Notebookcheck Logo

Oppo Find X5 Pro Review - Sleek smartphone with a Hasselblad camera

Plenty of improvements With its flagship smartphone Find X5 Pro, Oppo offers a strong overall package with very little missing indeed. The centre of attention is on the triple camera, which, among other things, again relies on two IMX766 sensors. This time, it has been equipped with its own ISP NPU and this review analyses the concept. Does the concept work?

The Oppo Find X5 Pro supercedes the Find X3 Pro and is not that different from its predecessor. The organic looking design of the back cover is retained and the phone becomes heavier. The microscope lens has been scrapped, the battery is larger and the remaining cameras have received a lot of fine-tuning. But there are no new sensors.

Just a single SKU of the Find X5 Pro is currently available in Europe and the phone isn't available with the MediaTek Dimensity 9000 as it is in China. The only model available comes with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1. With an RRP of 1,299 euros, the price has also risen noticeably.

Oppo Find X5 Pro (Find X5 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 8 x 1.8 - 3 GHz, Cortex-X2 / A710 / A510 (Kryo) Waipio
Graphics adapter
Qualcomm Adreno 730, Core: 818 MHz
Memory
12288 MB 
, LPDDR5, 3200 MHz
Display
6.70 inch 20.1:9, 3216 x 1440 pixel 526 PPI, capacitive, 10 point multi touch, AMOLED, LTPO, Corning Gorilla Glass Victus, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 GB 
, 231.9 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Geomagnetic, Color, Proximity, Accelerometer, Magnetometer, G-Sensor, 13-Channel-Spectral, On The Go adapter
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, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 19), LTE (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66), 5G-Sub6 (Band 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78, 79), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 163.7 x 73.9 ( = 0.33 x 6.44 x 2.91 in)
Battery
19.35 Wh, 5000 mAh Lithium-Ion, 3.7 V
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 50 MPix (Sony IMX766, 1/1,56", f/1.7, PDAF, OIS) + 50 MPix (Ultra wide, IMX766, 1/1,56", f/2.2, 110.3 °, PDAF) + 13 MPix (2x optical Zoom, f/2.4); MariSilicon X; Camera2-API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (Sony IMX709, f/2.4)
Additional features
Keyboard: On-screen, 80W charger, USB-cable (Type-A to Type-C), silicon case, OTG adapter, SIM tool, ColorOS 12.1, 24 Months Warranty, DRM Widevine L1, ClearKey 1.2, GNSS: GPS (L1), Glonass (L1), Galileo (E1), BeiDou (B1, B1C), QZSS (L1); Head-SAR: 0.989 W/kg, Body-SAR: 1.272 W/kg, IP68; photo aspect ratio: 4:3, 1:1, 16:9 and full; video aspect ratio: 16:9, fanless, waterproof
Weight
221 g ( = 7.8 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 150 g ( = 5.29 oz / 0.33 pounds)
Price
1299 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

The competition

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
89 %
04/2022
Oppo Find X5 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
221 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3216x1440
88.7 %
03/2021
Oppo Find X3 Pro
SD 888 5G, Adreno 660
193 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"3216x1440
89.3 %
03/2022
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920
228 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"3088x1440
90.4 %
10/2021
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15, A15 GPU 5-Core
238 g128 GB NVMe6.70"2778x1284
87.4 %
02/2022
Xiaomi 12 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
204 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.73"3200x1440
87.7 %
03/2022
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
SD 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730
196 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"2400x1080

Case - One noble garment made of glass and ceramics

The Oppo Find X5 Pro has a nominal thickness of 8.5mm (1/3in), but our measurements say 8.7mm. At the highest point of the camera, it is even 11.15mm, with the result that this smartphone wobbles quite vigorously on a flat surface, even with a case. The Find X5 Pro is available in two color options - black and white. 

The screen is made of Corning Gorilla Glass Victus while the back is made of a nanocrystalline ceramic. There's a highly polished aluminum frame inbetween. The Find X5 Pro is quite heavy, but it is well balanced and its rounded edges allow it to rest comfortably in your hand. However, both sides are real fingerprint magnets and the concise legal markings on the back of the phone are rather ugly. This could have been dealt with more elegantly.

The build quality is thouroughly convincing. The joins are tight-fitting and uniform and creaking is negligible under torsion. The cover of the SIM tray is flush with the aluminum frame, has the same color and can accommodate two nano SIM cards. The Find X5 Pro is IP68 certified, making it both dustproof and waterproof. 

