Notebookcheck
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Oppo Find X3 Neo smartphone in review: Focus on the camera

50 MP with AI support. Oppo also wants to win over demanding users with the Find X3 Neo. The system performance and the camera's imaging performance are supposed to be the keys to success. We will show how well the manufacturer succeeds in this in our review.
Mike Wobker, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Brian Burriston (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 🇩🇪 🇷🇺 ...
Oppo Find X3 Neo

After our tests of the two Oppo smartphones Find X3 Pro and Find X3 Lite we will now take a look at the mid-range model. With a price of approximately 800 Euros (~$969), the Oppo Find X3 Neo is positioned between the aforementioned devices. The same applies for the installed SoC, a Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 with Adreno 650 graphics unit, and the storage configuration of 12 GB RAM and 256 GB UFS 3.0 storage.

With the mentioned equipment, we compare the X3 Neo with the rival devices below. However, other devices from our database can also be added for comparison under each section.

, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Oppo Find X3 Neo (Find X3 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 8 x 2.4 - 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A77 / A55 (Kryo 585)
Graphics adapter
Memory
12288 MB 
, LPDDR4x @ 2133 MHz 4 x 16 bit/s
Display
6.55 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 402 PPI, capacitive, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glas 5, glossy: yes, 90 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 238 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: combined audio jack, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Electronic Compass, Gyroscope, Proximity Sensor, Hall Sensor
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.2, 5G (N1/N3/N5/N7/N8/N20/N28//N38/N40/ N41/N77/N78), 4G LTE FDD/TDD (1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/17/18/19/20/26/28/32/38/39/40/41/66), 3G UMTS (1/2/4/5/6/8/19), 2G GSM (850/900/1800/1900 MHz), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.99 x 159.9 x 72.5 ( = 0.31 x 6.3 x 2.85 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix main camera (f/1.8), 16 MP ultrawide (f/2.2), 13 MP tele (f/2.4), 2 MP macro (f/2.4), DRM Widevine L1, Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.4
Additional features
Speakers: stereo (1x earspeaker, 1x speaker), Keyboard: onscreen, Keyboard Light: yes, power supply, usb-c cable, protection cover, usb-c headphone, ColorOS 11.1, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value (head): 0,99 W/kg, SAR value (body): 1,28 W/kg, fanless
Weight
184 g ( = 6.49 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 142 g ( = 5.01 oz / 0.31 pounds)
Price
799 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
88 %
04/2021
Oppo Find X3 Neo
SD 865, Adreno 650
184 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.55"2400x1080
87 %
04/2021
OnePlus 9
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
192 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.55"2400x1080
87 %
02/2021
Xiaomi Mi 11
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
196 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.81"3200x1440
88 %
02/2021
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
SD 865, Adreno 650
190 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.50"2400x1080

Case - Splash-proof smartphone

The Oppo Find X3 Neo is easy to hold thanks to its low weight of 185 g (~6.5 oz) and leaves a high-quality impression. The frame is made of aluminum and has a matte surface that ensures a firm grip. Uneven gaps are not present. However, the camera hump protrudes clearly from the matte glass surface on the back. Besides the "Galactic Silver" color of our test model, Oppo's smartphone is also available in "Starlight Black". The smartphone is also protected against splashing water according to IPX4.

Oppo Find X3 Neo
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Oppo Find X3 Neo
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Size comparison

164.3 mm / 6.47 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.06 mm / 0.3173 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs160 mm / 6.3 inch 74.2 mm / 2.92 inch 8.7 mm / 0.3425 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs159.8 mm / 6.29 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 72.5 mm / 2.85 inch 7.99 mm / 0.3146 inch 184 g0.4057 lbs

Features - 5G smartphone from Oppo

Besides the hardware mentioned at the beginning, Oppo installs two nano-SIM slots in the Find X3 Neo, one of which can be used for 5G and one for LTE. Features like VoLTE and VoWLAN are also available. However, a memory card reader has been omitted.

A USB-C port is available as a charging and data port, which, in contrast to the Find X3 Pro it only supports the slow USB 2.0 standard. Thus, image output via a corresponding adapter is not possible. The manufacturer also omits a separate 3.5 mm jack.

