Verdict - Oppo Find X9
The Oppo Find X9 is relatively impressive in many areas, boasting a fast SoC, a bright, high-resolution screen, decent cameras, and powerful speakers.
Input is exceptionally smooth, and the software is up-to-date. Updates are promised for six years, the Wi-Fi is fast, and this is a smartphone that be used almost anywhere in the world.
However, there are a few drawbacks such as the system throttling significantly under sustained load, and benchmark results are generally not as high as you might expect. In addition, the case gets quite warm after prolonged use, and the camera images lack that final touch of quality compared to top-tier devices.
Coming in at a relatively low price, the Oppo Find X9 is a fast smartphone with excellent battery life - if you can handle minor compromises.
Pros
Cons
Price and availabilty
The Oppo Find X9 is currently available for £799 on amazon.uk.
Table of Contents
- Verdict - Oppo Find X9
- Specifications
- Case – A stable chassis with slim bezels
- Features – Up to 16 GB of RAM
- Software – Cutting edge security
- Communication – WiFi 7 and worldwide mobile communications
- Telephone functions and voice quality – Loud and clear
- Cameras – Not quite top league
- Input devices and operation – With assignable keys
- Display – A fast and bright AMOLED
- Performance – Fast, but with issues
- Emissions – Things can get hot
- Battery runtimes – The Oppo packs a large battery
- Notebookcheck overall rating
- Possible alternatives compared
Specifications
Case – A stable chassis with slim bezels
The slim bezels framing the screen and the 91% screen-to-body ratio immediately reveal the Oppo Find X9 to be a premium smartphone. However, the front screen is protected by Gorilla Glass 7i, which is now also commonly found in much cheaper mid-range phones such as the Xiaomi Poco X7 Pro.
The color variants are Gray, Black or Velvet Red, but in Europe, the gray model is almost exclusively your only option. The design is very clean, boasting rounded corners and a matte back that resists fingerprints.
The phone can be described as sturdy, but using your hands to apply significant pressure produces a slight creaking sound. The chassis is water and dust-resistant to IP68/IP69 standards.
Features – Up to 16 GB of RAM
A speedy USB 3.2 port with a data throughput of 5 Gbps and DisplayPort are both included, as is NFC. Bluetooth 6.0 allows for device location tracking, even though UWB is not on board.
The following storage options are available internationally:
- 256 GB of UFS 4.1 flash, 12 GB of LPDDR5X RAM
- 512 GB of UFS 4.1 flash, 12 GB of LPDDR5X RAM
- 512 GB of UFS 4.1 flash, 16 GB of LPDDR5X RAM
In Europe, only the 512 GB version is currently available.
eSIMs can be used without any issues in the European models. However, a microSD card slot for storage expansion is not available.
Software – Cutting edge security
Oppo uses its own ColorOS interface, which is based on Android 16. The security patches are from November 1, 2025, which means they are bang up-to-date at the time of reviewing. Updates are planned for a further six years.
Pre-installed apps include the gallery and its numerous AI editing options, as well as a video player.
Sustainability
Oppo has registered its smartphone in the EU's EPREL database, and Oppo Find X9 repair manuals and spare parts are also available.
Apart from that, sustainability information is scarce: We were unable to find either a carbon footprint or a recycling rate.
Communication – WiFi 7 and worldwide mobile communications
The Oppo Find X9 supports WiFi 7, which is currently the fastest Wi-Fi standard. In our test using the Asus ROG Rapture AXE11000 reference router, the phone achieved good data transfer speeds. These speeds were quite stable when it came to the upstream direction, but downstream, drops of up to 20% of the maximum speed occurred.
In terms of mobile network coverage, you can use the Oppo Find X9 almost anywhere in the world. Reception proved to be good even in challenging situations, as observed in spot checks during our testing phase.
| Networking | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
Telephone functions and voice quality – Loud and clear
During a test call, the receiver's voice sounded very clear and was easy to understand via the earpiece. Our voice was also transmitted clearly. The same applied to the hands-free mode, although this is an area where we would like to see better noise filtering.