Size comparisons

163.6 mm / 6.44 inch 74.6 mm / 2.94 inch 8.66 mm / 0.3409 inch 204 g0.4497 lbs163.3 mm / 6.43 inch 77.9 mm / 3.07 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 228 g0.503 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 73.9 mm / 2.91 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 221 g0.4872 lbs163.1 mm / 6.42 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs163.6 mm / 6.44 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 8.26 mm / 0.3252 inch 193 g0.4255 lbs160.8 mm / 6.33 inch 78.1 mm / 3.07 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 238 g0.525 lbs

Features - no surprises

The Oppo Find X5 Pro is well served by a fast USB 3.2 port, which not only charges the smartphone, but also provides a way to connect an OTG adapter and enable wired image output and multiple screen display. 

A notification LED is not included because it has been replaced by the always-on display feature; nor is a radio receiver or an audio jack installed in the Oppo smartphone. Memory expansion using a microSD card is not available.

Top: Microphone
Top: Microphone
Left: Volume rocker
Left: Volume rocker
Right: Power On/Off button
Right: Power On/Off button
Bottom: Speaker, USB, Microphone, SIM
Bottom: Speaker, USB, Microphone, SIM

Software - FinX5 Pro, Android 12 and ColorOS 12.1

The Oppo comes with Android 12 and the in-house user interface ColorOS 12.1. Oppo mentions two years of updates and an additional third year for security patches, scheduled to be rolled out monthly. 

Oppo pre-installs a number of third-party apps, including Amazon, Facebook, TikTok, and AliExpress, among others. However, these can be easily uninstalled. Furthermore, this smartphone's display can be mirrored on a Windows PC using its Multi-Screen support feature. It can be fully operated from there including data transfer via drag-and-drop. Although the program itself is only available in English, it works perfectly. 

Communications and GNSS - Tracking's mediocre and there's no Wi-Fi 6E

The Oppo Find X5 Pro supports all major cellular standards, including 5G Sub6, but not mmWave. The frequency coverage is very wide for both 5G-SA and NSA, so there should be no reception issues. 

The WLAN module fully complies with Wi-Fi 6 specification (VHT160 included), but the Oppo smartphone limited itself to the 80 MHz channel width in the test with our reference router, an Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000. As a result the transmission rates are very stable but do still have a lot of room for improvement. 

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1465 (1307min - 1536max) MBit/s ∼100% +79%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
933 (833min - 949max) MBit/s ∼64% +14%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
820 (799min - 837max) MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
716 (539min - 791max) MBit/s ∼49% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72.5 - 1736, n=49, last 2 years)
636 MBit/s ∼43% -22%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1214 (516min - 1524max) MBit/s ∼100% +36%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
898 (852min - 931max) MBit/s ∼74% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
890 (433min - 934max) MBit/s ∼73%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78.3 - 1710, n=49, last 2 years)
657 MBit/s ∼54% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
521 (311min - 704max) MBit/s ∼43% -41%
iperf3 transmit AX12
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1281 (635min - 1400max) MBit/s ∼100%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
875 (836min - 889max) MBit/s ∼68%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1395, n=209, last 2 years)
486 MBit/s ∼38%
iperf3 receive AX12
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
718 (707min - 724max) MBit/s ∼100%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
697 (500min - 767max) MBit/s ∼97%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1348, n=209, last 2 years)
473 MBit/s ∼66%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1704 (852min - 1767max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (853 - 1768, n=6, last 2 years)
1337 MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1702 (1642min - 1735max) MBit/s ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (943 - 1751, n=6, last 2 years)
1375 MBit/s ∼81%
050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900Tooltip
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø819 (799-837)
Motorola Edge 30 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø933 (833-949)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø876 (433-934)
Motorola Edge 30 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Qualcomm Adreno 730; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø898 (852-931)
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Indoors
GPS Test: Indoors

In terms of GNSS support, the Oppo Find X5 Pro is almost exclusively limited to single-band operation, only BeiDou is supported with two frequency bands. The GPS signal lock is quite quick to happen outdoors, but it takes some time for the location to be determined precisely and the signal to become stable. 

This was also noticeable on our short bike ride, during which we conducted a comparison of the Find X5 Pro with the Garmin Venu 2 Smartwatch. Somewhat surprisingly, the recorded distance of both devices was the same in length, but the smartphone had a tendency to navigate across paddocks and fly past bridges. Nevertheless, it should be sufficient for simple navigation. 

GNSS Test: Circumnavigation of a lake
GNSS Test: Circumnavigation of a lake
GNSS Test: Change of direction
GNSS Test: Change of direction
GNSS Test: Circumnavigation of a lake
GNSS Test: Circumnavigation of a lake

Features and voice quality

As with its predecessor the Find X3 Pro, we are more than satisfied with the X5 Pro in terms of telephony features. The voice quality at the ear is very good in both directions and only very loud ambient noise causes a slight distortion of the user's voice. Otherwise, ambient noise is almost completely filtered out. The speakerphone is punchy, but voices have a slightly spluttering quality and reverberation is noticeable at greater distances.

