +28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼90% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
19 fps ∼95% +144%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7.8 - 8.4, n=11)
8.13 fps ∼41% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=331)
20 fps ∼100% +156%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.9 fps ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 fps ∼56% +45%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼100% +161%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼100% +161%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.9 - 7.2, n=9)
7.06 fps ∼39% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 75, n=496)
14.9 fps ∼83% +116%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9.1 fps ∼54% +52%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼100% +183%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼94% +167%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (5.7 - 13, n=9)
7.86 fps ∼46% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=500)
13.2 fps ∼78% +120%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
177251 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
187087 Points ∼57% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
271934 Points ∼83% +53%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
275464 Points ∼84% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (167305 - 181432, n=9)
171951 Points ∼52% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=126)
327904 Points ∼100% +85%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1231 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1226 Points ∼99% 0%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1233 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (926 - 1400, n=9)
1101 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=740)
829 Points ∼67% -33%
Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1897 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2168 Points ∼58% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3757 Points ∼100% +98%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3768 Points ∼100% +99%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1881 - 1932, n=9)
1906 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=740)
2561 Points ∼68% +35%
Memory (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2451 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1775 Points ∼39% -28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
4452 Points ∼97% +82%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
4573 Points ∼100% +87%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1804 - 3174, n=9)
2681 Points ∼59% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=740)
1914 Points ∼42% -22%
System (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4787 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4699 Points ∼68% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6856 Points ∼99% +43%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
6908 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (4391 - 5089, n=9)
4825 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=740)
3513 Points ∼51% -27%
Overall (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2232 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
649 Points ∼19% -71%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3444 Points ∼99% +54%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3481 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2001 - 2556, n=9)
2271 Points ∼65% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=740)
1799 Points ∼52% -19%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
47.901 Points ∼100% +109%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=199)
41.7 Points ∼87% +82%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (22.9 - 31.2, n=6)
29.2 Points ∼61% +28%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
27.807 Points ∼58% +21%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
22.887 Points ∼48%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
45.2 runs/min ∼100% +60%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=179)
43.1 runs/min ∼95% +53%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chome 83)
29.4 runs/min ∼65% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (25.4 - 30.8, n=6)
28.9 runs/min ∼64% +2%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
28.2 runs/min ∼62%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
17265 Points ∼100% +85%
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83)
17157 Points ∼99% +84%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
10434 Points ∼60% +12%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
9345 Points ∼54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6133 - 9671, n=9)
8901 Points ∼52% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=798)
7998 Points ∼46% -14%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=824)
9681 ms * ∼100% -116%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
4786.2 ms * ∼49% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4434 - 6719, n=9)
4783 ms * ∼49% -7%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
4487.2 ms * ∼46%
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83)
3033.1 ms * ∼31% +32%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
2850.1 ms * ∼29% +36%

* ... smaller is better

Oppo A72Samsung Galaxy M31Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Prorealme 6 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
30%
19%
40%
37%
-10%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
31.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
95%
54.94 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
76%
63.43 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
103%
59 (8.4 - 72.4, n=34)
89%
51.2 (1.7 - 87.1, n=538)
64%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
37.76 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
97%
76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
103%
86.38 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
129%
74.4 (13.4 - 88.3, n=34)
97%
69.2 (8.1 - 96.5, n=538)
83%
Random Write 4KB
152.9
152.4
0%
112.93
-26%
154
1%
112 (18.2 - 290, n=63)
-27%
37.1 (0.14 - 319, n=895)
-76%
Random Read 4KB
135.91
128.9
-5%
122.58
-10%
158.66
17%
144 (96.8 - 239, n=63)
6%
60.3 (1.59 - 324, n=895)
-56%
Sequential Write 256KB
234.61
221.7
-6%
171.09
-27%
203.28
-13%
243 (182 - 511, n=63)
4%
131 (2.99 - 911, n=895)
-44%
Sequential Read 256KB
504.32
489.5
-3%
498.15
-1%
512.61
2%
774 (427 - 999, n=63)
53%
348 (12.1 - 1802, n=895)
-31%

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. 

Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

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.