Top: Microphone
Top: Microphone
Left side: Volume buttons
Left side: Volume buttons
Bottom: Nano SIM slot, USB-C 2.0 port, speakers
Bottom: Nano SIM slot, USB-C 2.0 port, speakers
Right side: Power button
Right side: Power button

Software - Color OS 11 on Android basis

Oppo uses its own ColorOS version 11.1 for the Find X3 Neo. It is based on Android 11 and is similar to it in many aspects. Users therefore only have to deal with modified icons and some manufacturer-specific applications for photos, music or file management, for example.

The so-called GameSpace is used for better control over the system performance in games. Settings for the system performance in games can be made here and data about the Oppo smartphone's current load can be read.

The security updates were up to March 5, 2021 on our review sample, and another update was already available. Furthermore, navigating through menus was possible smoothly at all times, and there were no small dropouts or the like.

Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo
Software Oppo Find X3 Neo

Communication and GNSS - Fast WLAN in the Find X3 Neo

In combination with our reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, Oppo's smartphone achieves WLAN speeds of 743 MBit/s on average in data reception and 724 MBit/s in data transmission. While the latter value is sufficient for the first place in our test field, the competition we chose can perform slightly better in data reception.

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
724 (352min - 779max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
699 (347min - 764max) MBit/s ∼97% -3%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
685 (654min - 709max) MBit/s ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
519 (391min - 604max) MBit/s ∼72% -28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=303, last 2 years)
415 MBit/s ∼57% -43%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
842 (329min - 976max) MBit/s ∼100% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
798 (409min - 853max) MBit/s ∼95% +7%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
777 (623min - 829max) MBit/s ∼92% +5%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
743 (382min - 808max) MBit/s ∼88%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=303, last 2 years)
419 MBit/s ∼50% -44%
04590135180225270315360405450495540585630675720765810382805724667582683778709756664743778780754701754794804728772772694641789801808706768722778762623693642692786813808811729791806762795781829814794791750783796808820818780805797818799382805724667582683778709756664743778780754701754794804728772772694641789801808706768722778762623693642692786813808811729791806762795781829814794791750783796808820818780805797818799352725674669735753754731721681699685766765755706735682749739642767732756713694708735779755654690665709678688678691694689691684682698679673686691687686691690681691680675701694677688Tooltip
Oppo Find X3 Neo Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Qualcomm Adreno 650; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø728 (382-808)
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 660; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø777 (623-829)
Oppo Find X3 Neo Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Qualcomm Adreno 650; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø712 (352-779)
OnePlus 9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 660; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø685 (654-709)
GPS test in the interior
GPS test in the interior
Outdoor GPS test
Outdoor GPS test

The Find X3 Neo can use GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo and QZSS to determine the location. With the "GPS Test" app, we achieved a positioning accuracy of up to four meters (~13 feet) outdoors.

On our obligatory bike tour, Oppo's smartphone shows a similar inaccuracy as our reference device Garmin Edge 500 in the recorded route. Deviations are particularly obvious in curves, but also occur on long straights.

Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (loop)
Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (loop)
Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (Around the Sea)
Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (Around the Sea)
Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (Summary)
Oppo Find X3 Neo - GNSS (Summary)

Phone features and voice quality - Clear connection

Oppo relies on the standard Android app for telephony. It provides a direct view of saved favorites and allows quick access to the call list and saved contacts. The Find X3 Neo has a high volume and a good filter for ambient noise during calls. Participants can be clearly understood on both sides at all times.

Cameras - Oppo Find X3 Neo with optical zoom

Front camera
Front camera

Oppo places four camera sensors on the Find X3 Neo's back. Resolution is good in pictures taken with the front-facing camera, and colors look natural. Image quality adjustments are only possible via beautification options and color filters. According to Oppo, an AI also ensures the optimal setting of lighting and color for every picture.

The main camera also delivers very detailed pictures with natural colors. Darker areas in the picture are also evenly illuminated. However, the blur effect in the background is not clean and makes these areas look a bit blurry. Subjects in focus, on the other hand, are clearly delineated. Pictures taken with an ultra-wide angle show stronger colors and slightly less details. Object transitions with a strong brightness difference also tend to fade a bit at the picture's edge, and a fine grain is visible on dark areas.