The Oppo Find X5 Pro can accommodate two nano SIM cards or use an eSIM instead of a physical SIM. VoLTE and Wi-Fi calls are supported, but there is no in-built SIP account management. 

Cameras - From four to three

Selfie with an Oppo Find X5 Pro
Selfie with an Oppo Find X5 Pro

The technical specs of the front camera of the Oppo Find X5 Pro have not changed; 32MP and a fixed focus lens. The image quality is great and the app offers an abundance of settings options to customize your own look. Unfortunately, video recording is limited to Full HD.

The main camera on the back has the same sensors as last year, but the microscope lens has been removed. Nevertheless, Oppo has optimized much of the camera setup. More glass lens elements are used, the image stabilization is now composed of a tripple axis sensor shift and a  dual axis OIS and as icing on the cake Oppo has introduced an additional imaging NPU with a MariSilicon X.

The main camera takes really great pictures that are, however, somewhat cold in colour when using the default settings. We would have expected the colours to be slightly more true, especially since the cooperation with Hasselblad is aimed specifically at this functionality. We also like its image stabilization that eliminates camera shake, even with longer focal lengths (up to 20x digital magnification). When using the 5x hybrid zoom, however, the images could do with a little more sharpness.

The ultra-wide angle has great depth of field and shows only minimal chromatic aberrations in the margins, a very convincing finding indeed. The lens also serves as a macro lens. When used in this manner, the camera switches automatically. This is not an optical disadvantage, as the same sensor is used as for the main camera lens. However, this function can also be deactivated in the settings. 

At best, the Find X5 Pro can record video recordings in Ultra HD at 60 frames per second, but the AI highlight video function is not available in HFR formats. Zooming in or out is well designed and is achieved with a stepless control mechanism. When filming, the excellent image stabilization of this smartphone leaves a particularly positive impression. 

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.

HauptkameraHauptkameraUltraweitwinkel5-facher ZoomLow-Light

Under controlled lighting conditions, the Oppo Find X5 Pro maps our test chart very accurately and only shows weak distortions in the margins. In the centre of the image, the white balance is once again too cold. 

When photographing the ColorChecker, we were unable to detect this issue. Quite to the contrary, especially red and skin tones are well matched and depiction of all other colors is true. 

ColorChecker
5.9 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
7 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
5.3 ∆E
7 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
10 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X5 Pro: 7.26 ∆E min: 3.64 - max: 13.62 ∆E
ColorChecker
21.8 ∆E
29.3 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
25.9 ∆E
26.5 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
32.2 ∆E
19.2 ∆E
20 ∆E
18.2 ∆E
33.2 ∆E
40.4 ∆E
18.8 ∆E
29.6 ∆E
14.6 ∆E
31.7 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
30 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Find X5 Pro: 26.72 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 40.44 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - SuperVOOC power supply included

The Oppo Find X5 Pro ships with a modular power supply (max 80 watts, USB-A), a USB cable (Type-A to Type-C), a silicone bumper, a SIM needle and an OTG adapter. 

The manufacturer provides a 24-month warranty on this smartphone in Germany. 

Input Devices & Operation - Oppo Smartphone with Optical Fingerprint Sensor

The Oppo Find X5 Pro has a capacitive touch screen that can detect up to ten touches simultaneously and operates at a sampling rate of 240 Hz. Entries are implemented quickly and reliably on it. As delivered, there's a protective film over the display, which somewhat inhibits gliding across the screen surface and the cut-over to glass is quite noticeable.

The optical fingerprint sensor reliably detects stored fingerprints and unlocks the Find X5 Pro at appealing speed. Alternatively or additionally, faster, but also insecure 2D face recognition is available. 

We were particularly impressed with the vibration mechanism with its quiet and snappy feedback. Aside from one-hand-gesture navigation several other optionally available screen control features and gesture modes are available. 

Display - The Find X5 Pro has an accurate LTPO OLED screen

Pixel substructure
Pixel substructure

The 6.7 inch (17.02 cm) AMOLED-Display of the Oppo Find X5 Pro sports hardly any difference to its predecessors. It uses an adaptive refresh rate of up to 120Hz that Oppo claims can be reduced to as low as 10Hz. We were unexpectedly but positively surprised when the system lowered the refresh rate to as little as 1Hz. 

The brightness of the screen is very good when the ambient light sensor is switched on, but competitors such as the Galaxy S22 Ultra or the Xiaomi 12 Pro do a significantly better job at this. Given an even spread of light and dark surfaces (APL50) the OLED delivers slightly more brightness up to 816 cd/m2. However, the advertised 1,300 cd/m2 couldn't even begin to be tickled out of this smartphone. 

