Notebookcheck

Oppo Find X Smartphone Review

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Mark Riege), 10/25/2018

Inventive smartphone. With the Find X, the Chinese Oppo smartphone manufacturer tries a new way to get a bezel-less display. Despite the very attractive exterior of the Find X, all that glitters is not gold. Our review shows the weaknesses of the bezel-less Oppo smartphone and how it fares in the comparison to the Vivo Nex.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Oppo Find X

Oppo breaks new ground with the bezel-less Find X. Instead of a display notch, the Chinese manufacturer uses a motorized case section that pops up automatically from the top edge within half a second and slides back just as fast. Thanks to this slider technology, the sensors for face recognition and the front camera as well as the dual camera unit on the back are protected inside the case. In addition, this variable case module also allows maximum bezel reduction in the 6.4-inch display. The "chin," the bezel below the OLED panel, also turned out pleasantly thin in the Find X. 

The high-end smartphone is run by Qualcomm's currently fastest SoC, the Snapdragon 845. The battery of the Find X has a capacity of 3730 mAh and can be recharged quickly via VOOC charge technology. In addition, the dual-SIM smartphone offers 8 GB of RAM and with up to 256 GB of internal storage, there should be sufficient space for personal files in the top model of the manufacturer. This model is available for about 1000 Euros (~$1139) in Europe, except for Germany. You can get a version with 128 GB of internal storage for about 650 Euros (~$740; $929 in the US) via import companies from the Far East.

The main competitor we selected is the also almost bezel-less Vivo Nex Ultimate, which has already fared well in our test. The phones of the current smartphone elite in Germany are listed as additional competitors of the Find X in our test: the Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus and the Huawei P20 Pro as well as the price-performance champion, the Xiaomi Mi 8

Oppo Find X (Find Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.42 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 401 PPI, Capactive multi-touchscreen, AMOLED, Samsung, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB Type-C, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Face ID, acceleration sensor, digital compass (magnetometer), gyroscope, proximity sensor, USB-C, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM:850/900/1800/1900, WCDMA:B1/2/4/5/6/8/19, LTE FDD:B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/18/19/20/25/26/28/29/32/66 TD-LTE:B34/38/39/40/41(2496-2690MHz), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.4 x 156.7 x 74.2 ( = 0.37 x 6.17 x 2.92 in)
Battery
3730 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix Dual camera: 16 MP (f/2.0) + 20 MP (f/2.0)
Secondary Camera: 25 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker, Keyboard: Virtual, Quick guide, case, 3.5-mm-to-USB-Type-C adapter, earphones, ColorOS 5.1, 24 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
186 g ( = 6.56 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 74 g ( = 2.61 oz / 0.16 pounds)
Price
1000 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case - The Find X is a beauty

The Oppo flagship model is available in the two color combinations of blue/black (Glacier Blue) and red/black (Bordeaux Red). The color of the rounded black back gets lighter towards the edges using the corresponding color tones, which is very beautiful to look at. Thanks to the camera elements and sensors being hidden inside the case, the Find X looks puritan and "clean" in terms of its design. 

In the front is the 6.4-inch display whose side edges are also rounded, similar to the Galaxy S series from Samsung. The bezels around the OLED panel, which are protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 5, are very small. At nearly 87%, almost the whole front of the Find X is taken up by the display, which makes it one of the most efficient display-to-surface ratios on the smartphone market.  

The slimness of the metal frame and the slightly curved back allow the Find X to fit excellently into the hand. The case appears very high quality and ergonomic. The volume keys and the power button are easily reachable and have a comfortable pressure point. The keys sit tightly in the case. The Oppo Find X lacks an IP certification, consequently water and dust can get into the case.

Size Comparison

Equipment - Limited for a 1000-Euro smartphone

While the equipment of the Find X includes 3D face recognition as well as wireless transfer of display contents to external monitors, the users of the Oppo smartphone have to make do without a notification LED, VoLTE, Wi-Fi calling, or a fingerprint sensor.