With the help of the telesensor, the Find X3 Neo achieves a 5x hybrid zoom, but can also magnify digitally up to 20x. With 5x magnification, zoomed subjects show a lot of details in good lighting conditions. However, there is a slight graininess on dark surfaces here as well. In the low-light range, the Oppo smartphone's camera can show our test subject in detail, but the picture is too dark overall. Here, too, an AI takes over the optimal settings for colors and lighting. The main camera can also be used with a Pro mode that allows manually adjusting the ISO value, shutter speed, white balance, focus and lighting.

Video recordings can be made with the main camera's sensor as well as the wide-angle and telesensor. The image quality corresponds to our test photos. In addition to a disengageable image stabilizer, AI control for recognizing subjects and so-called highlights in the picture, as well as bokeh effect and color filters, a movie mode is also available. This offers numerous adjustment options that are similar to the Pro mode for photographs. The available resolutions are 4K, 1080p and 720p, each with 30 or 60 fps.

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 cameraUltra-wide-angleZoom (5x)LowLight
ColorChecker
7 ∆E
3 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
10 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
9 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X3 Neo: 6.95 ∆E min: 2.89 - max: 13.57 ∆E
ColorChecker
25.2 ∆E
37.1 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
33.8 ∆E
46.2 ∆E
36.2 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
25.2 ∆E
25.1 ∆E
45.5 ∆E
48 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
36.2 ∆E
19 ∆E
41.5 ∆E
29.3 ∆E
33.8 ∆E
38.7 ∆E
38.3 ∆E
38.7 ∆E
32.5 ∆E
22.8 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X3 Neo: 32.31 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 47.97 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - headset and protective case included

Besides the smartphone, the Oppo Find X3 Neo comes with a USB power adapter with a matching USB-C cable, a SIM needle, a USB-C headset, and a protective silicone case.

The manufacturer also grants a warranty period of 24 months.

Input devices & operation - InScreen fingerprint and face recognition

The touchscreen of the Find X3 Neo responds very directly and precisely to touches. The surface also offers little resistance to the fingertips, which makes drag-and-drop movements easy. Google's Gboard is installed as the standard on-screen keyboard, which allows numerous settings.

An optical in-screen fingerprint sensor and face recognition are also available for unlocking the smartphone. Both options respond relatively well, and it rarely took two attempts to unlock the device.

Oppo Find X3 Neo - keyboard in portrait mode
Oppo Find X3 Neo - keyboard in landscape mode

Display - 90 Hz panel with high brightness

Subpixel
Subpixel
Screen flickering above 25 percent brightness
Screen flickering above 25 percent brightness

The screen of Oppo's Find X3 Neo consists of a 6.55-inch AMOLED panel. The maximum brightness of 758 cd/m² is on par with the competition, and the same applies for the illumination of 98%. Without an activated light sensor, the smartphone achieves 475 cd/m², and the minimum luminosity is 1.85 cd/m². In the APL50 test, the maximum value increases to 934 cd/m².

According to our measurements, the display flickers from a brightness value of below 24 percent in a frequency range between 122 and 362 Hz. Above 24 percent, we only detect the refresh rate of 90 Hz.

746
cd/m²
749
cd/m²
757
cd/m²
748
cd/m²
758
cd/m²
758
cd/m²
750
cd/m²
753
cd/m²
759
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 759 cd/m² Average: 753.1 cd/m² Minimum: 1.85 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 758 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.7 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
Oppo Find X3 Neo
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
OnePlus 9
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
Xiaomi Mi 11
LED DotDisplay, 3200x1440, 6.81
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Screen
31%
17%
-3%
Brightness middle
758
731
-4%
840
11%
714
-6%
Brightness
753
739
-2%
845
12%
721
-4%
Brightness Distribution
98
96
-2%
98
0%
95
-3%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.7
0.59
65%
1.2
29%
1.8
-6%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5
1.3
74%
2.7
46%
5.1
-2%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.1
0.9
57%
2
5%
2
5%
Gamma
2.27 97%
2.243 98%
2.26 97%
2.16 102%
CCT
6370 102%
6573 99%
6492 100%
6588 99%

* ... 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 362.3 Hz ≤ 24 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 362.3 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 24 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 362.3 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 14804 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

While the values for the black level and the contrast ratio are outstanding as typical for OLEDs, the CalMAN analysis shows that colors are displayed very balanced in the color profile "Vivid" (color space P3) and with the preset "Warm". Alternatively, the profile "Mild" (sRGB) as well as the color temperatures "Standard" and "Colder" are available.