The OLED flicker oscillates irregularly between 179.7 and 361 Hz. We were unable to register anything other than a constant 120Hz for anything above the adjustable 98% brightness setting.

755
cd/m²
747
cd/m²
743
cd/m²
736
cd/m²
746
cd/m²
742
cd/m²
736
cd/m²
743
cd/m²
750
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 755 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 744.2 cd/m² Minimum: 2.11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 746 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
98.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.23
Oppo Find X5 Pro
AMOLED, 3216x1440, 6.70
Oppo Find X3 Pro
AMOLED, 3216x1440, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.80
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
OLED, 2778x1284, 6.70
Xiaomi 12 Pro
AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.73
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70
Screen
0%
9%
23%
-13%
-13%
Brightness middle
746
759
2%
1077
44%
1049
41%
959
29%
649
-13%
Brightness
744
776
4%
1093
47%
1060
42%
977
31%
649
-13%
Brightness Distribution
97
94
-3%
97
0%
98
1%
96
-1%
98
1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
0.9
0.8
11%
1.2
-33%
0.78
13%
1.1
-22%
1.18
-31%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
1.6
1.8
-13%
2
-25%
1.72
-8%
3.1
-94%
2.07
-29%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
1.6
1.6
-0%
1.3
19%
0.8
50%
1.9
-19%
1.5
6%
Gamma
2.23 99%
2.23 99%
2.37 93%
2.181 101%
2.22 99%
2.236 98%
CCT
6499 100%
6512 100%
6526 100%
6559 99%
6498 100%
2538 256%

* ... 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 361 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 361 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 361 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 21792 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

lowest available display brightness
lowest available display brightness
25 % display brightness
25 % display brightness
50 % display brightness
50 % display brightness
75 % display brightness
75 % display brightness
maximum manually available display brightness
maximum manually available display brightness

Measurements taken with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (Rigol MSO5102)

Colour corrected colour temperature
Colour corrected colour temperature

When using the Nature setting, the colour rendition of the screen is very close to real-life. And if you make the effort to manually adjust the white balance setting (see screen shot) you will end up with a near perfect colour and grey-scale rendition on your screen. And to achieve this, just the smaller sRGB colour space model is used.

If you want the deeper colors offered by larger DCI-P3 colour space you will need to select the Vivid mode. But you will, at the same time, need to take a liking to more strongly saturated colours and colder images.  Compensation for the latter is possible via the Natural Colour Display setting that enables colour temperature to be aligned to ambient lighting.


Grey scale steps (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)
Grey scale steps (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)
Colours (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)
Colours (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)
Colours (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour spacem: sRGB)
Colours (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour spacem: sRGB)
Saturation (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (mode: Nature, colour temperature: adapted; target colour space: sRGB)

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
1.389 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.793 ms rise
↘ 0.597 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
0.711 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.364 ms rise
↘ 0.348 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 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.8 ms).

Outdoors, the Oppo Find X5 leaves one with a positive impression. It can muster sufficient brightness reserves to deal with most lighting conditions. It would have been nice, however, to have registered less reflection on the display itself. 

The viewing angles of the Oppo Find X5 Pro are predictably very good. Only at very narrow perspectives does one notice a slight reduction in brightness. However, a green halo effect can result from just a small downwards inclination. 

Viewing angle stability of the Oppo Find X5 Pro
Viewing angle stability of the Oppo Find X5 Pro

Performance - Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 instead of a Dimensity 9000

The European version of the Oppo Find X5 Pro is based exclusively on Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1. In its country of origin, China, however, a second version that uses a MediaTek Dimensity 9000 is available. The CPU is mated to 12 GB of LPDDR5 RAM.

Mobile benchmarks have this Oppo model lagging behind the competition. This is indicative of sub-optimal cooling of the SoC as navigation in daily usage is smooth.