Cameras – Not quite top league
The most obvious differences compared to the Oppo Find X9 Pro are evident in the camera: Apart from the absence of a bokeh sensor, all of the lenses are slightly less light-sensitive than those found in its larger sibling, and some also have lower resolutions.
All in all, we like the images provided by the main camera, although the rendering of the plant appears a touch flat in places. However, the level of detail remains consistently very high, and the dynamic range is good in low light.
8K video recording is not possible, but 4K video recording at up to 120 fps is, which enables slow-motion effects. The quality is high, and we are particularly impressed by the sharpness.
The telephoto lens packs a periscope zoom providing 6x optical zoom compared to the main camera. Even images taken at a slightly higher zoom level are still quite usable.
The front camera possesses a maximum resolution of 32 megapixels and takes nice selfies.
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.
PlantEnvironmentLow lightWide-angle camera
Input devices and operation – With assignable keys
The screen comes with a 240 Hz touch sampling rate and a 120 Hz maximum refresh rate. The resulting inputs feel very immediate, as they are processed extremely quickly.
On the left-hand side of the device, you will find the so-called Snap key, which can be configured as a camera shutter button. On top of this, it can also be used, for example, to activate the flashlight.
A fingerprint sensor is hidden beneath the screen. Positioned quite high up, it proved itself to be surprisingly practical in testing: you never have to reposition your hand, and it's easily accessible even for users with small hands.
Unlocking the device via facial recognition is possible, but only by using the front camera's 2D method.
Display – A fast and bright AMOLED
The AMOLED screen features LTPO technology, which means it can automatically adjust the refresh rate to between 1 and 120 Hz as desired. This can, for example, save energy when reading documents.
The maximum brightness of 1,132 cd/m² is on par with other screens in its class. In smaller areas, 1,975 cd/m² is possible, and in HDR mode, the device can even hit over 3,000 cd/m² in specific areas.
However, we did observe PWM flickering at a fairly high frequency of 474 Hz. For this reason, users sensitive to flicker should test the screen before buying, as individual reactions to different screens can vary.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 1132 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 0.82 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.78}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5}
98.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.244
CCT: 6546 K
| Oppo Find X9 AMOLED, 2760x1256, 6.6" | OnePlus 15 AMOLED, 2772x1272, 6.8" | Oppo Find X9 Pro LTPO AMOLED, 2772x1272, 6.8" | Samsung Galaxy S25+ Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Apple iPhone 17 OLED, 2622x1206, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -30% | -15% | -67% | -27% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1132 | 1114 -2% | 1105 -2% | 1371 21% | 1138 1% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1114 | 1109 0% | 1084 -3% | 1370 23% | 1127 1% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 97 | 97 0% | 95 -2% | 96 -1% | 96 -1% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.82 | 1.33 -62% | 1.02 -24% | 2.7 -229% | 1.07 -30% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.95 | 2.42 -24% | 2.32 -19% | 4.2 -115% | 2.99 -53% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1 | 1.9 -90% | 1.4 -40% | 2 -100% | 1.8 -80% |
| Gamma | 2.244 98% | 2.273 97% | 2.244 98% | 2.03 108% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 6546 99% | 6708 97% | 6411 101% | 6450 101% | 6516 100% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 474.4 Hz Amplitude: 10 % |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 474.4 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 474.4 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 8142 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
A series of measurements with a fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (The amplitude curve at minimum brightness appears flat, but this is due to the scaling. The enlarged version of the amplitude at minimum brightness can be seen in the info box.)
Oppo has achieved good display calibration, which results in very minor deviations from the optimum color space.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 19 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 41 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.2 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 21 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 32 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31.7 ms). | ||
The bright screen remains easy to read even in bright environments, and is also stable even at wide viewing angles.
Performance – Fast, but with issues
The MediaTek Dimensity 9500 is currently one of the fastest SoCs. However, as seen with the Find X9 Pro, there are noticeable problems when it comes to translating this performance into real-world use.
The Oppo Find X9's slightly more compact design likely makes heat dissipation more challenging, and this prevents it from keeping up with other top-tier phones in every benchmark.
