Notebookcheck Logo

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

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.
Test Oppo Find X5 Lite 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.

Oppo Find X5 Lite (Find X5 Series)
Processor
MediaTek Dimensity 900 8 x 2 - 2.4 GHz, Cortex-A78 / A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
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.

 

Possible Competitors in Comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
83.5 %
05/2022
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4
173 g256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.43"2400x1080
84.5 %
05/2022
realme GT 2
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
199.8 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.62"2400x1080
87.9 %
03/2022
Xiaomi 12X
SD 870, Adreno 650
176 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.28"2400x1080
85.3 %
02/2022
Motorola Moto G200 5G
SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660
202 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"2460x1080
84.9 %
09/2021
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L
189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50"2400x1080
Oppo Find X5 Lite in Startrails Blue
Oppo Find X5 Lite in Startrails Blue

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.

Oppo Find X5 Lite
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Test Oppo Find X5 Lite in Starry Blue
Oppo Find X5 Lite

Size Comparison

168.1 mm / 6.62 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs162.9 mm / 6.41 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 199.8 g0.4405 lbs160.6 mm / 6.32 inch 73.2 mm / 2.88 inch 7.81 mm / 0.3075 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 75.1 mm / 2.96 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs152.7 mm / 6.01 inch 69.9 mm / 2.75 inch 8.16 mm / 0.3213 inch 176 g0.388 lbs

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.

Test Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone
Test Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone

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 ∼100% +21%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
43.43 MB/s ∼83%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

05101520253035404550556065707580Tooltip
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. 

Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone

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 (777min - 812max) MBit/s ∼100% +73%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
736 (644min - 826max) MBit/s ∼92% +59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (44.3 - 1736, n=71, last 2 years)
609 MBit/s ∼76% +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
463 (235min - 476max) MBit/s ∼58%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
909 (846min - 929max) MBit/s ∼100% +78%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
745 (391min - 809max) MBit/s ∼82% +46%
Average of class Smartphone
  (61.4 - 1710, n=71, last 2 years)
636 MBit/s ∼70% +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
511 (497min - 527max) MBit/s ∼56%
iperf3 transmit AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (759min - 906max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1395, n=200, last 2 years)
486 MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
461 (433min - 470max) MBit/s ∼53%
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
836 (809min - 863max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1348, n=200, last 2 years)
471 MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
425 (413min - 432max) MBit/s ∼51%
0306090120150180210240270300330360390420450480510Tooltip
; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø454 (235-476)
; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø511 (497-527)
Localization outdoors
Localization outdoors
Localization indoors
Localization indoors

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. 

Oppo Find X5 Lite vs. Garmin Venu 2
Oppo Find X5 Lite vs. Garmin Venu 2

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

Test Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone
Test Oppo Find X5 Lite Smartphone

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

Selfie with the Oppo Find X5 Lite
Selfie with the Oppo Find X5 Lite

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.

Ultra-wide-angle
Ultra-wide-angle
Wide angle
2x zoom
10x zoom
20x zoom
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

WeitwinkelWeitwinkelLow LightUltraweitwinkel5x Zoom
click to load images
ColorChecker
7.3 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
15.1 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
6.2 ∆E
10 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
1.7 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X5 Lite: 6.1 ∆E min: 1.66 - max: 15.08 ∆E
ColorChecker
30 ∆E
54.4 ∆E
40.1 ∆E
36 ∆E
45.4 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
53.3 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
43.1 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
64.9 ∆E
63.9 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
48.1 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
76 ∆E
43.8 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
93.7 ∆E
71.4 ∆E
52.5 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X5 Lite: 47.17 ∆E min: 13.91 - max: 93.7 ∆E

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.

Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone

Display: Oppo-Smartphone with OLED

Reproduction of the subpixel grid
Reproduction of the subpixel grid

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
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 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.3
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
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)

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 (Likely 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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19984 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

minimal display brightness
min.
25% display brightness
25%
50% display brightness
50%
75% display brightness
75%
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 accuracy (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)
Color space (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)
Grayscale (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)
Color saturation (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)
Color saturation (target color space: sRGB, profile: natural, max. warm)

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
1.905 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.9905 ms rise
↘ 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.2 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2.662 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.39 ms rise
↘ 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.5 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.

Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone
Review: Oppo Find X5 Lite smartphone

Performance: Find X5 Lite with MediaTek SoC

Antutu benchmark in normal mode
Antutu benchmark in normal mode

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 5.4
Single-Core
realme GT 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1130 Points ∼100% +52%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1076 Points ∼95% +44%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
1000 Points ∼88% +34%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
771 Points ∼68% +3%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
745 Points ∼66%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (706 - 747, n=4)
733 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=270, last 2 years)
682 Points ∼60% -8%
Multi-Core
realme GT 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3477 Points ∼100% +53%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
3377 Points ∼97% +49%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3286 Points ∼95% +45%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
2808 Points ∼81% +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
2266 Points ∼65%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=270, last 2 years)
2220 Points ∼64% -2%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (2062 - 2266, n=4)
2168 Points ∼62% -4%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
794271 Points ∼100% +66%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
714406 Points ∼90% +50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1119358, n=126, last 2 years)
556641 Points ∼70% +16%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
477831 Points ∼60%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (424921 - 477831, n=4)
447053 Points ∼56% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
438254 Points ∼55% -8%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
18567 Points ∼100% +71%
realme GT 2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
12804 Points ∼69% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
12625 Points ∼68% +16%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
11778 Points ∼63% +8%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
10863 Points ∼59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=171, last 2 years)
10184 Points ∼55% -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (8055 - 10863, n=4)
9092 Points ∼49% -16%
CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1169, n=67, last 2 years)
737 Points ∼100% +48%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
719 Points ∼98% +45%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (497 - 625, n=2)
561 Points ∼76% +13%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
497 Points ∼67%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5711 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
5551 Points ∼97% +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
4567 Points ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
4349 Points ∼76% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1223 - 8753, n=179, last 2 years)
4331 Points ∼76% -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (3817 - 4567, n=4)
4075 Points ∼71% -11%
System
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
9089 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
9002 Points ∼99% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
8957 Points ∼99%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
8546 Points ∼94% -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (6854 - 8957, n=4)
8250 Points ∼91% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2083 - 19657, n=179, last 2 years)
7678 Points ∼84% -14%
Memory
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
6784 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
6683 Points ∼99% -1%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (5292 - 6784, n=4)
5768 Points ∼85% -15%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5648 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 9044, n=179, last 2 years)
4956 Points ∼73% -27%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
4269 Points ∼63% -37%
Graphics
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
13865 Points ∼100% +192%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
10386 Points ∼75% +119%
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 26660, n=179, last 2 years)
7712 Points ∼56% +62%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
6783 Points ∼49% +43%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
4746 Points ∼34%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (3994 - 4746, n=4)
4402 Points ∼32% -7%
Web
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1665 Points ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
1535 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
1519 Points ∼91% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (718 - 2392, n=179, last 2 years)
1388 Points ∼83% -10%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
1359 Points ∼82% -11%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (1017 - 1535, n=4)
1291 Points ∼78% -16%
AImark - Score v2.x
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
286905 Points ∼100% +594%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
139024 Points ∼48% +236%
Xiaomi 12X
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192
123847 Points ∼43% +199%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 286905, n=146, last 2 years)
55254 Points ∼19% +34%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900
  (40983 - 42107, n=4)
41462 Points ∼14% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192
41356 Points ∼14%
3DMark: Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | Wild Life Extreme | Wild Life Unlimited Score | Wild Life Score | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7: T-Rex Onscreen | 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
GFXBench 3.0: on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
GFXBench 3.1: on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
GFXBench: on screen Car Chase Onscreen | 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal: offscreen Overall Score
Basemark GPU 1.2: OpenGL Medium Native | 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen | Vulkan Medium Native | 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1498 Points ∼100% +141%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1453 Points ∼97% +134%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1232 Points ∼82% +98%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
687 Points ∼46% +11%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
621 Points ∼41%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1564 Points ∼100% +159%
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1548 Points ∼99% +156%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1237 Points ∼79% +104%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
690 Points ∼44% +14%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
605 Points ∼39%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5896 Points ∼100% +193%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5711 Points ∼97% +184%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4304 Points ∼73% +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2485 Points ∼42% +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2012 Points ∼34%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5886 Points ∼100% +188%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5765 Points ∼98% +182%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4309 Points ∼73% +111%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2490 Points ∼42% +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2045 Points ∼35%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2776 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2539 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4054 Points ∼77%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -100%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4250 Points ∼100% +16%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3675 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -100%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5281 Points ∼100% +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4864 Points ∼92% +56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4664 Points ∼88% +49%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3121 Points ∼59%
