Oppo Find X5 Lite review: Mid-range smartphone in optical disguise

Name: Oppo Find X5 Lite
Brand: Oppo

Somewhat misses its mark. Like the Oppo Find X5 Pro, the Find X5 Lite also aims to court the favor of price-conscious buyers with a fast OLED display, artificial intelligence and rapid charging times. In some respects, however, the Oppo phone lags behind the competition in this price range.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Jacob Fisher), Published 05/29/2022 🇩🇪 🇨🇳 ...

5G Android Smartphone

At a RRP of US$ 629.99, the Oppo Find X5 Lite is the most affordable model in the Find X5 series. Whilst lacking the Hasselblad branding of the Find X5, the mid-range smartphone offers some exciting features such as AI Highlight Video, Laser Direct Imaging and SuperVOOC fast charging with 65 watts.

The 173-gram Find X5 Lite uses a Mediatek Dimensity 900, which is supported by 8GB RAM and 256GB storage space. Moreover, the Chinese manufacturer has installed a 6.43 inch, 90 Hz fast AMOLED display that is supposed to achieve a peak brightness of 800 nits.

Test device courtesy of Oppo Germany

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Oppo Find X5 Lite (Find X5 Series)

Processor

MediaTek Dimensity 900 8 x 2 - 2.4 GHz, Cortex-A78 / A55

Graphics adapter

ARM Mali-G68 MP4

Memory

8 GB

Display

6.43 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 90 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 256 GB

, 226 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3,5 mm jack, Card Reader: microSD slot up to 1TB, exFAT support, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass , OTG, Miracast

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, GSM: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz; WCDMA: Frequencies 1/2/4/5/6/8/19; FDD-LTE: Frequencies 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/17/18/19/20/26/28/66 (UL: 1710 MHz–1780 MHz, DL: 2110 MHz–2180 MHz ), TD-LTE: Frequencies 38/39/40/41; 5G SA: 1/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/40/41/78 5G NSA: 1/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/40/41/66/77/78, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 7.81 x 160.6 x 73.2 ( = 0.31 x 6.32 x 2.88 in)

Battery

4500 mAh Lithium-Ion

Charging

fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 11

Camera

Primary Camera: 64 MPix (f/1.7; 80,5°; 6P) + 8 MP (f/2,25; 118,9°; 5P) + 2 MP (Makro), camera API: Level 3; Videos @2160p/30fps (max)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.4; 85°; 5P)

Additional features

Speakers: Mono, charger, USB cable, case, ColorOS 12, 24 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR value - 0.855W/kg Head, 1.134W/kg Body, GNSS: GPS (L1), Galileo (E1), GLONASS, BeiDou, SBAS, fanless

Weight

173 g ( = 6.1 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 121 g ( = 4.27 oz / 0.27 pounds)

Price

499 Euro

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

Possible Competitors in Comparison

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
83.7 %	05/2022	Oppo Find X5 Lite Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4	173 g	256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	6.43"	2400x1080
85 %	05/2022	Realme GT 2 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660	199.8 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.62"	2400x1080
88.1 %	03/2022	Xiaomi 12X SD 870, Adreno 650	176 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.28"	2400x1080
85.3 %	02/2022	Motorola Moto G200 5G SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660	202 g	128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.80"	2460x1080
85.1 %	09/2021	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L	189 g	128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6.50"	2400x1080

Case: Oppo smartphone with punch hole

Although the Oppo phone is in the upper mid-range, the edges around the OLED panel, which are protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 5, are quite wide. The chin in particular juts out. Expressed in numbers: the display only makes up 84.9 percent of the front, thus falling into the category of a low priced mid-range phone.
The feel of the well-made Find X5 Lite corresponds more to a US$ 250 smartphone than a device with an RRP of US$ 629.99 due to the plastic frame and plastic back. This claim is further reinforced by the fact that the back of our review sample proved to be vulnerable to denting. The Oppo phone's casing is also not certified against dust or water.