CalMAN - Color Fidelity (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Color Fidelity (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Color Space (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Color Space (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Grayscale (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Grayscale (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Saturation (Vivid, Warm, P3)
CalMAN - Saturation (Vivid, Warm, P3)

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
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.6 ms rise
↘ 1.6 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 (24 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 1.2 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 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.1 ms).

The Find X3 Neo can also be used well outdoors in shady places. However, depending on the viewing angle, reflections can occur that make it difficult to see the content.

Oppo Find X3 Neo in outdoor use
Oppo Find X3 Neo in outdoor use
Oppo Find X3 Neo in outdoor use
Oppo Find X3 Neo in outdoor use

The panel of Oppo's smartphone has very stable viewing angles. Only from very flat angles does a slight green cast appear, but image content can still be recognized well.

Oppo Find X3 Neo - viewing angle stability
Oppo Find X3 Neo - viewing angle stability
Oppo Find X3 Neo - viewing angle stability
Oppo Find X3 Neo - viewing angle stability

Performance - With Snapdragon 865 on 888 level

Oppo relies on the slightly older Snapdragon 865 in the Find X3 Neo. This is also used in the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE and ensures smooth system operation. On average across all benchmark results, Oppo's smartphone places itself in the middle of our test field. However, it is sometimes at the top or the bottom of the comparison devices depending on the individual disciplines.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1136 Points ∼100% +25%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1124 Points ∼99% +23%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
911 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
903 Points ∼79% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (764 - 924, n=22)
903 Points ∼79% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=235, last 2 years)
565 Points ∼50% -38%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3784 Points ∼100% +20%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3653 Points ∼97% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (2687 - 3449, n=22)
3267 Points ∼86% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3252 Points ∼86% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3141 Points ∼83%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4455, n=235, last 2 years)
1939 Points ∼51% -38%
Vulkan Score 5.3
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4737 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4279 Points ∼90% -10%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3894 Points ∼82% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (2634 - 4737, n=14)
3196 Points ∼67% -33%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3017 Points ∼64% -36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=125, last 2 years)
2045 Points ∼43% -57%
OpenCL Score 5.3
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
4674 Points ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
4566 Points ∼98% +2%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4464 Points ∼96%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (2896 - 4464, n=14)
3247 Points ∼69% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3123 Points ∼67% -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=129, last 2 years)
2133 Points ∼46% -52%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
14586 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (10990 - 19989, n=22)
13584 Points ∼93% 0%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13555 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
13276 Points ∼91% -2%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
11823 Points ∼81% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=223, last 2 years)
9982 Points ∼68% -26%
Work 2.0 performance score
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
12876 Points ∼100% +20%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11680 Points ∼91% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (9202 - 15299, n=23)
11246 Points ∼87% +5%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10743 Points ∼83%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
10438 Points ∼81% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=267, last 2 years)
7878 Points ∼61% -27%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
103701 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
85130 Points ∼82% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (56045 - 112989, n=20)
84555 Points ∼82% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2920 - 117606, n=207, last 2 years)
40247 Points ∼39% -61%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0% -100%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
180392 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (110875 - 180392, n=20)
147707 Points ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
110875 Points ∼61% -39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2177 - 224130, n=207, last 2 years)
58049 Points ∼32% -68%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
46963 Points ∼100% +13%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
41681 Points ∼89%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (17817 - 58293, n=20)
35224 Points ∼75% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8324 - 59268, n=207, last 2 years)
23323 Points ∼50% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8215 - 9611, n=20)
8915 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8868 Points ∼99%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=261, last 2 years)
3370 Points ∼38%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (10599 - 13305, n=20)
11750 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11632 Points ∼99%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=261, last 2 years)
3942 Points ∼34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3965 - 5274, n=20)
4844 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
4841 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=261, last 2 years)
2757 Points ∼57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11492 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8499 - 11492, n=21)
9633 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
9213 Points ∼80% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=277, last 2 years)
3947 Points ∼34% -66%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
16809 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11956 - 16809, n=21)
12917 Points ∼77% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11956 Points ∼71% -29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 22052, n=277, last 2 years)
4982 Points ∼30% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5454 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3956 - 5765, n=21)
5126 Points ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5110 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5784, n=275, last 2 years)
2908 Points ∼53% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7500 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5996 - 7653, n=21)
7103 Points ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=259, last 2 years)
2628 Points ∼35%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8629 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (6500 - 9167, n=20)
8128 Points ∼94%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=259, last 2 years)
2784 Points ∼32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5144 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4582 - 5209, n=20)
4941 Points ∼96%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=259, last 2 years)
2803 Points ∼54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
9343 Points ∼100% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8947 Points ∼96%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7517 - 8947, n=22)