The internal UFS-2.1 storage of our test unit has a capacity of 128 GB, leaving about 110 GB still available to the user at the state of delivery. A microSD card is not supported in addition to the dual-SIM functionality. 

The USB port is of Type-C, but it is only connected via USB-2.0 to charge the device. In addition, it supports USB-OTG, so that external storage or input media are recognized. Despite the glass back, wireless charging is not supported. Instead, Oppo bets on the VOOC charge technology as a quick-charge method to recharge the 3730-mAh battery via USB Type-C. 

Software - The ColorOS in the Find X brings some limitations

For its system software, Oppo uses its in-house ColorOS user interface, which is based on the current Google Android version 8.1. Our test unit has the Chinese ROM version (model: PAFM00) and the Android security patches are dated August 2018. 

Very little remains of the stock Android user interface.  ColorOS version 5.1 is very colorful and offers many setting options. The installed apps are not presented in an App Drawer but spread over several Home screens. The system is fairly restrictive. For example, you can only use an alternative launcher via some detours (adb commands). Despite the ample size of the working memory, ColorOS only allows five active apps to run in the background.

The Chinese version of the Find X does not support Google services such as the Play Store or Google applications such as Gmail in the state of delivery. Instead, Chinese and Oppo's own services are used. Therefore, if you still want to use the Google services, you need to manually install them yourself.    

Oppo Find X Software
Oppo Find X Software
Oppo Find X Software
Oppo Find X Software
Oppo Find X Software
Oppo Find X Software

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Communication and GPS - No NFC in the Find X

In terms of its communication modules, Oppo is using version 5.0 of Bluetooth. The Find X does not support the option for Near Field Communication (NFC).

The integrated WLAN module of the Oppo smartphone masters the IEEE-802.11 standard according to a/b/g/n/ac and thus not only communicates in the 2.4-GHz but also in the 5-GHz frequency range as is customary in this price range. During everyday usage, the reception performance of the WLAN module is good and its signal is stable.

In close proximity to the router (Telekom Speedport, W921V) we measure a dampening of -37 dBm. In combination with our Linksys EA8500 reference router, the Find X achieves the very good transfer rates of 430 Mb/s and 510 Mb/s.

The Find X offers space for two nano-SIM cards. The dual-SIM smartphone can access the mobile Internet at up to 1.2 Gb/s (Cat 18) in the downloads. All the LTE frequencies that are relevant in Germany are supported. The built-in LTE modem offers access to 24 LTE bands, which really deserves the label "suitable for world travel."

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼100% +23%
Huawei P20 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
635 MBit/s ∼97% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼94% +16%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
530 (min: 467, max: 568) MBit/s ∼81%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼80% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=302)
210 MBit/s ∼32% -60%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼100% +37%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼85% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼84% +15%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
450 (min: 167, max: 526) MBit/s ∼73%
Huawei P20 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
437 MBit/s ∼71% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=302)
205 MBit/s ∼33% -54%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570Tooltip
Oppo Find X Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø526 (467-568)
Oppo Find X Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø444 (167-526)
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors

The position of the Oppo smartphone can be located using the main satellite systems: GPS, GLONASS, and Beidou. Outdoors, the location is quickly determined with an accuracy of about 3 meters (~10 ft), and even indoors, the Find X succeeds quickly and accurately in determining the location. 

In order to evaluate the locating accuracy of our test unit in practice, we record a route with the smartphone and the Garmin Edge 520 bicycle computer in parallel for comparison. Unfortunately, we were unable to get any location data from the Find X even after three attempts of repeating our GPS test, so we cannot give you a final verdict on the locating accuracy.

GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Oppo Find X
GPS Oppo Find X
 
 

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality - In Germany only the Telekom SIM card can be used

Oppo Find X software

The voice quality of the Find X is good and there was nothing unusual in the daily usage of the smartphone, at least when using a Telekom SIM card. However, the Oppo smartphone could neither connect to the mobile Internet in the D-net of Vodafone, nor the E-net of O2. Outside the Telekom net, we were only able to use the telephone function in our test. 