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 ∼100% +169%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10436 Points ∼96% +158%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5591 Points ∼51% +38%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4043 Points ∼37%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8576 Points ∼100% +123%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8234 Points ∼96% +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5355 Points ∼62% +39%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3843 Points ∼45%
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 ∼100% +52%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2923 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5711 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4796 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +35%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3675 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +29%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3996 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -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 ∼100% +53%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2911 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Points ∼0% -100%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10277 Points ∼100% +105%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
6559 Points ∼64% +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5021 Points ∼49%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
14028 Points ∼100% +134%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
7496 Points ∼53% +25%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
6005 Points ∼43%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5309 Points ∼100% +65%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4563 Points ∼86% +42%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3212 Points ∼61%
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 ∼100% +102%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
108 fps ∼89% +80%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps ∼83% +68%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
171 fps ∼100% +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
161 fps ∼94% +59%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
132 fps ∼77% +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
101 fps ∼59%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
102 fps ∼100% +89%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
81 fps ∼79% +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
69 fps ∼68% +28%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
54 fps ∼53%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
104 fps ∼100% +68%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼88% +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
77 fps ∼74% +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
62 fps ∼60%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
74 fps ∼100% +106%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
54 fps ∼73% +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
49 fps ∼66% +36%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
36 fps ∼49%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
72 fps ∼100% +71%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62 fps ∼86% +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
56 fps ∼78% +33%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
42 fps ∼58%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
45 fps ∼100% +125%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
35 fps ∼78% +75%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
28 fps ∼62% +40%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps ∼44%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
43 fps ∼100% +72%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼98% +68%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
33 fps ∼77% +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
25 fps ∼58%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼100% +180%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
33 fps ∼79% +120%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps ∼71% +100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
19 fps ∼45% +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
15 fps ∼36%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
26 fps ∼100% +160%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
19 fps ∼73% +90%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18 fps ∼69% +80%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
13 fps ∼50% +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
10 fps ∼38%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
59 fps ∼100% +157%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
49 fps ∼83% +113%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼71% +83%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
30 fps ∼51% +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
23 fps ∼39%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
realme GT 2
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
70 fps ∼100% +159%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
50 fps ∼71% +85%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼56% +44%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
34 fps ∼49% +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
27 fps ∼39%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal / Overall Score
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
1019 Points ∼100%
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 ∼100%
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 ∼100%
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 ∼100%
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 ∼100%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)
97.5 Points ∼100% +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)
77.463 Points ∼79%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
75.9 Points ∼78% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
71.8 Points ∼74% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 182.6, n=179, last 2 years)
64.4 Points ∼66% -17%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (50.5 - 77.5, n=4)
58.9 Points ∼60% -24%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)
151 Points ∼100% +122%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
147 Points ∼97% +116%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
107 Points ∼71% +57%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 265, n=187, last 2 years)
94.2 Points ∼62% +39%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (65 - 71, n=4)
68.3 Points ∼45% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)
68 Points ∼45%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)
40652 Points ∼100% +33%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)
30485 Points ∼75%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
28695 Points ∼71% -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (21920 - 30485, n=4)
26590 Points ∼65% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
25119 Points ∼62% -18%
Average of class Smartphone (3526 - 65969, n=194, last 2 years)
24228 Points ∼60% -21%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 15230, n=192, last 2 years)
3023 ms * ∼100% -82%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1658 - 2220, n=4)
1849 ms * ∼61% -12%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
1802 ms * ∼60% -9%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome101)
1657.65 ms * ∼55%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
1358 ms * ∼45% +18%
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)
1069 ms * ∼35% +36%

