Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarOppo A76 review - Beautiful phone with light and shadow
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77.7 % | 06/2022 | Oppo A76 SD 680, Adreno 610 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.56" | 1612x720 | |
| 80.5 % | 01/2022 | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G Dimensity 810, Mali-G57 MP2 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80.6 % | 04/2022 | Motorola Moto G41 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 178 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.6 % | 08/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G Dimensity 700, Mali-G57 MP2 | 203 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 |
Case and equipment - High-class design
The Oppo A74 last year, but we had to criticize the slow SoC and the lack of NFC. The Oppo A76 is now the successor. However, looking at the equipment list, the two smartphones have only little in common.
The Oppo A76 also looks different on the outside, offering a matte back in either light blue or black and a lower-placed standby button on the right, where the fingerprint sensor is integrated. From the front, on the other hand, you can see more similarities. In general, the smartphone is solidly built but medium pressure on the screen is enough to distort the picture.
In terms of features, the phone can boast 4 GB of RAM and 128 GB of fast UFS 2.2 storage; other storage variants are currently not available, at least in Europe. NFC is included in the Oppo A76, which is not yet a matter of course in this price range.
The microSD reader is separate and offers typical speeds for this class.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10.9 - 77, n=105, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A76 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Motorola Moto G41 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation - LTE only, but NFC is supported
The Oppo A76 does not currently have a 5G model like the predecessor, so you have to make do with LTE as the fastest mobile technology. Several frequency bands are available, but you have to check whether you can use the local mobile Internet before traveling abroad.
The Wi-Fi module supports Wi-Fi 5 as the fastest standard, which is common in this price range. However, the Oppo A76 has problems with the stability of the transmission speed: it fluctuates significantly in our test with the reference router Asus ROG GT-AXE11000 and does not quite come close to similarly priced smartphones on average. We already noticed this behavior in the Oppo A74 observed.
ColorOS 11.1 based on Android 11 is preinstalled on the smartphone. In India, a beta version of the Android 12-based ColorOS 12 has already been released for the Oppo A76, so it can be assumed that this version will also come to Europe. In general, the manufacturer talks about 2 new Android versions and security updates every 3 months.
The 90 Hz screen makes the operation feel quite smooth, but only as long as not too many apps are running in the background because the SoC hardly offers any performance reserves. The fingerprint sensor is located on the casing's right in the standby button. It does its job quite reliably, but it takes a second until the smartphone is unlocked.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Oppo A76 | |
Cameras - Little offered
We search in vain for a wide-angle camera in Oppo's A76. Unlike many other models, there is only the main camera with 13 megapixels and an additional camera for blurring effects in portrait mode. Thus, there is not much flexibility in the camera system.
Unlike the predecessor, the main lens is no longer a pixel-binning camera, and thus the light sensitivity is also lower. Accordingly, pictures in dark environments are not very brightened, look blotchy and only a few details are visible. The HDR capabilities in daylight are convincing, but the detail diversity is rather mediocre and large areas have obvious pixel patterns. The main camera sometimes has problems with text display in the lab, but we like the sharpness at the picture's edges.
Videos can be recorded in 1080p with 30 fps, autofocus and exposure react quite quickly and usually accurately.
Overall, it is a decent camera for the price range, which is useful for snapshots. However, users with higher demands will have to spend more money on a higher-quality smartphone.
The front-facing camera has a resolution of 8 megapixels. The first impression is decent, but you should not enlarge the pictures too much.
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.
Main cameraMain cameraLow Light
Display - Fast and bright
With its 90-Hz IPS display, the Oppo A76 has a high refresh rate ahead of many other smartphones in the price range. In terms of resolution, however, you have to make do with 720p, which is still okay but makes the display look a bit more washed out than the usual 1080p screens.