Size Comparison

Hardware: Find X5 Lite with UFS 2.2

The internal UFS storage has a capacity of 256GB, while the actual available storage space is significantly lower at 226GB due to the operating system and a range of preinstalled apps. In addition to a Type-C port with USB 2.0 capability, the Oppo smartphone has Miracast and USB OTG. MicroSD cards can also be stored in the Find X5 Lite without having to give up the dual-SIM functionality.

microSD Card Reader

With our AV PRO V60 reference memory card, we took a closer look at the speed of the memory slot. Both the CPDT benchmark and the results in our JPEG copy test attest to decent performance levels.

SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Angelbird V60)	52.4 MB/s +21%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)	43.43 MB/s

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø30.3 (21.2-43.6)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø25.9 (16.8-37.8)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø74.1 (29.2-80.1)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø71.8 (50.1-75.6)

Software: Oppo smartphone with ColorOS

In contrast to the Find X5 and Find X5 Pro, the X5 Lite has to make do with ColorOS 12 of Android 11. At the time of the review, version 11_A._13 still had the security patches from March 2022. An update to Android 12 is scheduled for mid 2022.

Communication and GNSS: Find X5 Lite with 5G

For home WLAN, the Find X5 Lite offers WiFi 6, which is sufficient for transfer rates of about 530 MBit/s at peak in combination with our Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 reference router. The transfer rates measured are not very high, especially considering the supported ax standard. Group brother realme GT2 performs significantly better here, but the values are still at a solid level.

Oppo uses the 5G standard and Bluetooth 5.2 for the communication modules. An NFC chip for near-field communication and Google Pay is also on board. The Find X5 Lite also supports access to a total of 20 LTE bands and covers all LTE frequencies relevant to German-speaking countries.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	799 (777^min - 812^max) MBit/s +73%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	736 (644^min - 826^max) MBit/s +59%
Average of class Smartphone (34.8 - 1875, n=210, last 2 years)	654 MBit/s +41%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	463 (235^min - 476^max) MBit/s
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	909 (846^min - 929^max) MBit/s +78%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	745 (391^min - 809^max) MBit/s +46%
Average of class Smartphone (40.5 - 1810, n=211, last 2 years)	690 MBit/s +35%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	511 (497^min - 527^max) MBit/s
iperf3 transmit AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	864 (759^min - 906^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	461 (433^min - 470^max) MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	836 (809^min - 863^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	425 (413^min - 432^max) MBit/s
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years)	376 MBit/s

Oppo Find X5 Lite; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø454 (235-476)

Oppo Find X5 Lite; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø511 (497-527)

In order to be able to determine the localization accuracy of the Oppo mid-range smartphone in practice, we also recorded a route with the Garmin Venu 2 for comparison purposes. Deviations amount to a total of only 50 meters at the end of the 5km route. However, the chart history reveals one or two inaccuracies of the Find X5 Lite, especially when changing direction.

Telephony and Voice Quality: Find X5 Lite with Dual-SIM

The dual-SIM smartphone from Oppo supports VoLTE, and calls are also allowed via the domestic WLAN (WiFi calling). Voice quality is normal, and the inbuilt microphones convey voice intelligibly to our conversation partner at a short distance. Video calls via the inbuilt front camera, speakers and Skype also functioned without any problems. Even at a distance of 1 meter, the user can still be clearly heard and seen.

Cameras: Oppo smartphone with triple camera

The 32 MP front camera sits in a punch hole in the upper left corner of the screen. Selfies provide good sharpness and decent color fidelity. Bokeh effects in portrait mode also give no cause for criticism. Video quality, on the other hand, is found wanting (no UHD option).

The rectangular camera module on the back is equipped with a 64 MP main camera, which also houses an 8 MP ultra-wide-angle lens and a macro lens. According to reports, the Find X5 Lite uses an Omnivision OVB64B, which works in pixel binning with 16 MP and 1.4 μm super pixels.

Shots taken with the Oppo phone in daylight have a nice sharpness, even at the edges of the photos, and a realistic color reproduction. Our analysis with the ColorChecker passport also reveals relatively low deviations compared to the actual reference colors. However, the dynamic range of the Find X5 Lite and the white balance are only marginally satisfactory. The same applies to the low-light qualities, despite an open aperture of f/1.7.