Max. Load
 36.3 °C
97 F
36 °C
97 F
32.9 °C
91 F
 
 36.1 °C
97 F
35.9 °C
97 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
 35.5 °C
96 F
35.1 °C
95 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 36.3 °C = 97 F
Average: 34.8 °C = 95 F
30.1 °C
86 F
32.8 °C
91 F
33.8 °C
93 F
28.8 °C
84 F
32.8 °C
91 F
33.2 °C
92 F
30.2 °C
86 F
32.6 °C
91 F
32.9 °C
91 F
Maximum: 33.8 °C = 93 F
Average: 31.9 °C = 89 F
Power Supply (max.)  23 °C = 73 F | Room Temperature 20.8 °C = 69 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.8 °C / 95 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 36.3 °C / 97 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 33.8 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °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 33 °C / 91 F.
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone

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. 

Pink Noise 3.5-mm audio port
Pink Noise 3.5-mm audio port
3.5-mm audio port sound output
3.5-mm audio port sound output
Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.732.42528.7313130.626.64023.725.25030.733.46323.829.38024.222.710024.624.412520.52216018.335.120018.740.725016.650.53151758.440014.7625001468.763015.269.680014.272.1100014.674.6125013.876160014.174.5200014.875.8250014.576.931501576.6400014.874.3500014.875.6630014.970.6800015.166.91000015.262.81250015.455.41600015.345.5SPL26.986.2N0.964.4median 15median 68.7Delta1.313.534.832.919.625.523.920.424.323.130.533.518.724.420.420.418.620.917.526.719.544.519.244.316.450.215.255.614.259.714.765.813.872.114.675.214.175.813.574.414.474.913.976.113.878.713.879.414.771.214.271.114.470.814.9741575.615.166.415.356.126.587.10.869.6median 14.7median 71.10.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo A72Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
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%

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 (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

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. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.24 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.7 / 1.97 / 1.98 Watt
Load midlight 3.83 / 6.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
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%
-16%
-5%
Idle Minimum *
0.7
1.6
-129%
0.75
-7%
0.92
-31%
1.036 (0.62 - 1.7, n=10)
-48%
0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=900)
-27%
Idle Average *
1.97
2.3
-17%
2.19
-11%
1.79
9%
1.942 (1.3 - 2.3, n=10)
1%
1.755 (0.6 - 6.2, n=899)
11%
Idle Maximum *
1.98
3.7
-87%
2.24
-13%
1.88
5%
2.43 (1.6 - 3.5, n=10)
-23%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=900)
-3%
Load Average *
3.83
6.7
-75%
3.88
-1%
5.41
-41%
3.88 (3.2 - 4.7, n=10)
-1%
4.11 (0.8 - 10.8, n=894)
-7%
Load Maximum *
6.2
9.4
-52%
5.97
4%
7.59
-22%
6.82 (6.09 - 7.7, n=10)
-10%
6.1 (1.2 - 14.2, n=894)
2%

* ... 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.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
16h 58min
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

+ solid main camera
+ NFC
+ many supported LTE bands
+ long battery life
+ stereo speakers
+ hardly any heat development

Cons

- LCD display weak in contrast
- weak SoC
- case looks cheap
- aged security patches
- front and ultra wide-angle camera

Verdict on the Oppo A72 - A lot of equipment combined with weak haptics

In review: Oppo A72. Test unit provided by Oppo Germany.
In review: Oppo A72. Test unit provided by Oppo Germany.

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

Chassis
76%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
87%
Connectivity
48 / 70 → 69%
Weight
89%
Battery
91%
Display
82%
Games Performance
13 / 64 → 20%
Application Performance
62 / 86 → 72%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
75 / 90 → 83%
Camera
59%
Average
72%
77%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo A72 Smartphone Review - The affordable Oppo smartphone turns out an endurance champion
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-08- 3 (Update: 2020-08- 4)
Marcus Herbrich
Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Editor
My great passion has always been mobile technologies, especially smartphones. As a technology enthusiast, the half-life of my devices is not exactly high and the latest hardware is just good enough - manufacturer or operating system plays a minor role, the main thing is state-of-the-art