Average of 5 scores (from 14 reviews)
Reviews for the Oppo R9s
Source: Android Authority
The OPPO R9s has an excellent camera, offers impressive battery life, and features a nice display. However, the number of compromises here is staggering. Among derivative design and software, the R9s has sloppy software, offers below average performance, and has a bleak software support outlook. For Western users, the strange display coating, YouTube audio sync issue, and limited availability are even bigger issues to consider.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 03/15/2017
Rating: Total score: 82% performance: 80% display: 75% mobility: 90% workmanship: 80%
Selling for AUD$598 with 64GB of storage, the OPPO R9s is a great deal, but it’s slightly difficult to recommend over the significantly cheaper F1s if you don’t need the extra bells and whistles, such as the better camera or the horsepower. Vanilla Android would push this phone over the edge and make it an easily recommendable device over its competitors, but as it stands you’ll have to weigh up whether you can deal with the slightly odd operating system. If the operating system isn’t a problem, then you’re getting one of the best value-for-money phones on the market.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 02/24/2017
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Bill Bennett
Oppo’s R9s story is all about the price. We don’t know for sure but if it lands in New Zealand at NZ$750 it’ll be competitive. For that money you get most of what you’ll find in premium phones selling for twice the price.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 02/15/2017
So, great value for money and general performance ranging from very good to excellent. Oppo is on a winner with the R9s phone.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 02/01/2017
Rating: Total score: 90% price: 100% performance: 90%
Source: Tech Nave
Comparing it with the F1s, both phones share a lot of similarities and one might even opt for the F1s for being cheaper at RM1198, whereas the R9S stands at RM1798. That’s a RM600 difference and it’s easily understood why some customers won’t go for the R9S. However, the R9S is a lot better in terms of picture quality, and the performance is better with a Snapdragon 625 processor. Let’s not forget the awesome battery recharge technology as well. Despite these good points, we still wished OPPO could have been more creative in their design department for it. Seriously, guys.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/26/2017
Source: Stuff TV
The Xiaomi Mi 5 is a worthy contender, although it doesn’t have the same expandable storage, and the excellent OnePlus 3 is a smidge more expensive, but packs a more powerful Snapdragon 820 chip. In any case, both examples do not have the will to last as long as the R9s.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/05/2017
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: GSM Arena
That said, Oppo's execution is the best, and this isn't just because of the six-string antenna design (though that's a big part of it). The R9s has the same screen size as the iPhone 7 Plus, but you wouldn't guess it - the Oppo is so much more compact and lighter. The fingerprint reader is faster than Apple's too.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 12/05/2016
For the past one year, it is hard not to relate the word “selfie” with OPPO Malaysia’s smartphones given how the company has been working hard to establish its devices which include F1, F1 Plus, and F1s as the “Selfie Expert” devices. This year though, the company has somehow decided to focus on the power of rear camera with the arrival of R9s in our market.
Positive: Metal case; slim size; long battery life; fast charge.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/14/2017
True to its promise, OPPO today has unveiled two new smartphones called R9s and R9s Plus. As indicated by their names, these new devices are generally the successor to the R9 (released in Malaysia as F1 Plus) and R9 Plus smartphones which themselves were just launched around seven months ago.
Positive: Excellent cameras; decent hardware; support fast charge; flexible fingerprint sensor.
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 10/19/2016
Source: Chinahandys.net DE→EN
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 04/06/2017
Rating: Total score: 80% performance: 50% display: 90% mobility: 90% workmanship: 100%
Source: El Confidencial ES→EN
Positive: Metal case; fast fingerprint reader; quick charge; decent hardware; excellent cameras. Negative: Mediocre design.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 12/07/2016
Source: Komorkomania PL→EN
Positive: Solid workmanship; flexible fingerprint sensor; excellent cameras; support fast charge. Negative: Relatively high price.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/20/2016
Source: Komorkomania PL→EN
Positive: Excellent cameras; support fast charge; nice design.
Comparison, online available, Medium, Date: 10/14/2016
Source: Webriyota.com TR→EN
Positive: Beautiful design; metal case; good price.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 01/16/2017
CommentQualcomm Adreno 506: Integrated graphics card in the Snapdragon 625 SoC and based on the new 500-series architecture with support for Vulkan, OpenGL ES 3.1 + AE (3.2) and UBWC. Non demanding games should be playable with these graphics cards. » Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Graphics Cards and the corresponding Benchmark List.
625: Mid-range octa-core SoC with eight ARM Cortex-A53 cpu cores at up to 2 GHz, an Adreno 506 GPU, a DDR3L-1866 memory controller and a X9 LTE (Cat 7) modem. Manufactured in the modern 14nm process.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
This display is quite big for a smartphone but frequently used for smartphones.
Large display-sizes allow higher resolutions. So, details like letters are bigger. On the other hand, the power consumption is lower with small screen diagonals and the devices are smaller, more lightweight and cheaper.» To find out how fine a display is, see our DPI List.
Only few smartphones are more lightweight than this.
82.4%: This rating should be considered to be average. This is because the proportion of notebooks which have a higher rating is approximately equal to the proportion which have a lower rating.
» Further information can be found in our Notebook Purchase Guide.