Due to the missing telephoto lens, the Oppo phone is not a smartphone for zoom shots. Photos with the ultra-wide-angle camera also fall short in view of the Find X5 Lite's price. The image sharpness and contrast display in particular could be better, and the resolution is also quite low.

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.

Weitwinkel Weitwinkel Low Light Ultraweitwinkel 5x Zoom

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

Accessories and Warranty: Find X5 Lite with charger

Oppo equips its mid-range smartphone with a 65-watt power supply, a USB cable and a protective cover. A protective film also comes attached to the screen upon delivery.

In Germany, the warranty is 24 months from the date of purchase. This may vary in other countries and regions.

Input Devices & Operation: Oppo Find X5 Lite with FaceUnlock

Thanks to a refresh rate of up to 90 Hz, even fast scrolling passages are displayed smoothly. The capacitive multi-touch screen with a sampling rate of 120 Hz recognizes inputs quickly and precisely, even with up to 5 fingers. In addition, a screen sampling rate of 180 Hz with 2-finger operation is possible for special applications (e.g. games).

The optical fingerprint sensor under the OLED panel is not the fastest on the market, but the sensor recognizes fingers reliably. A somewhat unreliable 2D FaceUnlock function is also on board.

Display: Oppo-Smartphone with OLED

The Find X5 Lite has a 6.43-inch OLED panel with an aspect ratio of 20:9, a refresh rate of 90 Hz and an FHD+ resolution, giving it a high pixel density of over 400 ppi.

The screen brightness is at a solid level with a maximum of 583 cd/m², but the competition is much brighter here. Even a Redmi Note 11, which is much cheaper than the Find X5 Lite, shines brighter with its 6.43-inch OLED panel. In our APL18 measurement, the value was 764 cd/m², which may be too little for an impressive HDR experience.

For brightness control, the Oppo phone uses PWM at a fairly high frequency of 168 to 413 Hz as soon as the luminosity is dimmed to below 56 percent. Above that, we measured a flickering of 90 Hz, but fluctuations become considerably smaller over time.


581 cd/m²	575 cd/m²	583 cd/m²
585 cd/m²	579 cd/m²	585 cd/m²
587 cd/m²	581 cd/m²	590 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 590 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 582.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3

	Oppo Find X5 Lite AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.43	Realme GT 2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.62	Xiaomi 12X OLED, 2400x1080, 6.28	Motorola Moto G200 5G IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.80	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Screen		20%	53%	-9%	22%
Brightness middle	579	759 31%	910 57%	512 -12%	736 27%
Brightness	583	756 30%	908 56%	488 -16%	751 29%
Brightness Distribution	97	98 1%	97 0%	87 -10%	96 -1%
Black Level *				0.36
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	3	2.14 29%	0.8 73%	3.42 -14%	2.18 27%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	6.5	5.68 13%	1.8 72%	5.9 9%	5.69 12%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.4	2.8 18%	1.3 62%	3.7 -9%	2.1 38%
Gamma	2.3 ^96%	2.16 ^102%	2.25 ^98%	7154 ^0%	2.27 ^97%
CCT	6476 ^100%	6517 ^100%	6414 ^101%	1.944 ^334362%	6563 ^99%
Contrast				1422

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

412.9 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 412.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 412.9 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

maximum manual display brightness — 100%

Series of measurements at a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings

Our analysis of the photospectrometer and the CalMAN software reveals relatively low average delta E deviations from the sRGB color space. In addition to the two test profiles, the color temperature can be adjusted in the settings menu.

Color accuracy (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)

Color space (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)

Grayscale (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)

Color saturation (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
1.905 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.9905 ms rise
1.905 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 0.914 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2.662 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 1.39 ms rise
2.662 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 1.272 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

When used outdoors, the Oppo phone makes a decent impression. However, direct sunlight and reflections should be avoided. Those who deactivate the automatic brightness control have to make do with 407 cd/m² and reduced readability.
The viewing angles of the OLED panels are very good and the decrease in brightness when viewed from the side is also minimal.

Performance: Find X5 Lite with MediaTek SoC

Oppo uses a MediaTek Dimensity 900 for its mid-range phone, which combines two powerful Cortex-A78 processing cores (2.4 GHz) with six economical Cortex-A55 cores (2.0 GHz). A Mali-G68 MP4 has been integrated as the graphics unit, which ensured 40 fps to 60 fps at low details in last year's Oppo generation in our gaming tests.