While CPU performance lies in the expected range, results from the AI benchmark are unexpectedly poor. The Procyon AI benchmark, however, shows somewhat better results up against other smartphones kitted out with the Snapdragon 8.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
1742 Points ∼100% +39%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1257 Points ∼72%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1182 - 1298, n=15)
1233 Points ∼71% -2%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1195 Points ∼69% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1192 Points ∼68% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1154 Points ∼66% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1123 Points ∼64% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=255, last 2 years)
671 Points ∼39% -47%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
4914 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3738 Points ∼76% +7%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3659 Points ∼74% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
3560 Points ∼72% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (3269 - 3839, n=15)
3557 Points ∼72% +2%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
3535 Points ∼72% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
3488 Points ∼71%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4914, n=255, last 2 years)
2195 Points ∼45% -37%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (12144 - 17025, n=15)
13714 Points ∼100% +13%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13611 Points ∼99% +12%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
13131 Points ∼96% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
12579 Points ∼92% +4%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
12144 Points ∼89%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=147, last 2 years)
10202 Points ∼74% -16%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
970465 Points ∼100% +13%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
962824 Points ∼99% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (821646 - 1041980, n=14)
946438 Points ∼98% +10%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
856953 Points ∼88%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
800222 Points ∼82% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
704479 Points ∼73% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1041980, n=111, last 2 years)
555932 Points ∼57% -35%
CrossMark - Overall
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (811 - 1169, n=9)
1041 Points ∼100% +9%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
956 Points ∼92%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
942 Points ∼90% -1%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
829 Points ∼80% -13%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
811 Points ∼78% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1169, n=51, last 2 years)
743 Points ∼71% -22%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
8124 Points ∼100% +19%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7070 Points ∼87% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
6822 Points ∼84% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (6007 - 7567, n=11)
6808 Points ∼84% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6799 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6319 Points ∼78% -7%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6007 Points ∼74% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (895 - 8124, n=170, last 2 years)
4244 Points ∼52% -38%
System
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
19657 Points ∼100% +90%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
11438 Points ∼58% +11%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10739 Points ∼55% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10464 Points ∼53% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10340 Points ∼53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (9273 - 10990, n=11)
10216 Points ∼52% -1%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
10006 Points ∼51% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1542 - 19657, n=170, last 2 years)
7532 Points ∼38% -27%
Memory
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
8220 Points ∼100% +26%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
7357 Points ∼90% +13%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
6523 Points ∼79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (5125 - 7806, n=11)
6493 Points ∼79% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6212 Points ∼76% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5125 Points ∼62% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1012 - 9044, n=170, last 2 years)
4862 Points ∼59% -25%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
3612 Points ∼44% -45%
Graphics
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
25642 Points ∼100% +17%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
21944 Points ∼86%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (15216 - 22308, n=11)
20142 Points ∼79% -8%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
17159 Points ∼67% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
17104 Points ∼67% -22%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
15216 Points ∼59% -31%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
14211 Points ∼55% -35%
Average of class Smartphone
  (478 - 25642, n=170, last 2 years)
7365 Points ∼29% -66%
Web
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
2392 Points ∼100% +66%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1843 Points ∼77% +28%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1669 Points ∼70% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (1291 - 1888, n=11)
1624 Points ∼68% +12%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288
1621 Points ∼68% +12%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
1444 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
1434 Points ∼60% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (718 - 2392, n=170, last 2 years)
1386 Points ∼58% -4%
AImark - Score v2.x
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Apple A15 Bionic, A15 GPU 5-Core, 6144
107460 Points ∼100% +1696%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
72572 Points ∼68% +1113%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 286905, n=131, last 2 years)
59805 Points ∼56% +900%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (5783 - 96317, n=10)
21924 Points ∼20% +266%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
6217 Points ∼6% +4%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
5982 Points ∼6%
UL Procyon AI Inference - Overall Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
  (63613 - 80599, n=4)
71590 Points ∼100% +4%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
68880 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, Adreno 730, 12288
63613 Points ∼89% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1555 - 80599, n=62, last 2 years)
14009 Points ∼20% -80%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Samsung Exynos 2200, Xclipse 920, 8192
10841 Points ∼15% -84%

Performance of the Adreno 730 is high in the GPU benchmarks, as expected. In some other GFX benchmarks, however, results remain below the potential performance of the graphics procesor. This is an early indication of an inadequate cooling system.