8072 Points ∼86% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7517 Points ∼80% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=275, last 2 years)
3191 Points ∼34% -64%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
0 Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
12023 Points ∼100% 0%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11999 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8633 - 11999, n=21)
9504 Points ∼79% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
8633 Points ∼72% -28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 12914, n=275, last 2 years)
3565 Points ∼30% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4733 - 5780, n=21)
5315 Points ∼100% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5249 Points ∼99% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5176 Points ∼97% +9%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4733 Points ∼89%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5793, n=275, last 2 years)
2959 Points ∼56% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (4582 - 6961, n=20)
6202 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
6174 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (426 - 6977, n=216, last 2 years)
2634 Points ∼42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (7618 - 9104, n=19)
8249 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
7618 Points ∼92%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 11259, n=216, last 2 years)
2956 Points ∼36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3712 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (1786 - 4061, n=19)
3414 Points ∼92%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=216, last 2 years)
2651 Points ∼71%
Wild Life Score
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
5786 Points ∼100% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5599 Points ∼97% +11%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5038 Points ∼87%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3789 - 5038, n=6)
4021 Points ∼69% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3832 Points ∼66% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (153 - 7275, n=91, last 2 years)
2735 Points ∼47% -46%
Wild Life Unlimited Score
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
5751 Points ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5678 Points ∼99% +13%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5039 Points ∼88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (3789 - 5039, n=6)
4020 Points ∼70% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
3826 Points ∼67% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (205 - 8672, n=88, last 2 years)
2941 Points ∼51% -42%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
120 fps ∼100% +100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
118 fps ∼98% +97%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (50 - 138, n=22)
76.1 fps ∼63% +27%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
61 fps ∼51% +2%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=216, last 2 years)
57 fps ∼48% -5%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
275 fps ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
268 fps ∼97% +1%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
266 fps ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
207 fps ∼75% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (168 - 266, n=22)
206 fps ∼75% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 322, n=216, last 2 years)
106 fps ∼39% -60%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
111 fps ∼100% +85%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
91 fps ∼82% +52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (50 - 111, n=22)
72.3 fps ∼65% +21%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
60 fps ∼54% 0%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=214, last 2 years)
44.9 fps ∼40% -25%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
158 fps ∼100% +5%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
151 fps ∼96%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (96 - 151, n=22)
123 fps ∼78% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
119 fps ∼75% -21%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
101 fps ∼64% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 180, n=215, last 2 years)
61.9 fps ∼39% -59%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
83 fps ∼100% +38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (43 - 83, n=23)
60.8 fps ∼73% +1%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼72%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
59 fps ∼71% -2%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
57 fps ∼69% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=213, last 2 years)
35.4 fps ∼43% -41%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
111 fps ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
103 fps ∼93%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
96 fps ∼86% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (67 - 103, n=23)
85.9 fps ∼77% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
84 fps ∼76% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 121, n=213, last 2 years)
42.4 fps ∼38% -59%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
48 fps ∼89% -11%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
48 fps ∼89% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (25 - 54, n=23)
41.1 fps ∼76% -24%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
33 fps ∼61% -39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 61, n=212, last 2 years)
22.1 fps ∼41% -59%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
67 fps ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
62 fps ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
51 fps ∼76% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (39 - 62, n=23)
51 fps ∼76% -18%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
42 fps ∼63% -32%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 75, n=212, last 2 years)
25.4 fps ∼38% -59%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
58 fps ∼100% +2%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
57 fps ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
48 fps ∼83% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (28 - 57, n=24)
43.8 fps ∼76% -23%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
41 fps ∼71% -28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 73, n=281, last 2 years)
22.2 fps ∼38% -61%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
79 fps ∼100% +18%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
67 fps ∼85%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
57 fps ∼72% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (27 - 67, n=24)
52.7 fps ∼67% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
47 fps ∼59% -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=280, last 2 years)
25.5 fps ∼32% -62%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
41 fps ∼100% +3%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
40 fps ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
32 fps ∼78% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (18 - 40, n=24)
28.3 fps ∼69% -29%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
25 fps ∼61% -37%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=281, last 2 years)
14.7 fps ∼36% -63%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
29 fps ∼100% +7%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
28 fps ∼97% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
27 fps ∼93%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (20 - 27, n=24)
20.5 fps ∼71% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
20 fps ∼69% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=280, last 2 years)
10.1 fps ∼35% -63%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
713309 Points ∼100% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
700592 Points ∼98% +11%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
631025 Points ∼88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (527301 - 631025, n=23)
580364 Points ∼81% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
572485 Points ∼80% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 727247, n=187, last 2 years)
331119 Points ∼46% -48%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
714632 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
 