There are no annoying drops or reception problems with the Find X. Voices are reproduced clearly. We feel that the quality of the built-in microphone is satisfactory, and the voice reproduction is characterized as "clear" by our conversation partner.  

Cameras - Aperture in the Find X not very light sensitive

Picture taken with front camera
Picture taken with front camera

The main camera at the back of the Oppo smartphone has two lenses with an aperture of f/2.0 and an auto-focus with phase recognition. While the 16-MP main camera has a 4608x3456 pixel resolution in the 4:3 image format, the second camera sensor has a resolution of 20 MP. Thanks to this second lens, you can create Bokeh effects targeting specific background blurriness. In low light conditions, the camera unit in the back can be supported by an LED flash. Optical image stabilization (OIS) is also built-in.

The image quality is outstanding, at least with good lighting. The images can convince with their dynamic as well as their details. However, the auto-focus has some problems with fast movements. The colors captured are quite natural and the white balance makes the images appear warmer rather than cooler. 

The Find X takes attractive pictures with little graininess and blurriness in situations with little surrounding light as well. However, if there is little light, the images turn out slightly dark. 

The 25-MP camera in front can be considered a selfie specialist. While the pictures tend slightly towards overexposure, their quality is good to very good. We feel that the softening filter in the pictures is a bit annoying.

The front camera records videos at 1080p with up to 30 images per second, and the 16-MP camera on the back records videos in UHD resolution with up to 30 FPS. 

Normal mode
Normal mode
HDR recording
HDR recording
2-times zoom
2-times zoom
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X

Accessories and Warranty - 20-watt quick charger included by default

In addition to the smartphone itself, a USB cable, a protective plastic case, a USB-C-to-3.5-mm adapter, and a modular CN charger (4 A, 5 V) are included in the box. 

TradingShenzhen has also added an EU adapter for the outlets used in this country; however, this is not part of the standard delivery, but a special service of the lender of our test unit. 

The warranty is 24 months. With our test unit, that was lent to us by TradingShenzhen, there is the option to send the Find X to a German vendor address in case of a warranty claim, so we would not have to send it to China, which would be very time consuming.

Input Devices and Operation - Oppo smartphone with 3D face recognition

While the Find X does not have a fingerprint sensor, it is the first Oppo smartphone that offers biometric authentication via 3D face recognition. According to Oppo, this is supposed to analyze about 15,000 points of the face and with this be 20-times more secure than a fingerprint reader. The face recognition unlocks the Find X very quickly and accurately. The recognition rates are even able to convince in absolute darkness.

Navigation is done either with the three usual Android on-screen keys in the lower third of the display or alternatively via gestures, similar to the Xiaomi models. Inputs on the 6.41-inch display are registered quickly and accurately up to the corners of the touchscreen. 

Oppo has selected the Sogou keyboard layout. Anyone who does not like this because of the Chinese characters can download another keyboard from the Play Store (in case they installed it). 

Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X

Display - A high-contrast OLED panel

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid

The OLED display offers a resolution of 2340x1080 pixels in 19.5:9 format with a 6.41-inch diagonal and a pixel density of about 400 PPI. Due to the high amount of pixels, the contents appear sharp, and readability of text is outstanding on the large screen. However, in the direct comparison to QHD panels, a difference in sharpness is noticeable.

At 432 cd/m², the maximum display brightness of the organic screen is not very high, but at 87%, the display brightness is even. Our more realistic APL50 measurement, which simulates an even distribution of light and dark areas on the OLED panel, results in a value of 428 cd/m².

In order to control the brightness, the Find X uses pulse width modulation (PWM) at a frequency of 227 Hz. Subjectively, we did not notice any annoying flickering, but PWM can create some problems such as headaches or dizziness in particularly sensitive users.