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
2817 Points ∼100% +12%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2549 Points ∼90% +1%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2545 Points ∼90% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2523 Points ∼90%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2513 Points ∼89% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1916 Points ∼68% -24%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1567 Points ∼56% -38%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
3080 Points ∼100% +20%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2609 Points ∼85% +1%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2604 Points ∼85% +1%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2594 Points ∼84% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2575 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
2044 Points ∼66% -21%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1629 Points ∼53% -37%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
11688 Points ∼100% +15%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10384 Points ∼89% +2%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10185 Points ∼87% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10175 Points ∼87%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10164 Points ∼87% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7288 Points ∼62% -28%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
6483 Points ∼55% -36%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5721 Points ∼49% -44%
3DMark / Wild Life Score
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10062 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9927 Points ∼99% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9826 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
9680 Points ∼96% -1%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9571 Points ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7236 Points ∼72% -26%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
6351 Points ∼63% -35%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5657 Points ∼56% -42%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
11528 Points ∼100% +15%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10005 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9540 Points ∼83% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9149 Points ∼79% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8612 Points ∼75% -14%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
5782 Points ∼50% -42%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
19364 Points ∼100% +7%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18090 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
16202 Points ∼84% -10%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13950 Points ∼72% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12972 Points ∼67% -28%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12394 Points ∼64% -31%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5283 Points ∼100% +35%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4771 Points ∼90% +22%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4150 Points ∼79% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3957 Points ∼75% +1%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3902 Points ∼74%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
1902 Points ∼36% -51%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13121 Points ∼100% +8%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12123 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10958 Points ∼84% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10415 Points ∼79% -14%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8768 Points ∼67% -28%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
25906 Points ∼100% +2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
25285 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
20842 Points ∼80% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
18689 Points ∼72% -26%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
13647 Points ∼53% -46%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4811 Points ∼100% +12%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4296 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4120 Points ∼86% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4085 Points ∼85% -5%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3895 Points ∼81% -9%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
121 fps ∼100% +102%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼98% +98%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
118 fps ∼98% +97%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼50% 0%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
425 fps ∼100% +12%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
409.6 fps ∼96% +8%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
380 fps ∼89% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
380 fps ∼89%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
306 fps ∼72% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
302 fps ∼71% -21%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
230 fps ∼54% -39%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼100% +98%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
117 fps ∼98% +95%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
108 fps ∼91% +80%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼50% 0%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
55 fps ∼46% -8%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
251 fps ∼100% +39%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
227.9 fps ∼91% +26%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
194 fps ∼77% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
187 fps ∼75% +3%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
181 fps ∼72%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
158 fps ∼63% -13%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
127 fps ∼51% -30%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
109 fps ∼100% +95%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
87 fps ∼80% +55%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼65% +27%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
60 fps ∼55% +7%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼55% +7%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 fps ∼51%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼33% -36%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
169 fps ∼100% +52%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
144 fps ∼85% +30%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
143 fps ∼85% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
127 fps ∼75% +14%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼70% +7%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
111 fps ∼66%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
93 fps ∼55% -16%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps ∼100% +74%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
53.2 fps ∼78% +36%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼62% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼57% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼57%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼53% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
28 fps ∼41% -28%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
92.9 fps ∼100% +47%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
86 fps ∼93% +37%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
86 fps ∼93% +37%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼76% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps ∼73% +8%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
63 fps ∼68%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
55 fps ∼59% -13%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼100% +67%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼100% +67%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
54.8 fps ∼91% +52%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
37 fps ∼62% +3%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
36 fps ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
31 fps ∼52% -14%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
27 fps ∼45% -25%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
25 fps ∼42% -31%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
47 fps ∼100% +18%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼89% +5%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
41 fps ∼87% +3%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
40 fps ∼85%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
37.9 fps ∼81% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
34 fps ∼72% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
30 fps ∼64% -25%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
28 fps ∼60% -30%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
98 fps ∼100% +85%
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
89 fps ∼91% +68%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
59.1 fps ∼60% +12%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
53 fps ∼54% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
53 fps ∼54%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps ∼45% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼43% -21%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
38 fps ∼39% -28%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Nubia RedMagic 7
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
123 fps ∼100% +31%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
108 fps ∼88% +15%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
101 fps ∼82% +7%
realme GT 2 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
100 fps ∼81% +6%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
94 fps ∼76%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼75% -2%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
72 fps ∼59% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
68 fps ∼55% -28%

The Oppo Find X5 Pro delivers impressive browser performance. It sits more around mid-field among comparable competitors, something we think is, however, unlikely to be noticeable in everyday usage. 

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
181.8 Points ∼100% +77%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chrome 99)
121.6 Points ∼67% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (77.3 - 126.3, n=12)
105.3 Points ∼58% +2%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
103 Points ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
96.8 Points ∼53% -6%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
84.1 Points ∼46% -18%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 182.6, n=170, last 2 years)
62.2 Points ∼34% -40%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
402.9 Points ∼100% +133%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chrome 99)
236.6 Points ∼59% +37%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
200 Points ∼50% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (121.9 - 237, n=11)
195.6 Points ∼49% +13%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
172.8 Points ∼43%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
147.5 Points ∼37% -15%
Oppo Find X3 Pro (Chrome 89)
139.4 Points ∼35% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 414, n=169, last 2 years)
114.8 Points ∼28% -34%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
242 runs/min ∼100% +133%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chome 99)
129 runs/min ∼53% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
108 runs/min ∼45% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (64.4 - 129.3, n=12)
104.5 runs/min ∼43% 0%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
104 runs/min ∼43%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
73.5 runs/min ∼30% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 244, n=156, last 2 years)
60.9 runs/min ∼25% -41%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
248 Points ∼100% +86%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chrome 99)
167 Points ∼67% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (101 - 193, n=11)
148.2 Points ∼60% +11%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
133 Points ∼54%
Oppo Find X3 Pro (Chrome 89)
129 Points ∼52% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
124 Points ∼50% -7%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
119 Points ∼48% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 265, n=179, last 2 years)
92.1 Points ∼37% -31%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
63831 Points ∼100% +66%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chrome 99)
50626 Points ∼79% +32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (27730 - 50626, n=12)
40720 Points ∼64% +6%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
38407 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
34055 Points ∼53% -11%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
29750 Points ∼47% -23%
Oppo Find X3 Pro (Chrome 89)
27914 Points ∼44% -27%
Average of class Smartphone (3526 - 65969, n=184, last 2 years)
23301 Points ∼37% -39%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 15230, n=184, last 2 years)
3172 ms * ∼100% -182%
Oppo Find X3 Pro (Chrome 89)
1646 ms * ∼52% -46%
Xiaomi 12 Pro (Chrome 97)
1330 ms * ∼42% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G (Chrome 99)
1259 ms * ∼40% -12%
Oppo Find X5 Pro (Chrome 99)
1125 ms * ∼35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 (819 - 1440, n=12)
1033 ms * ∼33% +8%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro (Chrome 99)
819 ms * ∼26% +27%
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max (Safari 15)
414.8 ms * ∼13% +63%