714632 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (121238 - 815441, n=37, last 2 years)
465139 Points ∼65% -35%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
6537 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
6361 Points ∼97% +3%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6182 Points ∼95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5264 - 6402, n=22)
5898 Points ∼90% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5555 Points ∼85% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 6959, n=199, last 2 years)
3623 Points ∼55% -41%
System
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
11627 Points ∼100% +38%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
10377 Points ∼89% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (8412 - 10147, n=22)
9662 Points ∼83% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
9458 Points ∼81% +12%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8412 Points ∼72%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=199, last 2 years)
6633 Points ∼57% -21%
Memory
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
8789 Points ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8144 Points ∼93%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
7526 Points ∼86% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (5304 - 8874, n=22)
7150 Points ∼81% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
5304 Points ∼60% -35%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=199, last 2 years)
4238 Points ∼48% -48%
Graphics
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13833 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
12938 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
12732 Points ∼92% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
11833 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (11399 - 13833, n=22)
11798 Points ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 16996, n=199, last 2 years)
5605 Points ∼41% -59%
Web
OnePlus 9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1627 Points ∼100% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 6144
1604 Points ∼99% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1542 Points ∼95%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
  (1276 - 2169, n=22)
1506 Points ∼93% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1434 Points ∼88% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=199, last 2 years)
1272 Points ∼78% -18%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Oppo Find X3 Neo (Chrome 90)
145.11 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
137.89 Points ∼95% -5%
OnePlus 9 (MS Edge)
119.23 Points ∼82% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145, n=20)
113 Points ∼78% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=193, last 2 years)
89.7 Points ∼62% -38%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138)
74.18 Points ∼51% -49%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138)
127 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
124 Points ∼98% +5%
OnePlus 9 (MS Edge)
119 Points ∼94% +1%
Oppo Find X3 Neo (Chrome 90)
118 Points ∼93%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=22)
107 Points ∼84% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 194, n=203, last 2 years)
77.9 Points ∼61% -34%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Oppo Find X3 Neo (Chrome 90)
31224 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
27539 Points ∼88% -12%
OnePlus 9 (Chrome89)
23843 Points ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=22)
22442 Points ∼72% -28%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=210, last 2 years)
17317 Points ∼55% -45%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138)
14606 Points ∼47% -53%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=212, last 2 years)
3993 ms * ∼100% -146%
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138)
2910.8 ms * ∼73% -79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=23)
2035 ms * ∼51% -25%
Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88)
1721.5 ms * ∼43% -6%
OnePlus 9 (Chrome89)
1692.34 ms * ∼42% -4%
Oppo Find X3 Neo (Chrome 90)
1623.2 ms * ∼41%

* ... smaller is better

According to the spec sheet, Oppo installs a UFS 3.0 storage in the Find X3 Neo. However, the results of the storage test suggest a UFS 3.1 storage. The X3 can just about compete with the Mi 11 with the achieved rates and thus places itself at the upper end of our test field.