The system speed of the Find X5 Lite is very good. In everyday use, operation is smooth and jerks hardly occur. However, the performance is rather below average in this price range. The values in our benchmark measurements neither keep up with the Snapdragon 778G in the Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G, nor with the Snapdragon 870 5G in the Xiaomi 12X. The 13GB of RAM does not help either: The Find X5 Lite uses 8GB of fixed RAM and up to 5GB of virtual RAM, which is reserved on the flash memory for data storage.

Those who do not activate the performance mode in the settings menus also have to live with a throttling of the SoC of around 10 percent. Our benchmark package was completed under maximum performance. It should be noted here that Oppo achieves about 3 to 11 percent higher results with the Find X5 Lite than the average value for smartphones with the Dimensity 900 in our database.

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	1130 Points +52%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	1076 Points +44%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	1000 Points +34%
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 2138, n=219, last 2 years)	913 Points +23%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	771 Points +3%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	745 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (693 - 747, n=5)	725 Points -3%
Multi-Core
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	3477 Points +53%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	3377 Points +49%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	3286 Points +45%
Average of class Smartphone (473 - 6681, n=219, last 2 years)	2996 Points +32%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	2808 Points +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	2266 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (2062 - 2266, n=5)	2153 Points -5%

Antutu v9 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	794271 Points +66%
Average of class Smartphone (102602 - 1650926, n=153, last 2 years)	738503 Points +55%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	714406 Points +50%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	477831 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (424921 - 477831, n=4)	447053 Points -6%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	438254 Points -8%

PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	18567 Points +71%
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	12804 Points +18%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	12625 Points +16%
Average of class Smartphone (4761 - 21385, n=214, last 2 years)	11787 Points +9%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	11778 Points +8%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	10863 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (8055 - 12444, n=5)	9763 Points -10%

CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone (200 - 1474, n=165, last 2 years)	837 Points +68%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	719 Points +45%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (497 - 625, n=2)	561 Points +13%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	497 Points

BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average of class Smartphone (411 - 11438, n=166, last 2 years)	5759 Points +26%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	5711 Points +25%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	5551 Points +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	4567 Points
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	4349 Points -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (3817 - 4567, n=4)	4075 Points -11%
System
Average of class Smartphone (2376 - 16475, n=166, last 2 years)	9672 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	9089 Points +1%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	9002 Points +1%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	8957 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	8546 Points -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (6854 - 8957, n=4)	8250 Points -8%
Memory
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	6784 Points
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	6683 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (670 - 12716, n=166, last 2 years)	6267 Points -8%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (5292 - 6784, n=4)	5768 Points -15%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	5648 Points -17%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	4269 Points -37%
Graphics
Average of class Smartphone (697 - 58651, n=166, last 2 years)	14220 Points +200%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	13865 Points +192%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	10386 Points +119%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	6783 Points +43%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	4746 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (3994 - 4746, n=4)	4402 Points -7%
Web
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	1665 Points +8%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	1535 Points
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	1519 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2145, n=166, last 2 years)	1495 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	1359 Points -11%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1017 - 1535, n=4)	1291 Points -16%

AImark - Score v2.x
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	286905 Points +594%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	139024 Points +236%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	123847 Points +199%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (40983 - 42107, n=4)	41462 Points 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	41356 Points
Average of class Smartphone (1043 - 139804, n=50, last 2 years)	21146 Points -49%

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1498 Points +141%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1453 Points +134%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1232 Points +98%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	687 Points +11%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	621 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1564 Points +159%
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1548 Points +156%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1237 Points +104%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	690 Points +14%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	605 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5896 Points +193%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5711 Points +184%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4304 Points +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2485 Points +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2012 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Score
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5886 Points +188%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5765 Points +182%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4309 Points +111%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2490 Points +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2045 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2776 Points
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2539 Points -9%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5263 Points +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4054 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4250 Points +16%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3675 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5281 Points +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4864 Points +56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4664 Points +49%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3121 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10875 Points +169%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10436 Points +158%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5591 Points +38%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4043 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	8576 Points +123%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	8234 Points +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5355 Points +39%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3843 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4442 Points +52%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2923 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	7241 Points +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	5711 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6352 Points +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4796 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4967 Points +35%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3675 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5140 Points +29%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3996 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4444 Points +53%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2911 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10277 Points +105%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6559 Points +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	5021 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	14028 Points +134%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	7496 Points +25%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	6005 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5309 Points +65%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4563 Points +42%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3212 Points