* ... smaller is better

This Oppo smartphone is built on fast UFS 3.1 storage but is slower compared to competition bar its write speeds, as was the case with its predecessor. 

Oppo Find X5 ProOppo Find X3 ProSamsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5GXiaomi 12 ProMotorola Edge 30 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
22%
36%
67%
39%
27%
-29%
Sequential Read 256KB
1410
1779
26%
1653
17%
1620
15%
1832
30%
1781 ?(1330 - 2037, n=47)
26%
929 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=248, last 2 years)
-34%
Sequential Write 256KB
894
759
-15%
1074
20%
1465
64%
1028
15%
954 ?(452 - 1559, n=47)
7%
472 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=248, last 2 years)
-47%
Random Read 4KB
183.7
273.3
49%
322.3
75%
324.9
77%
277.7
51%
265 ?(181 - 345, n=47)
44%
166.5 ?(13.5 - 345, n=248, last 2 years)
-9%
Random Write 4KB
210.4
267.1
27%
273.1
30%
448.9
113%
339.5
61%
274 ?(218 - 458, n=48)
30%
159.7 ?(56.5 - 458, n=249, last 2 years)
-24%

Gaming - rarely over 60 FPS

With its Adreno 730, the Oppo Find X5 Pro brings a very powerful graphics solution into play, making all apps from the Google Play Store playable using their highest definition without any issues. We verified this with GameBench.

PUBG can be run using highest definition levels at a constant 40 FPS. If you reduce this to HD, you'll get up to 60 FPS. However, we noticed that performance eases off marginally over longer play times. We encountered this issue with Call of Duty. And it turns out that high-frame rate (HFR) games can be limited to 60 FPS, although they nominally support 90 or even 120 FPS. This is the case with Wild Rift, among others.

Call of Duty Mobile
Call of Duty Mobile
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
; Call of Duty Mobile; low; 1.0.30: Ø54.7 (54-56)
; Call of Duty Mobile; high; 1.0.30: Ø55.9 (9-61)
; Call of Duty Mobile; very high; 1.0.30: Ø56.6 (53-61)
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 1.9.0: Ø56.5 (50-58)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 1.9.0: Ø57.9 (53-61)
; PUBG Mobile; Ultra HD; 1.9.0: Ø39.9 (39-41)

Emissions - Oppo cannot gain mastery over the Snapdragon 8

Temperature

At no time did the surface temperatures of the Oppo Find X5 Pro become unpleasant and it only becomes luke warm in patches, even under load. 

The stress test is less of a relaxed affair. The new vapor chamber heat sink does not gain mastery over the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 and, after a bit, performance is reduced by approximately 37 percent. This is annoying, but it's a problem that most manufacturers are grappling with. RedMagic 7 performs best in this department, but it also relies on active cooling.

Max. Load
 35.7 °C
96 F
35.9 °C
97 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
 35.9 °C
97 F
34.3 °C
94 F
33.9 °C
93 F
 