Oppo Find X3 NeoOnePlus 9Xiaomi Mi 11Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5GAverage 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-6%
3%
-12%
2%
-54%
Sequential Read 256KB
1737.64
1872.3
8%
1614.92
-7%
1528.12
-12%
1751 (1330 - 2037, n=18)
1%
750 (41.9 - 2037, n=287, last 2 years)
-57%
Sequential Write 256KB
768.59
739.39
-4%
754.41
-2%
676.12
-12%
788 (671 - 1321, n=18)
3%
327 (11.9 - 1321, n=287, last 2 years)
-57%
Random Read 4KB
260.89
225.38
-14%
278.54
7%
228.4
-12%
255 (187 - 325, n=18)
-2%
134 (13.5 - 325, n=287, last 2 years)
-49%
Random Write 4KB
250.97
221.45
-12%
289.32
15%
218.37
-13%
263 (205 - 330, n=18)
5%
120 (4.97 - 330, n=287, last 2 years)
-52%

Games - Smooth gaming with a high frame rate

The Adreno 650, which is responsible for the graphics in the Find X3 Neo, can also run current games smoothly with a frame rate of 90 fps. We did not experience any stutters or the like during our test, and controlling via the touchscreen was possible without any problems.

PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Armajet
Armajet

Emissions - speakers not suitable for music

Temperature

According to our measurements, the surface of the Find X3 Neo heats up to 38.5 °C (101.3 °F) under load. Thus, the Oppo phone feels warm, but does not get hot. The stability of the system performance under permanent load is also good.

3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
Adreno 650, SD 865, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
91.2 % ∼100% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 11
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
90.2 (5064min - 5613max) % ∼99% +8%
Oppo Find X3 Neo
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
83.2 (4216min - 5068max) % ∼91%
OnePlus 9
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56.2 (3203min - 5696max) % ∼62% -32%
Max. Load
 38.5 °C
101 F
38.5 °C
101 F
36.9 °C
98 F
 
 38.5 °C
101 F
38.2 °C
101 F
36.7 °C
98 F
 
 37.4 °C
99 F
36.4 °C
98 F
36.2 °C
97 F
 
Maximum: 38.5 °C = 101 F
Average: 37.5 °C = 100 F
36.1 °C
97 F
36.9 °C
98 F
37 °C
99 F
35.3 °C
96 F
36.6 °C
98 F
36.6 °C
98 F
34.7 °C
94 F
35.3 °C
96 F
35.5 °C
96 F
Maximum: 37 °C = 99 F
Average: 36 °C = 97 F
Power Supply (max.)  27.3 °C = 81 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.5 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Thermal image - top side
Thermal image - top side
Thermal image - bottom side
Thermal image - bottom side

Speaker

The speakers of the X3 Neo offer a high volume and a sound spectrum that is focused on the higher tones. This makes it possible to reproduce speech well, for example, but it lacks depth for music or similar. Playing media at high volume levels also results in distortions of the sound image.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.6382534.735.13124.734.34023.535.85042.441.66328.433.58023.938.410020.439.112515.338.81602047.320014.647.825013.154.33151461.64001162.750010.366.16301170.180010.272100010.372.3125010.874.4160010.978.1200011.680.4250012.279.5315012.281.9400012.582.9500013.483.1630013.179.280001574.61000013.871.11250014.163.9160001659.1SPL24.791.1N0.682.6median 13.1median 71.1Delta211.14346.236.838.436.82830.630.23435.52931.725.523.129.322.423.927.114.237.411.344.511.752.29.755.49.357.511.860.413.760.717.364.716.271.411.172.410.373.210.470.611.672.812.674.713.973.515.265.115.663.716.369.716.571.116.460.717.15368.865.971.426.48322.219.226.50.853.5median 13.9median 63.72.410.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Find X3 NeoOnePlus 9
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Find X3 Neo audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 37% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

OnePlus 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 32% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 57% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life - Long runtime and fast charging

Energy consumption

While the Oppo smartphone requires slightly more energy than the other smartphones in our test field with an average power consumption of 2.38 watts in idle mode, it is one of the most frugal devices in our test field under load, along with the Galaxy S20 FE.