421
cd/m²
437
cd/m²
465
cd/m²
415
cd/m²
427
cd/m²
450
cd/m²
405
cd/m²
419
cd/m²
452
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 465 cd/m² Average: 432.3 cd/m² Minimum: 2.05 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 427 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
146.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.243
Oppo Find X
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.42
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Huawei P20 Pro
OLED, 2240x1080, 6.1
Screen
-28%
14%
37%
47%
Brightness middle
427
356
-17%
429
0%
565
32%
569
33%
Brightness
432
352
-19%
432
0%
571
32%
578
34%
Brightness Distribution
87
95
9%
88
1%
96
10%
95
9%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.37
7.08
-32%
3.39
37%
2.3
57%
1.3
76%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.51
14.1
-88%
5.25
30%
4.8
36%
2.1
72%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4
4.7
-18%
3.3
17%
1.9
52%
1.6
60%
Gamma
2.243 98%
2.096 105%
2.238 98%
2.16 102%
2.31 95%
CCT
6851 95%
7297 89%
7135 91%
6332 103%
6401 102%

* ... 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 detected 227 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 227 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 227 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8964 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Due to their technology, OLED displays have a clear advantage compared to IPS panels, since the organic displays can reproduce an "absolute" black even in a completely dark room and at maximum brightness, with the contrast ratio in theory tending towards infinite. 

The analysis of the photo spectrometer and the CalMAN software results in relatively low average Delta-E deviations to the sRGB color space for the Find X with 5.4 (colors) and 4 (Grayscale) and the ideal range being values <3. At 6851 K, the color temperature is only slightly elevated compared to the ideal value of 6500 K. The sRGB color space is covered completely by the OLED panel, and we do not really see any tint.

Color Accuracy (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Accuracy (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Space (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Space (sRGB Target Color Space)
Grayscales (sRGB Target Color Space)
Grayscales (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Saturation (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Saturation (sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Accuracy (Adobe sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Accuracy (Adobe sRGB Target 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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Outdoors, the organic display of the Oppo smartphone serves well. Contents can be read in direct sunlight, even if the maximum brightness could have been slightly higher. 

In the sun
In the sun
In the shade
In the shade
With reflections
With reflections

The viewing angle stability is on a very good level. Even at very steep angles, the display contents are reproduced with accurate colors and proportions, and there are no color changes.

Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X

Performance - Snapdragon 845 and very good system performance

Inside the Oppo smartphone, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 provides ample performance. This SoC for high-end smartphones of the year 2018 integrates four performance cores that are based on the ARM-Cortex-A75 architecture with up to 2.8 GHz as well as four power saving cores that are based on the ARM-Cortex-A55 architecture with up to 1.8 GHz clock speed. The graphics unit built into the Qualcomm SoC is also powerful, an Adreno 630

In combination with 8 GB of RAM, the high-end processor ensures very good system performance. The application load times are also very short. In our benchmark battery, the Oppo high-end smartphone places at the top end. Together with the Xiaomi Mi 8 it forms the very top in the AnTuTu benchmarks. The Find X also proves its outstanding mastery in the system benchmarks and leaves the competition in the dust with 13,000 points in the PCMark benchmark. However, the recent information regarding a dynamic performance adjustment of the Find X in the benchmarks – similar to what other manufacturers do  should be considered and the smartphone should be judged accordingly. 

Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
13817 Points ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼96% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
14299 Points ∼100% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -55%
Huawei P20 Pro
8025 Points ∼56% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=196)
4525 Points ∼32% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
7983 Points ∼87%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8548 Points ∼94% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼98% +12%
Huawei P20 Pro
6756 Points ∼74% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼95% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=246)
4306 Points ∼47% -46%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
2330 Points ∼62%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼65% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2441 Points ∼65% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +62%
Huawei P20 Pro
1922 Points ∼51% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=247)
1269 Points ∼34% -46%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
9868 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼77% -23%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7360 Points ∼75% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼54% -46%
Huawei P20 Pro
6982 Points ∼71% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼81% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=254)
4550 Points ∼46% -54%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
13211 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼61% -39%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8967 Points ∼68% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼44% -56%
Huawei P20 Pro
8115 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=422)
4954 Points ∼37% -63%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3089 Points ∼99%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2577 Points ∼83% -17%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2227 Points ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2546 Points ∼82% -18%
Huawei P20 Pro
2942 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2386 - 4439, n=276)
1707 Points ∼55% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
5678 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5689 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4209 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3792 Points ∼67% -33%
Huawei P20 Pro
3109 Points ∼55% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=276)
1467 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
4765 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4485 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3512 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3420 Points ∼72% -28%
Huawei P20 Pro
3070 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1012 - 5189, n=279)
1361 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3024 Points ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2110 Points ∼68% -30%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2145 Points ∼70% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2561 Points ∼83% -15%
Huawei P20 Pro
2940 Points ∼95% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=291)
1687 Points ∼55% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
8357 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7823 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
5922 Points ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4797 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro
3503 Points ∼42% -58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=291)
2071 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
6005 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4884 Points ∼81% -19%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4232 Points ∼70% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4018 Points ∼67% -33%
Huawei P20 Pro
3360 Points ∼56% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=292)
1734 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3132 Points ∼96%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2118 Points ∼65% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼75% -21%
Huawei P20 Pro
2926 Points ∼89% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=351)
1640 Points ∼50% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
5169 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3742 Points ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -31%
Huawei P20 Pro
3017 Points ∼58% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=351)
1187 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
4516 Points ∼99%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3197 Points ∼70% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼71% -28%
Huawei P20 Pro
2996 Points ∼65% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=359)
1134 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3197 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼88% -12%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2176 Points ∼68% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼78% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro
2885 Points ∼90% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=383)
1538 Points ∼48% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
8193 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6554 Points ∼80% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro
3335 Points ∼41% -59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=383)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
6087 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4529 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼64% -36%
Huawei P20 Pro
3223 Points ∼53% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=391)
1387 Points ∼23% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
35009 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
30765 Points ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼75% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro
22441 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=538)
12873 Points ∼37% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
83168 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼96% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
77003 Points ∼93% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼56% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro
33472 Points ∼40% -60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=538)
17989 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
63695 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
57711 Points ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼62% -38%
Huawei P20 Pro
30176 Points ∼47% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=539)
15106 Points ∼24% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
146 fps ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
102 fps ∼68% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% +1%
Huawei P20 Pro
121 fps ∼80% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=563)
31.3 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
60 fps ∼96%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Huawei P20 Pro
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=566)
24.9 fps ∼40% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
79 fps ∼95%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
54 fps ∼65% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼89% -6%
Huawei P20 Pro
61 fps ∼73% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼88% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=485)
16.8 fps ∼20% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
51 fps ∼86% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro
54 fps ∼92% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=488)
16 fps ∼27% -72%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
32 fps ∼53% -45%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -19%
Huawei P20 Pro
39 fps ∼65% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=348)
14.4 fps ∼24% -75%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
59 fps ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
29 fps ∼49% -51%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼41% -59%
Huawei P20 Pro
36 fps ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=351)
13.9 fps ∼24% -76%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
14 fps ∼71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=61)
10.3 fps ∼52%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
8.6 fps ∼56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=61)
6.56 fps ∼43%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼81%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=61)
14.5 fps ∼51%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=60)
15.9 fps ∼45%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
35 fps ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=279)
9.88 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
29 fps ∼88%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
24 fps ∼73% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼42% -52%
Huawei P20 Pro
22 fps ∼67% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=282)
8.89 fps ∼27% -69%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
283346 Points ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼99% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
288062 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼87% -12%
Huawei P20 Pro
207959 Points ∼72% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=169)
118333 Points ∼41% -58%

Legend

 
Oppo Find X Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei P20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

