Oppo Find X5 Lite review: Mid-range smartphone in optical disguise
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.
Possible Competitors in Comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.7 % v7 (old) | 05 / 2022 | Oppo Find X5 Lite Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4 | 173 g | 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.43" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85 % v7 (old) | 05 / 2022 | Realme GT 2 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 199.8 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.62" | 2400x1080 | |
| 88.1 % v7 (old) | 03 / 2022 | Xiaomi 12X SD 870, Adreno 650 | 176 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.28" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.3 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2022 | Motorola Moto G200 5G SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660 | 202 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.80" | 2460x1080 | |
| 85.1 % v7 (old) | 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.
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 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Software: Oppo smartphone with ColorOS
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 | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Average of class Smartphone (52 - 1857, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Average of class Smartphone (49.8 - 1806, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelLow LightUltraweitwinkel5x Zoom
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.86
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
97.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
| Oppo Find X5 Lite AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | Realme GT 2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi 12X OLED, 2400x1080, 6.3" | Motorola Moto G200 5G IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.8" | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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)
| 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 8437 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
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.
Display 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.7 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.3 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.
| CrossMark - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (187 - 2674, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (497 - 625, n=3) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| AImark - Score v2.x | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (40983 - 42107, n=4) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
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 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Score | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Realme GT 2 | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal / Overall Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Native | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Native | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=165, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (50.5 - 77.5, n=4) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=68, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (65 - 71, n=4) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=207, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (2800 - 30485, n=6) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1658 - 28190, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome101) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=166, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101) | |
* ... 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% | -2% | 71% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 987.54 | 1914.4 94% | 1732 75% | 1898 92% | 951 -4% | 911 ? -8% | 2043 ? 107% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 812.8 | 776 -5% | 795 -2% | 712 -12% | 486.5 -40% | 734 ? -10% | 1659 ? 104% |
| Random Read 4KB | 227.21 | 283.6 25% | 291.9 28% | 155.9 -31% | 168.2 -26% | 229 ? 1% | 285 ? 25% |
| Random Write 4KB | 221.33 | 267.3 21% | 279.9 26% | 322.5 46% | 192.5 -13% | 245 ? 11% | 327 ? 48% |
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.
(+) 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 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °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 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Oppo Find X5 Lite | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 12X | |
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.
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
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 31% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, 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
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, 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.
| 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 | |
| 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% | -14% | -40% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.85 | 0.75 12% | 0.6 29% | 1.2 -41% | 0.932 ? -10% | 0.872 ? -3% |
| Idle Average * | 1.83 | 1.88 -3% | 0.9 51% | 1.4 23% | 1.794 ? 2% | 1.415 ? 23% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.93 | 1.94 -1% | 1.5 22% | 1.7 12% | 1.994 ? -3% | 1.556 ? 19% |
| Load Average * | 3.19 | 4.99 -56% | 7 -119% | 3.6 -13% | 3.95 ? -24% | 7.04 ? -121% |
| Load Maximum * | 4.83 | 8.66 -79% | 8.4 -74% | 6.9 -43% | 6.43 ? -33% | 10.6 ? -119% |
* ... smaller is better
Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
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.
| 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
Cons
Verdict on the Oppo Find X5 Lite
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
- 08/30/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