Nevertheless, this difference is unlikely to be noticeable in everyday use: every app ran perfectly smoothly during our testing.
| CrossMark - Overall | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (187 - 2674, n=130, last 2 years) | |
| UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3769 - 81594, n=138, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (16866 - 17121, n=2) | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| AImark - Score v3.x | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (82 - 307528, n=127, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
Even in terms of the GPU performance, the Oppo Find X9's benchmarks didn't always deliver as you would expect.
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 | 3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Unlimited Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Unlimited Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Score | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
In general, surfing the internet is a smooth experience, but the benchmark results are below average in this area, too.
| Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (n=1) | |
| Oppo Find X9 (Chrome 142) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (23.8 - 387, n=154, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result 2.0 | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 643, n=130, last 2 years) | |
| Speedometer 3 - Score 3.0 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (n=1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1.03 - 42.8, n=124, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 4 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (27 - 306, n=148, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X9 (Chrome 142) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (129 - 138, n=2) | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (64064 - 74649, n=2) | |
| Oppo Find X9 (Chrome 142) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 121337, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average of class Smartphone (257 - 28190, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro (Chrome 141) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (495 - 504, n=2) | |
| Oppo Find X9 (Chrome 142) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ (Chrome 133.0.6943.137) | |
| OnePlus 15 (Chrome 142) | |
| Apple iPhone 17 (Safari Mobile 26) | |
* ... smaller is better
The memory controller is unable to fully utilize the lightning-fast UFS 4.1 flash storage's capabilities. Nevertheless, fast file transfers and relatively short loading times are achievable.
| Oppo Find X9 | OnePlus 15 | Oppo Find X9 Pro | Samsung Galaxy S25+ | Apple iPhone 17 | Average 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 65% | -2% | 57% | 69% | 17% | ||
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 3232.3 | 3962.2 23% | 3219.8 0% | 4057.35 26% | 3789 ? 17% | 2232 ? -31% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1565.8 | 3741.2 139% | 1239.76 -21% | 3311.02 111% | 3201 ? 104% | 1842 ? 18% | |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 335.7 | 352.6 5% | 367.54 9% | 294.51 -12% | 377 ? 12% | 295 ? -12% | |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 172.6 | 334.4 94% | 176.98 3% | 351.16 103% | 422 ? 144% | 335 ? 94% |
Emissions – Things can get hot
Temperature
The Oppo Find X9 can get quite warm after prolonged use. For example, we measured temperatures up to 48.2 °C. This is very noticeable and can even become uncomfortable to the touch.
The 3DMark stress tests also revealed a possible reason for the low benchmark scores: Performance dropped by up to 50% after several benchmark runs, especially during demanding calculations. Almost every current high-end phone suffers from this issue to some extent.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 48.2 °C / 119 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.2 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
3DMark Stress Tests
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| OnePlus 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy S25+ | |
| Apple iPhone 17 | |
| Oppo Find X9 | |
| Oppo Find X9 Pro | |
Speakers
The speaker along the bottom edge is supported by earphones. The maximum volume of 82.3 dB(A) isn't exactly record-breaking, but it's sufficient for a medium-sized room.
The sound offers some deep midrange tones, and listening to pop songs is also an enjoyable experience.
Anyone searching for even better sound should opt for external audio devices that can be connected via Bluetooth or USB. Both work flawlessly, and the most important audio codecs are available wirelessly.
Oppo Find X9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 17 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 9.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 19% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Battery runtimes – The Oppo packs a large battery
Power consumption
In our power consumption tests across various scenarios, the Oppo Find X9 proved itself to be not quite as energy-efficient as many of its competitors.