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	121 fps +102%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	108 fps +80%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	101 fps +68%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	60 fps

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	171 fps +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	161 fps +59%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	132 fps +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	101 fps

GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	102 fps +89%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	81 fps +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	69 fps +28%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	54 fps

GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	104 fps +68%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	92 fps +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	77 fps +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	62 fps

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	74 fps +106%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	54 fps +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	49 fps +36%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	36 fps

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	72 fps +71%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	62 fps +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	56 fps +33%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	42 fps

GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	45 fps +125%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	35 fps +75%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	28 fps +40%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	20 fps

GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	43 fps +72%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +68%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	33 fps +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	25 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +180%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	33 fps +120%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	30 fps +100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	19 fps +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	15 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	26 fps +160%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	19 fps +90%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	18 fps +80%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	13 fps +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	10 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	59 fps +157%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	49 fps +113%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +83%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	30 fps +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	23 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	70 fps +159%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	50 fps +85%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	39 fps +44%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	34 fps +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	27 fps

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal / Overall Score
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	1019 Points

Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Native
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	43.27 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	48.57 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Native
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	39.55 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	45.96 fps

Jetstream 2 | WebXPRT 3 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years)	106.1 Points +37%
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	97.5 Points +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	77.463 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	75.9 Points -2%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	71.8 Points -7%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (50.5 - 77.5, n=4)	58.9 Points -24%

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	151 Points +122%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	147 Points +116%
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years)	133.1 Points +96%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	107 Points +57%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (65 - 71, n=4)	68.3 Points 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	68 Points

Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	40652 Points +33%
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years)	33503 Points +10%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	30485 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	28695 Points -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (21753 - 30485, n=5)	25622 Points -16%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	25119 Points -18%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1658 - 2220, n=4)	1849 ms * -12%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	1802 ms * -9%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome101)	1657.65 ms *
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years)	1595 ms * +4%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	1358 ms * +18%
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	1069 ms * +36%

* ... smaller is better

	Oppo Find X5 Lite	Realme GT 2	Xiaomi 12X	Motorola Moto G200 5G	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G	Average 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		34%	32%	24%	-21%	-5%	31%
Sequential Read 256KB	987.54	1914.4 94%	1732 75%	1898 92%	951 -4%	926 ?(482 - 1689, n=23) -6%	1508 ?(226 - 4512, n=218, last 2 years) 53%
Sequential Write 256KB	812.8	776 -5%	795 -2%	712 -12%	486.5 -40%	696 ?(369 - 913, n=23) -14%	1118 ?(57.5 - 3678, n=218, last 2 years) 38%
Random Read 4KB	227.21	283.6 25%	291.9 28%	155.9 -31%	168.2 -26%	225 ?(99.7 - 351, n=23) -1%	247 ?(22.2 - 543, n=218, last 2 years) 9%
Random Write 4KB	221.33	267.3 21%	279.9 26%	322.5 46%	192.5 -13%	225 ?(99.2 - 301, n=23) 2%	272 ?(13 - 709, n=218, last 2 years) 23%

Emissions: Oppo smartphone remains cool

Temperature

The case of the Oppo smartphone hardly heats up under load. We also analyzed the temperature behavior of the SoC with the 3DMark stress test. Even in performance mode, the Find X5 Lite only throttles marginally or not at all.