While surfing with the Chrome browser, you do not need to worry about a lack of speed, even if the Find X ends up more in the middle of the field in all the benchmarks. In practice, the Oppo smartphone can score with a high speed while surfing. Demanding sites are loaded quickly and without errors.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼95% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼86% +7%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
64.809 Points ∼80%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
58.255 Points ∼72% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=421)
36.7 Points ∼45% -43%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼28% -65%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼100% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼96% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼95% +10%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
13276 Points ∼86%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
11584 Points ∼75% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=556)
5550 Points ∼36% -58%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼26% -70%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=577)
11486 ms * ∼100% -265%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼98% -256%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
3852.2 ms * ∼34% -22%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
3147 ms * ∼27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼20% +26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼18% +35%

* ... smaller is better

When reading or writing to the internal UFS storage, the Oppo smartphone does not establish any new records, and the access rates are on the level of current high-end smartphones from other manufacturers.   

Oppo Find XVivo Nex UltimateXiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusHuawei P20 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-8%
-5%
125%
59%
-61%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65.5 (51.3 - 72.4, n=5)
45.4 (3.4 - 87.1, n=316)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
80 (75.4 - 83.2, n=5)
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=316)
Random Write 4KB
26.98
22.1
-18%
22.65
-16%
22.74
-16%
160.49
495%
92.1 (19.5 - 164, n=17)
241%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=606)
-40%
Random Read 4KB
145.87
126.7
-13%
135.21
-7%
129.68
-11%
144.33
-1%
141 (132 - 158, n=17)
-3%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=606)
-74%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.87
228.4
10%
205.23
-1%
204.94
-1%
196.69
-5%
202 (192 - 212, n=17)
-2%
79.7 (2.99 - 246, n=606)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
760.99
687.2
-10%
691.65
-9%
818.69
8%
831.82
9%
767 (675 - 853, n=17)
1%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=606)
-70%

Games - The Adreno 630 GPU ensures gaming enjoyment

The Adreno 630 GPU integrated in the Qualcomm SoC supports all the modern APIs such as Vulkan, OpenGL, and Direct3D 12. The powerful graphics card in the Find X allows playing even more demanding 3D games from the Android Play Store without any stutters. With the GPU, current games such as "Asphalt 9" are played in high graphic settings at a relatively constant 30 FPS. 

Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile

Emissions - Surface temperatures pose no problems

Temperature

The front of the Oppo smartphone warms up quite unevenly under load. While we measure 41.6 °C (~107 °F) in the upper areas, the lower third of the front shows maximum surface temperatures of 36 °C (~97 °F). Thanks to the fairly cool back of the phone, the temperatures developing under load are not interfering with everyday operation.

Max. Load
 41.6 °C
107 F
39.1 °C
102 F
35.7 °C
96 F
 
 41.3 °C
106 F
40.1 °C
104 F
36.2 °C
97 F
 
 40.7 °C
105 F
39.4 °C
103 F
35.5 °C
96 F
 
Maximum: 41.6 °C = 107 F
Average: 38.8 °C = 102 F
34.6 °C
94 F
36.8 °C
98 F
36.2 °C
97 F
33.6 °C
92 F
36.2 °C
97 F
36.6 °C
98 F
33.2 °C
92 F
35.6 °C
96 F
35.4 °C
96 F
Maximum: 36.8 °C = 98 F
Average: 35.4 °C = 96 F
Power Supply (max.)  42 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.6 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.8 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.6 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X

Speaker

Pink-Noise diagram
Pink-Noise diagram

There is a mono speaker at the bottom edge of the Find X smartphone. At almost 82 dB(A), this is sufficiently loud, but its quality is only convincing to a limited extent. Bass sounds cannot be heard, and the mids and highs are also not really reproduced in a linear fashion. However, the quality of the mono speaker is sufficient for playing short videos.   