The Find X3 Neo supports fast charging with 65 watts; a corresponding power adapter is included.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.03 / 0.45 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.92 / 2.38 / 2.41 Watt
Load midlight 3.91 / 8.13 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Oppo Find X3 Neo
4500 mAh
OnePlus 9
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 11
4600 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
4500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-11%
-27%
21%
-11%
6%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
0.9
2%
1.57
-71%
0.75
18%
1.123 (0.52 - 2.2, n=21)
-22%
0.934 (0.37 - 2.5, n=234, last 2 years)
-2%
Idle Average *
2.38
1.7
29%
1.92
19%
1.41
41%
2.08 (1.19 - 3.43, n=21)
13%
1.843 (0.65 - 3.94, n=234, last 2 years)
23%
Idle Maximum *
2.41
2.7
-12%
1.94
20%
1.44
40%
2.31 (1.23 - 4, n=21)
4%
2.1 (0.69 - 4.2, n=234, last 2 years)
13%
Load Average *
3.91
5.4
-38%
6.32
-62%
3.84
2%
5.18 (3.5 - 7.4, n=21)
-32%
4.46 (2.1 - 8.4, n=234, last 2 years)
-14%
Load Maximum *
8.13
11.1
-37%
11.65
-43%
7.67
6%
9.66 (7.67 - 12.3, n=21)
-19%
7.24 (3.16 - 12.3, n=234, last 2 years)
11%

* ... smaller is better

Battery life

The Oppo Find X3 Neo achieves a very good runtime of over 18 hours in our real-world Wi-Fi test. The battery is also fully recharged in about one and a half hours with the included quick charger.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
18h 47min
Oppo Find X3 Neo
4500 mAh
OnePlus 9
4500 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 11
4600 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G
4500 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
1127
854
-24%
527
-53%
763
-32%

Pros

+ 90 Hz AMOLED panel
+ long battery life
+ fast memory
+ good camera performance
+ fast charging with 65 watts

Cons

- only USB 2.0 port
- no memory card reader
- no jack port

Verdict - On par with the competition

In the test: Oppo Find X3 Neo. Test device provided by: Oppo Germany
In the test: Oppo Find X3 Neo. Test device provided by: Oppo Germany

The Oppo Find X3 Neo can hold its own against the competition despite the slightly older SoC. The system performance is good, and the camera delivers very good pictures. The high battery runtime, 5G support, and an equally very good screen leave hardly anything to be desired.

Oppo places the Find X3 Neo on par with the competition. Thus, only small details decide about buying or not buying.

The criticism is therefore played out in the details. The USB 2.0 standard becomes a bottleneck especially for large files or many photos that are to be copied via cable. The missing memory card reader and the lack of a jack can also be criticized. However, the competition is confronted with similar complaints in this price range.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and availability

The Oppo Find X3 Neo is now available for about 800 Euros (~$969), for example, at Cyberport or Amazon.

Oppo Find X3 Neo - 04/26/2021 v7
Mike Wobker

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
53 / 70 → 76%
Weight
89%
Battery
92%
Display
91%
Games Performance
65 / 64 → 100%
Application Performance
84 / 86 → 97%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
79 / 90 → 88%
Camera
73%
Average
82%
88%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Mike Wobker
Editor of the original article: Mike Wobker - Senior Tech Writer - 406 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2017
I carried out my first IT experiments with a 386-based system and a whole 4 MB RAM. This was followed by work on various PCs and laptops that I maintained and repaired for friends and acquaintances. After training to become a Telecommunications Systems Technician and gaining a few years of experience, I graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Engineering. Currently, I pursue my fascination for IT, technology, and mobile devices by writing reviews and articles for Notebookcheck. I have also worked for Gamestar, Netzwelt, and Golem, among others.
contact me via: @mornoc_mw, Xing
Ninh Duy
Translator: Ninh Duy - Editorial Assistant - 186603 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2017
My main responsibility as an editorial assistant is maintaining the Library section, which aggregates reviews from other publications and channels. In addition, my daily breakfast is Notebookcheck's long list of new content, which I comb through to select the most interesting topics for translation from English to French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch."
contact me via: Facebook
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo Find X3 Neo smartphone in review: Focus on the camera
Mike Wobker, 2021-04-30 (Update: 2021-04-30)