Max. Load

Idle


33.1 °C 92 F	32.8 °C 91 F	30.5 °C 87 F
33.4 °C 92 F	32.3 °C 90 F	30.8 °C 87 F
32.7 °C 91 F	32.9 °C 91 F	29.9 °C 86 F

Maximum: 33.4 °C = 92 F
Average: 32 °C = 90 F


30.1 °C 86 F	31 °C 88 F	31.3 °C 88 F
29.9 °C 86 F	31.3 °C 88 F	32.3 °C 90 F
29 °C 84 F	29.4 °C 85 F	31.4 °C 89 F

Maximum: 32.3 °C = 90 F
Average: 30.6 °C = 87 F

Power Supply (max.) 26.8 °C = 80 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.7 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	99.8 (12.1^min) %
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	98.9 (14.8^min) % -1%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	80.4 (27.4^min) % -19%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.8 (17.5^min) % -32%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	99.6 (4.14^min) % 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	99.4 (3.54^min) %
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	79 (7.1^min) % -21%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.5 (5^min) % -32%

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø3.55 (3.54-3.56)

Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø6.78 (5-7.42)

Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.7.2: Ø7.57 (7.1-8.98)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø4.14 (4.14-4.15)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø12.1 (12.1-12.1)

Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø23.3 (17.5-25.8)

Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø28.8 (27.4-34.2)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø14.8 (14.8-15)

Speakers

In everyday use, the mono speaker performs solidly at a maximum volume of 92 dB. At an RRP of US$ 629.99, however, we would have preferred a dual speaker system. As expected, sound is dominated by tones from the mid and high frequencies, but the mids in particular are not reproduced linearly.

The built-in 3.5-millimeter jack allows for a bass-rich reproduction, but the noise level is very pronounced with an SNR value of 58.1.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Oppo Find X5 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Xiaomi 12X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 74% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Battery Life: Oppo Find X5 Lite with SUPERVOOC

Power Consumption

Power is supplied by two 2,250 mAh batteries, which are recharged in 38 minutes with the 65 watt power supply adapter when completely empty. Wireless charging is not supported.

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.07 / 0.23 Watt
Idle	0.85 / 1.83 / 1.93 Watt
Load	3.19 / 4.83 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: 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 X5 Lite 4500 mAh	Xiaomi 12X 4500 mAh	Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh	Average MediaTek Dimensity 900	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-25%	-18%	-12%	-9%	-23%
Idle Minimum *	0.85	0.75 12%	0.6 29%	1.2 -41%	0.97 ?(0.85 - 1.13, n=4) -14%	0.897 ?(0.42 - 2.37, n=162, last 2 years) -6%
Idle Average *	1.83	1.88 -3%	0.9 51%	1.4 23%	1.655 ?(1.3 - 2.09, n=4) 10%	1.452 ?(0.69 - 4.26, n=162, last 2 years) 21%
Idle Maximum *	1.93	1.94 -1%	1.5 22%	1.7 12%	1.87 ?(1.6 - 2.15, n=4) 3%	1.629 ?(0.79 - 4.45, n=162, last 2 years) 16%
Load Average *	3.19	4.99 -56%	7 -119%	3.6 -13%	3.9 ?(3.19 - 4.5, n=4) -22%	5.55 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=162, last 2 years) -74%
Load Maximum *	4.83	8.66 -79%	8.4 -74%	6.9 -43%	5.92 ?(4.83 - 6.6, n=4) -23%	8.31 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=162, last 2 years) -72%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900: Ø3.37 (1.018-6.84)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G: Ø5.14 (1.004-10.4)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø3.58 (3.2-5.12)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø5.18 (4-6.32)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.22 (1.122-1.33)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.237 (1.126-1.787)

Battery Life

In our practical Wi-Fi test, at an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m², the Oppo smartphone lasted around 14.5 hours with the 90 Hz option selected. Considering the runtimes of a Xiaomi 12X with a refresh rate of 120 Hz, the stamina of the Find X5 Lite is acceptable. But the Oppo phone is not an marathon runner despite its relatively low power consumption.

Battery Runtime


WiFi Websurfing (Chrome101)		14h 37min

	Oppo Find X5 Lite 4500 mAh	Realme GT 2 5000 mAh	Xiaomi 12X 4500 mAh	Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3	877	964 10%	1028 17%	905 3%	721 -18%

Pros

+ fast charging

+ beautiful 90 Hz OLED

+ hardly any waste heat

+ Power supply unit included

Cons

- haptics

- Android 11

- full performance not available ex works

- wide display edges

- WLAN could be faster

- low performance (for the price range)

- only mono sound

Verdict on the Oppo Find X5 Lite

In review: Oppo Find 5 Lite. Review device provided by Oppo Germany

At first glance, the Lite model of the Find X5 series with its thick display edges looks more like a US$ 250 smartphone than a representative of the upper middle class. The Oppo Find X5 Lite also "disguises" itself optically as a low-priced mid-range phone with its plastic housing. The RRP of US$ 629.99 is primarily due to the very fast charging with up to 65 watts. That the matching power supply unit is included in delivery is a big bonus.