Music lovers can use the sound output of the USB Type-C connection, which sounds good and is sufficiently loud.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.435.62535.235.83137.738.8403635.45037.738.36323.327.58021.922.910020.121.712518.427.31601935.720016.747.425015.550.831519.754.440014.358.850013.860.763012.661.280012.761.6100012.363.8125011.564.716001168.520001172.2250010.874.5315010.774400010.670.8500010.766.6630010.763.4800010.963.11000010.9531250010.937.51600010.832.6SPL68.724.181.5N20.60.645.1median 11.5median 61.2Delta2.28.725.625.727.128.125.428.825.225.331.733.722.823.42122.919.524.517.729.616.842.216.751.815.252.414.253.513.660.113.457.712.762.712.364.511.866.511.963.111.368.711.374.211.376.411.275.111.465.311.162.211.363.511.468.711.466.511.448.611.536.268.759.950.12482.520.312.96.60.548.5median 11.8median 62.71.68.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Find XVivo Nex Ultimate
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Find X audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life - The Find X lasts for a while

Power Consumption - Oppo smartphone with slightly high consumption

While the Find X is not very efficient in terms of its power usage, considering it is a 6.4-inch smartphone, the power consumption of the Oppo smartphone is acceptable. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.2 / 0.4 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.9 / 3.2 Watt
Load midlight 7.1 / 10.7 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei P20 Pro
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
30%
-27%
45%
44%
20%
28%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.9
-0%
1.8
-100%
0.68
24%
0.84
7%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
11%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=634)
2%
Idle Average *
1.9
1.5
21%
2.9
-53%
0.95
50%
1.54
19%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
9%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=633)
9%
Idle Maximum *
3.2
1.7
47%
3.5
-9%
1.09
66%
1.57
51%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
34%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=634)
38%
Load Average *
7.1
3.7
48%
4.8
32%
4.58
35%
2.47
65%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
33%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=628)
43%
Load Maximum *
10.7
7.2
33%
11.2
-5%
5.16
52%
2.49
77%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
14%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=628)
46%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In our WLAN test with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m², the 3730-mAh battery lasts for about 10 hours. With the included 20-watt charger, it takes only 1.5 hours to fully recharge the empty battery, thanks to the VOOC quick-charge technology.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
9h 56min
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei P20 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
596
1026
72%
694
16%
521
-13%
744
25%

Pros

+ design
+ haptics
+ performance
+ good endurance
+ beautiful OLED panel

Cons

- ColorOS
- SIM card problems
- no NFC
- equipment
- speaker

Verdict - Oppo smartphone with great hardware and software that takes some getting used to

Testing the Oppo Find X, test unit provided by tradingshenzhen
Testing the Oppo Find X, test unit provided by tradingshenzhen

The Oppo Find X is one of the most beautiful smartphones of the year. Thanks to the slider technology, all the camera modules and sensors are hidden, causing the smartphone to appear clean and timeless. The workmanship and haptics of the case are also excellent. The built-in cameras, the battery, and the system performance of the Snapdragon 845 in combination with 8 GB of RAM show no weaknesses. We merely have some complaints about its sparse features in terms of hardware at a price between about 650 and 1000 Euros (~$739-1137). In the times of Google Pay, there should have been at least an NFC chip. 

While the motorized slider technology is unlikely to own the future, it solves the current notch problems very well. 

The main problem of the Find X is the software. The in-house ColorOS could not be more restrictive, which often leads to problems in everyday usage scenarios. For example, push notifications were not always received in a timely manner during the test (despite the corresponding settings), using mobile data was only possible in the Telekom net, and we could only access alternative launchers via some detours. In addition, the system only allows a maximum of five constantly activated apps – and that even though it has 8 GB of working memory. 

The current software problems lead us to deduct one percentage point from the overall evaluation.

Oppo Find X - 10/22/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
49 / 60 → 81%
Weight
89%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
69 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
78 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
91%
Noise
100%
Audio
70 / 91 → 77%
Camera
82%
Add Points
-1%
Average
75%
87%
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 Find X Smartphone Review
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-10-25 (Update: 2018-10-27)