The phone can be charged at up to 80 watts via a cable and up to 50 watts wirelessly. A full wired charge from empty takes just under an hour.
| Off / Standby |   0.1 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  1.2 / 1.8 / 2.5 Watt |
| Load |
7.9 / 12.2 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Find X9 7025 mAh | OnePlus 15 7300 mAh | Oppo Find X9 Pro 7500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S25+ 4900 mAh | Apple iPhone 17 3692 mAh | Average MediaTek Dimensity 9500 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 13% | 31% | 8% | 16% | 16% | 21% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 1.2 | 1.2 -0% | 0.6 50% | 0.45 62% | 1.1 8% | 0.9 ? 25% | 0.849 ? 29% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 1.8 | 1.4 22% | 1 44% | 1.09 39% | 1.3 28% | 1.4 ? 22% | 1.43 ? 21% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 2.5 | 1.8 28% | 1.3 48% | 1.13 55% | 1.5 40% | 1.9 ? 24% | 1.616 ? 35% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 7.9 | 6.7 15% | 6.9 13% | 14.41 -82% | 7.6 4% | 7.4 ? 6% | 7.06 ? 11% |
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 12.2 | 12.3 -1% | 11.9 2% | 16.37 -34% | 12 2% | 12.1 ? 1% | 11.2 ? 8% |
* ... smaller is better
Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Power consumption: GFXbench (150 cd/m²)
Battery life
At over 7,000 mAh, the battery is generous in size, and the just over 29-hour runtime in our practical Wi-Fi test is very suitable for everyday use.
This should allow users to get through two or perhaps even three days without recharging.
| Oppo Find X9 7025 mAh | OnePlus 15 7300 mAh | Oppo Find X9 Pro 7500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S25+ 4900 mAh | Apple iPhone 17 3692 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | 5% | 18% | -32% | -31% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 29.1 | 30.7 5% | 34.3 18% | 19.8 -32% | 20.1 -31% |
| Reader / Idle (h) | 66.4 | 65.6 | 56.6 | 66.7 | |
| H.264 (h) | 36.5 | 41.2 | 30.1 | 29.4 | |
| Load (h) | 4.2 | 5 | 4 | 4.4 |
Notebookcheck overall rating
The Oppo Find X9 is a relatively low-priced, decent performer.
However, you'll have to accept significant throttling and some minor camera compromises.
Oppo Find X9
- 11/28/2025 v8
Florian Schmitt
Total Sustainability Score: Possible alternatives compared
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 86.1%  | Oppo Find X9 MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB | Amazon: 1. $10.49 MAOUICI Tempered Glass for O... 2. $9.91 MAOUICI Tempered Glass for O... 3. $7.99 Lucyliy (3 Pack) Compatible ... List Price: 999€ | 203 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.59" 2760x1256 460 PPI AMOLED |
2. 87.1%  | OnePlus 15 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB | Amazon: 1. $799.99 OnePlus 13,16GB RAM + 512GB ... 2. $8.99 Suttkue for OnePlus 15 Scree... 3. $9.99 ottpluscase [2 Pack Screen P... List Price: 999€ | 215 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.78" 2772x1272 450 PPI AMOLED |
3. 87.7%  | Oppo Find X9 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB | Amazon: 1. $7.99 Lucyliy (3 Pack) Compatible ... 2. $9.99 Shantime [2 Pack Tempered Gl... 3. $6.67 FZZSZS (3-Pack Screen Protec... List Price: 1299€ | 224 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.78" 2772x1272 450 PPI LTPO AMOLED |
4. 88.4%  | Samsung Galaxy S25+ Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 830 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB | Amazon: 1. SAMSUNG Galaxy S25 Ultra, 25... 2. $1,120.00 Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra ... 3. $11.99 firtstnow 3 Pack Glass Scree... List Price: 1149 Euro | 190 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.70" 3120x1440 513 PPI Dynamic AMOLED 2X |
5. 87.9%  | Apple iPhone 17 Apple A19 ⎘ Apple A19 GPU ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB NVMe | Amazon: 1. $25.00 Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max Sili... 2. $1,419.00 iPhone 17 Pro Max Deep Blue ... 3. $25.00 Apple iPhone 17 Pro Silicone... List Price: 949 Euro | 177 g | 256 GB NVMe | 6.30" 2622x1206 460 PPI OLED |
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was freely purchased by the author at his/her own expense. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
No comments for this article