* ... smaller is better

Oppo Find X5 Literealme GT 2Xiaomi 12XMotorola Moto G200 5GSamsung Galaxy A52s 5GAverage 256 GB UFS 2.2 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
34%
32%
24%
-21%
-11%
-23%
Sequential Read 256KB
987.54
1914.4
94%
1732
75%
1898
92%
951
-4%
874 ?(514 - 1002, n=4)
-11%
946 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=263, last 2 years)
-4%
Sequential Write 256KB
812.8
776
-5%
795
-2%
712
-12%
486.5
-40%
620 ?(369 - 813, n=4)
-24%
500 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=263, last 2 years)
-38%
Random Read 4KB
227.21
283.6
25%
291.9
28%
155.9
-31%
168.2
-26%
213 ?(193.4 - 227, n=4)
-6%
171.1 ?(13.5 - 345, n=263, last 2 years)
-25%
Random Write 4KB
221.33
267.3
21%
279.9
26%
322.5
46%
192.5
-13%
215 ?(175.1 - 248, n=4)
-3%
167.7 ?(30.3 - 475, n=264, last 2 years)
-24%

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
 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 32.8 °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 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °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 32.8 °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 (12.1min) % ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
98.9 (14.8min) % ∼99% -1%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
80.4 (27.4min) % ∼81% -19%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67.8 (17.5min) % ∼68% -32%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.6 (4.14min) % ∼100% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.4 (3.54min) % ∼100%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
79 (7.1min) % ∼79% -21%
Xiaomi 12X
Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
67.5 (5min) % ∼68% -32%
051015202530Tooltip
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)
Oppo Find X5 Lite
Oppo Find X5 Lite

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. 

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2037.436.1252837.53132.634.34027.740.2503444.4632738.98023.642.810022.342.612517.742.116016.145.620012.850.125013.157.13151256.6400958.55001164.363010.769.280010.372.3100010.977.8125012.176.7160011.877.520001277.7250011.878.7315011.980.6400012.982500013.383.3630013.482.4800013.581.51000013.677.11250014.876.71600014.162.9SPL24.691.5N0.687.2median 12.8median 76.7Delta1.110.73539.43026.121.932.322.831.334.838.924.33423.236.127.839.914.746.420.955.621.252.317.553.913.459.714.161.213.169.111.570.313.174.311.775.711.878137712.17712.179.812.383.412.577.91377.613.278.71376.813.771.713.562.714.26525.190.10.781.6median 13.1median 71.71.19hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Find X5 LiteXiaomi 12X
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 (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 31% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi 12X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

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 / Standbydarklight 0.07 / 0.23 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.85 / 1.83 / 1.93 Watt
Load midlight 3.19 / 4.83 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 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%
-17%
Idle Minimum *
0.85
0.75
12%
0.6
29%
1.2
-41%
0.97 ?(0.85 - 1.13, n=4)
-14%
0.897 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=202, 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%
1.652 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=202, last 2 years)
10%
Idle Maximum *
1.93
1.94
-1%
1.5
22%
1.7
12%
1.87 ?(1.6 - 2.15, n=4)
3%
1.869 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=202, last 2 years)
3%
Load Average *
3.19
4.99
-56%
7
-119%
3.6
-13%
3.9 ?(3.19 - 4.5, n=4)
-22%
4.42 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=202, last 2 years)
-39%
Load Maximum *
4.83
8.66
-79%
8.4
-74%
6.9
-43%
5.92 ?(4.83 - 6.6, n=4)
-23%
7.27 ?(3.56 - 11.9, n=202, last 2 years)
-51%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
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)

0123456Tooltip
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 1min: Ø1.22 (1.122-1.33)
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; Idle 1min: 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
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 - 05/24/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
80%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
87%
Connectivity
54 / 70 → 77%
Weight
90%
Battery
90%
Display
87%
Games Performance
42 / 64 → 65%
Application Performance
86 / 86 → 99%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
79 / 90 → 88%
Camera
65%
Average
78%
84%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo Find X5 Lite review: Mid-range smartphone in optical disguise
Marcus Herbrich, 2022-05-29 (Update: 2022-05-30)