The system performance of the MediaTek Dimensity 900 is absolutely satisfactory in everyday use. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of performance in view of the strong competition. The company's brother, the realme GT 2, is significantly more powerful. If you don't activate the rather hidden high-performance mode, you lose system performance. Since the mid-range phone from Oppo does not have any heat problems under load, we consider the throttling of the system to be a point of critcism.

In view of some weaknesses, the price of the Find X5 Lite has to drop significantly in order to become an attractive package overall compared to the strong mid-range competition.

Those who can do without 5G and are satisfied with the performance of the Snapdragon 680 will find a very similar mid-range smartphone in the Redmi Note 11, especially in terms of display, look and feel: a very similar mid-range smartphone that costs not even half as much as the Oppo Find X5 Lite. On the other hand, the better software support of the Oppo smartphone should be an advantage.

Price and Availability

At the time of publishing, the Oppo Find X5 Lite was available via Amazon US for US$ 629.99.

Oppo Find X5 Lite - 2022-08-30 08/30/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis

80%

Keyboard

66 / 75 → 88%

Pointing Device

87%

Connectivity

54 / 70 → 77%

Weight

90%

Battery

90%

Display

89%

Games Performance

42 / 64 → 65%

Application Performance

86 / 86 → 99%

Temperature

93%

Noise

100%

Audio

79 / 90 → 88%

Camera

65%

Average

79%

84%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Marcus Herbrich - Senior Tech Writer - 420 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2016

I have always been very passionately interested in mobile technologies, especially smartphones. Being a tech enthusiast means the half-life of my devices isn’t exactly long, and being the latest hardware is not enough to suffice as the manufacturer and operating system play a minor role – the most important aspect for me is that the device is state-of-the-art. After posting for Mobi Test I joined Notebookcheck in 2016, where I have been pursuing my enthusiasm for technology by reviewing the latest smartphone, tablet, and accessory trends.

contact me via: @Marcus_Herbrich

Translator: Jacob Fisher - Translator - 915 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2022

Growing up in regional Australia, I first became acquainted with computers in my early teens after a broken leg from a football (soccer) match temporarily condemned me to a predominately indoor lifestyle. Soon afterwards I was building my own systems. Now I live in Germany, having moved here in 2014, where I study philosophy and anthropology. I am particularly fascinated by how computer technology has fundamentally and dramatically reshaped human culture, and how it continues to do so.

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Oppo Find X5 Lite review: Mid-range smartphone in optical disguise

Marcus Herbrich, 2022-05-29 (Update: 2022-05-30)

Oppo Find X5 Lite review: Mid-range smartphone in optical disguise

Possible Competitors in Comparison

Case: Oppo smartphone with punch hole

Size Comparison

Hardware: Find X5 Lite with UFS 2.2

microSD Card Reader

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

Software: Oppo smartphone with ColorOS

Communication and GNSS: Find X5 Lite with 5G

Telephony and Voice Quality: Find X5 Lite with Dual-SIM

Cameras: Oppo smartphone with triple camera

Accessories and Warranty: Find X5 Lite with charger

Input Devices & Operation: Oppo Find X5 Lite with FaceUnlock

Display: Oppo-Smartphone with OLED

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Performance: Find X5 Lite with MediaTek SoC

Emissions: Oppo smartphone remains cool

Temperature

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

Speakers

Oppo Find X5 Lite audio analysis

Xiaomi 12X audio analysis

Battery Life: Oppo Find X5 Lite with SUPERVOOC

Power Consumption

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

Battery Life

Pros

Cons

Verdict on the Oppo Find X5 Lite

Price and Availability

More articles related to this device

Related Articles

Pricecompare