 36.1 °C
97 F
35.6 °C
96 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 36.1 °C = 97 F
Average: 34.9 °C = 95 F
33 °C
91 F
33.8 °C
93 F
33.3 °C
92 F
31.7 °C
89 F
32.8 °C
91 F
34.1 °C
93 F
30.6 °C
87 F
32.4 °C
90 F
34 °C
93 F
Maximum: 34.1 °C = 93 F
Average: 32.9 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  27.3 °C = 81 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.9 °C / 95 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 36.1 °C / 97 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 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
80.1 (44.5min) % ∼100% +28%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 (37.2min) % ∼78%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
58.5 (25.9min) % ∼73% -7%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
57.4 (34.3min) % ∼72% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Pro
Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
56 (3164min) % ∼70% -11%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
47.2 (27.4min) % ∼59% -25%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe
77 (12.3min) % ∼100% +23%
Oppo Find X5 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62.7 (9.64min) % ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
Xclipse 920, Exynos 2200, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
61.8 (7.76min) % ∼80% -1%
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
59.6 (9.21min) % ∼77% -5%
Xiaomi 12 Pro
Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
% ∼0% -100%
051015202530354045505560Tooltip
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø10.9 (9.64-15.4)
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.1 (12.3-16)
Motorola Edge 30 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø10.9 (9.21-15.5)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø41.7 (37.2-59.4)
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max A15 GPU 5-Core, A15, 128 GB NVMe; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø47 (44.5-55.5)
Motorola Edge 30 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø38.6 (34.3-59.7)
Oppo Find X5 Pro Adreno 730, SD 8 Gen 1, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø43.7 (38.1-60.9)

Speakers

The two speakers of the Oppo Find X5 Pro can play very loudly, but can sound a bit hollow and noise is audible in silent sequences. At lower volume, however, the sound profile is quite homogeneous and can be quite compelling. Just low pitch sounds are somewhat feeble. 

A jack adapter can be connected via the USB port for sound output, but for this to work you need to first activate the feature in the settings. Bluetooth 5.2 is available for wireless audio transmission with all common audio codecs supported (SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, aptX TWS , LHDC and LDAC). 

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs203540.8253027.23121.9254022.8275034.837.86324.331.88023.230.910027.830.112514.732.516020.946.220021.248.925017.55431513.461.840014.162.350013.167.563011.57280013.174.3100011.775.3125011.874.416001376.5200012.178.6250012.179.9315012.381.4400012.579.650001378.3630013.27580001370.61000013.767.31250013.565.61600014.252.5SPL25.189.2N0.775.8median 13.1median 70.6Delta1.11134.738.935.637.933.93333.436.733.73728.930.322.925.721.532.421.441.716.248.613.850.112.253.510.754.58.658.410.461.911.962.913.365.710.266.99.269.59.269.99.771.310.770.812.669.114.267.215.358.314.663.615.767.416.571.815.86516.455.525.280.20.647.3median 13.3median 63.62.76.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Find X5 ProApple iPhone 13 Pro Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Find X5 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life - the Find X5 Pro 5G delivers great run time


Power consumption

Energy consumption is surprisingly high at minimal display brightness, even though the Find X5 Pro can lower the refresh rate to 1Hz. What's more, it continues to draw normal power when idling. Under load, the energy consumption is low, but this will be mainly due to SoC throttling, and this is well illustrated by GFXBench at an adjusted brightness (150cd/m²) level. 

The Oppo smartphone can be charged at up to 80 watts when wired and reaches the 50 percent mark in under 12 minutes. Wireless charging occurs at up to 50 watts. The manufacturer's specifications state that a full battery charge with the AirVOOC charger should take just 47 minutes. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.31 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1.24 / 1.39 / 1.42 Watt
Load midlight 3.58 / 6.99 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 Pro
5000 mAh
Oppo Find X3 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G
5000 mAh
Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
4352 mAh
Xiaomi 12 Pro
4600 mAh
Motorola Edge 30 Pro
4800 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-24%
-8%
13%
-7%
-36%
-48%
-11%
Idle Minimum *
1.24
0.93
25%
0.58
53%
0.6
52%
0.94
24%
1.2
3%
1.44 ?(0.7 - 3.18, n=10)
-16%
0.91 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=193, last 2 years)
27%
Idle Average *
1.39
1.54
-11%
0.71
49%
1.5
-8%
1.24
11%
1.6
-15%
2.19 ?(1.1 - 4.38, n=10)
-58%
1.669 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=193, last 2 years)
-20%
Idle Maximum *
1.42
1.69
-19%
1.16
18%
1.6
-13%
1.34
6%
2.5
-76%
2.41 ?(1.34 - 4.45, n=10)
-70%
1.896 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=193, last 2 years)
-34%
Load Average *
3.58
6.38
-78%
7.07
-97%
3.5
2%
5.7
-59%
5.2
-45%
5.89 ?(3.58 - 8.04, n=10)
-65%
4.48 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=193, last 2 years)
-25%
Load Maximum *
6.99
9.58
-37%
11.32
-62%
4.8
31%
8.12
-16%
10.4
-49%
9.04 ?(6.67 - 11.3, n=10)
-29%
7.33 ?(3.56 - 11.9, n=193, last 2 years)
-5%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

0123456789101112Tooltip
Oppo Find X5 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: Ø5.27 (0.963-10.9)
Xiaomi 12 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1: Ø6.81 (1.309-12.9)

Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)