However, the maximum brightness of around 570 cd/m² is quite good, so you can also use the smartphone outdoors on brighter days. The screen's good color reproduction is also pleasing.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 569 cd/m²
Contrast: 1138:1 (Black: 0.5 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.16 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5.1
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
94.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.177
| Oppo A76 IPS, 1612x720, 6.56 | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G TFT-LCD, 2400x1080, 6.60 | Motorola Moto G41 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40 | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -28% | 78% | 15% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 41 ? | 50 ? -22% | 9 ? 78% | 32 ? 22% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 26 ? | 34.8 ? -34% | 6 ? 77% | 24 ? 8% |
| PWM Frequency | 240.4 | 147 ? | ||
| Screen | -45% | 4% | -62% | |
| Brightness middle | 569 | 504 -11% | 713 25% | 415 -27% |
| Brightness | 562 | 499 -11% | 712 27% | 378 -33% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 91 1% | 91 1% | 76 -16% |
| Black Level * | 0.5 | 0.72 -44% | 0.26 48% | |
| Contrast | 1138 | 700 -38% | 1596 40% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.16 | 3.3 -53% | 1.1 49% | 5.41 -150% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.37 | 6 -78% | 2.39 29% | 9.77 -190% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 4.1 -128% | 3.7 -106% | 4.8 -167% |
| Gamma | 2.177 101% | 2.28 96% | 2.264 97% | 2.348 94% |
| CCT | 6784 96% | 7041 92% | 7373 88% | 7748 84% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -37% /
-42% | 41% /
23% | -24% /
-47% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 56 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 59 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (34.3 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18704 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Oppo A76 with little power
With its Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 the Oppo A76 would be on a par with the competition if it were not for the 5G phones from Xiaomi and Samsung, which show that much more power is possible for this price. The graphics unit can only convince in on-screen tests, i.e. with the screen's low native resolution; otherwise, some rivals are ahead here as well.
However, it is pleasing that Oppo installs fast UFS 2.2 storage and thus at least helps the system to be somewhat faster when loading or launching apps. Overall, however, you have to expect that the system can only be operated very slowly or not at all at times when running more complex apps in the background. At least the maximum case temperatures remain within limits.
The mono speaker does a decent job in media playback, does not sound too unpleasantly treble-heavy, and is loud enough to fill a medium-sized room with sound. However, you naturally get a better sound with a headset. The connection via 3.5 mm port or Bluetooth 5.0 works without problems in our test. All current aptX codecs, SBC, AAC, and LDAC can be used for wireless sound transmission.
The Oppo A76 can be charged with up to 33 watts via the included charger. The phone needs about one and a half hours for a full charge. The runtimes in our WLAN test are slightly higher than those of many rivals, only the Galaxy A22 5G offers even more endurance.
| Geekbench 5.5 | |
| Single-Core (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (323 - 384, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (119 - 2138, n=219, last 2 years) | |
| Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1287 - 1738, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (473 - 5538, n=219, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (4535 - 8730, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4761 - 19783, n=212, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (4.6 - 17, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (5.1 - 9.8, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1.9 - 175, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (2.7 - 11, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.8 - 100, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1.4 - 3.3, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 72, n=226, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo A76 | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | Motorola Moto G41 | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -11% | -64% | -57% | -9% | 34% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 980.7 | 964 -2% | 298.5 -70% | 300.5 -69% | 707 ? -28% | 1284 ? 31% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 711.7 | 471 -34% | 172.3 -76% | 210.3 -70% | 516 ? -27% | 902 ? 27% |
| Random Read 4KB | 174.7 | 148.8 -15% | 86.9 -50% | 118 -32% | 186.9 ? 7% | 225 ? 29% |
| Random Write 4KB | 162.7 | 171.8 6% | 64.4 -60% | 69.2 -57% | 179.9 ? 11% | 239 ? 47% |
Temperature
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.3 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.5 °C / 74 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
Oppo A76 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 34% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
| Oppo A76 | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G41 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (424 - 1502, n=227, last 2 years) | |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Oppo phone can barely trump
Looking at the memory configuration, the Oppo A76 is slightly cheaper than its predecessor Oppo A74 however, some things are different: there is a less light-sensitive camera and no macro lens anymore, and the manufacturer now uses an IPS screen that is quite bright, colorful, does without PWM and has a 90 Hz refresh rate.
Compared with similarly priced smartphones from other manufacturers, however, further shortcomings are noticed: there is no ultra-wide-angle camera, the system performance is relatively low, the Wi-Fi signal is shaky, and the 720p screen cannot convince in terms of resolution. On the plus side are the good runtimes and the fast storage.
The Oppo A76 lacks that certain extra feature. Nevertheless, it is a solid, inexpensive mid-range phone with a 90 Hz screen.
Overall, the Oppo A76 cannot really stand out among its rivals, especially the Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G, in particular, offers considerably more features at a very similar price. Samsung, too, has a good price tag with the Galaxy A22 5G - a convincing, inexpensive mid-range phone in its lineup, which could at most be deterred by its not very bright screen.
Price and availability
The Oppo A76 is available from many online retailers, with the lowest prices starting at 230 Euros at the time of testing. Also, amazon.de and our loaner cyberport.de have the smartphone on offer.
Oppo A76
-
05/28/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
