Oppo Reno2 Z Smartphone Review: Pseudo quad-cam phone with ups and downs
With the Reno series, the Chinese manufacturer Oppo is trying to make a name for itself in Germany. At an MSRP of 380 Euros (~$430), the specifications of the lower-end model from the Reno2 series are decent, even though the smartphone does not exactly challenge the market at its current price.
The performance of the Oppo phone is dictated by the new MediaTek SoC Helio P90, complemented by 8 GB of RAM. As with its higher-end sibling, the Reno2 Z features four cameras on the back as well as a pop-up selfie camera, which is not as "slanted" as the one on the normal Reno2.
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.2 % v7 (old) | 03 / 2020 | Oppo Reno2 Z Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2340x1080 | |
| 81.2 % v7 (old) | 03 / 2020 | Oppo Reno2 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 189 g | 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 82 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 81.6 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
| 79.8 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 78.6 % v7 (old) | 11 / 2019 | Nokia 7.2 SD 660, Adreno 512 | 180 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 |
Case - Oppo Reno2 Z with Flawed Build Quality
The front consists of scratch-resistant 5th generation Corning Gorilla Glass. There is no hole or notch in the 6.5-inch display of the Reno2 Z. A pop-up camera makes this possible and allows for a screen-to-body ratio of 85%, one of the best in the entire mid-range segment - although the Oppo phone does not quite achieve the 91% promised by the Chinese manufacturer. Our test device also exhibits flaws in terms of the control elements on the sides. The buttons feel very wobbly and the SIM card slot is not flush with the frame of the case, either.
Features - Oppo Smartphone with Widevine L1
The internal UFS storage of our test device has a capacity of 128 GB, approximately 108 GB of which is available to users ex-factory. Via the microSD slot, the storage can be expanded by up to 256 GB without compromising the dual-SIM functionality in the process. That being said, USB-OTG is only available when no SD card is used.
Since Widevine DRM L1 is supported, video content from streaming services can be viewed in HD resolution.
Software - Only Android 9 for the Reno2 Z
The Chinese manufacturer installs Android version 9 as the operating system, complemented by the highly customized user interface ColorOS 6.1. The release of an update to Android 10 for the Reno2 Z is planned in Q1 2020. At the time of our review, the security patches date back to January 2019, making them fairly recent.
As with Xiaomi's MiUI, the system operates fairly restrictively and although an alternative launcher can now be used, active background apps are constantly closed, which leads to delayed or missed push notifications.
Communication and GPS - Oppo Reno2 Z with Somewhat Weak Wi-Fi Module
Despite the manufacturer's claims, an NFC chip is available for wireless communication with peripheral devices. Additionally, the dual SIM phone supports Bluetooth version 5.0. For a mid-range smartphone, the high number of supported frequency bands is worth mentioning. The Oppo phone supports a total of 17 LTE bands. Thus, there are no limitations for local use.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
In order to test the real-world locating capabilities of our test device, we simultaneously record our test track with the GPS bike computer Garmin Edge 500 and the Oppo smartphone. For a route with a total length of 9.5 kilometers, the difference between the Reno2 Z and the professional navigator only amounts to 80 meters. Relative to the price class, the discrepancies of the GPS module are small and the representation of the route indicates decent navigation capabilities.
Telephony and Call Quality - Oppo Phone Reproduces Voices Clearly
The call quality is good overall. There were no connection issues during our tests and voices are clearly reproduced, even during videotelephony.
However, the reception of the integrated radio module is subpar. Lastly, we could not find a dual-VoLTE feature or Wi-Fi calling in the settings.
Cameras - Reno2 Z with Pop-Up Cam and Pseudo Quad-Camera
Apart from the 48 MP wide-angle module, the quad-cam of the Reno2 Z also features two 2 MP telephoto optics for portrait shots. The telephoto lenses collect depth information in order to create a three-dimensional impression of the subject, although since there are no error messages or visual differences when blocking them with a finger, they do not appear to influence "normal" portrait shots. Thus, the two lower-resolution optics are only used for portrait shots with a monochromatic or retro-style filter.
The 48 MP camera module is based on a Sony IMX586 and has a light-sensitive maximum aperture of f/1.7. However, low-light scenes suffer from significant image noise and the pictures then exhibit artifacts and a lack of sharpness.
In daylight, the picture quality is good and matches other Sony IMX competitors. We were pleased with both the image details and the color representation. That said, pictures taken with the Reno2 Z have a slight red tint in some cases and tend to be overexposed. The color balance is too warm as well.
Pictures taken with the ultra wide-angle lens are significantly darker and less detailed. While post processing is able to reliably cancel out warping effects outside of the image center in the final pictures, the lack of sharpness becomes more pronounced towards the edges.
The quality of the 16 MP front camera and its f/2.0 aperture is high. However, selfies in daylight tend to be overexposed as well, although the image sharpness and details are still excellent. As with many other pop-up camera phones, the Reno2 Z comes with fall protection.
Accessories and Warranty - Oppo Smartphone with Many Extras
Aside from the smartphone itself, the package includes a USB cable, a protective plastic case, a headset as well as a modular charger (4 A, 5 V).
The warranty period is 24 months.
Input Devices & Handling - Oppo Reno2 Z with Good Fingerprint Sensor
There is an optical fingerprint sensor below the Reno2 Z's OLED panel and biometric authentication via 2D facial recognition with the pop-up cam. Both variants unlock the Oppo phone reliably and fairly quickly.
The 6.5-inch touchscreen display responds well to inputs all the way to the edges.
Display - Reno2 Z with Surprisingly Dim OLED Panel
The OLED panel of the Reno2 Z measures 16.5 centimeters diagonally and offers Full HD+ resolution with an aspect ratio of 19.5:9, which translates to 2340x1080 pixels. When displaying an all white area, the Oppo phone reaches a low maximum brightness of 394 cd/m². Additionally, we tested the brightness level of an evenly distributed portion of dark and bright areas (APL50). In this test, we were able to measure a brightness of 514 cd/m².
As per usual with OLED displays, the Reno2 Z uses PWM with a low frequency of 232 Hz to 250 Hz. While enabling DC dimming evens out the frequency to some degree, the flickering does not fully disappear.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 387 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 6.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.27
| Oppo Reno2 Z AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Oppo Reno2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G LCD IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Nokia 7.2 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 41% | 49% | 46% | 38% | 16% | |
| Brightness middle | 387 | 679 75% | 658 70% | 589 52% | 589 52% | 604 56% |
| Brightness | 394 | 683 73% | 643 63% | 589 49% | 589 49% | 593 51% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 98 3% | 93 -2% | 96 1% | 94 -1% | 92 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.49 | 0.4 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.9 | 3.5 29% | 1.8 63% | 2.5 49% | 2.22 55% | 5.1 -4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.7 | 6.8 30% | 4.4 55% | 4.9 49% | 8.24 15% | 10.3 -6% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.5 | 4.2 35% | 3.8 42% | 1.6 75% | 2.6 60% | 6.4 2% |
| Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.27 97% | 2.22 99% | 2.24 98% | 2.111 104% | 2.23 99% |
| CCT | 7193 90% | 6532 100% | 6255 104% | 6544 99% | 6508 100% | 8149 80% |
| Contrast | 1343 | 1510 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 250 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
The Reno2 Z lacks the color profiles of its larger sibling Reno2. As our analysis with the spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software confirms, the average DeltaE deviations of 4.9 (colors) and 6.5 (grayscale) from the sRGB color space are relatively high. Due to the underlying technology, the black value and thus the contrast ratio of the Reno2 Z's OLED display are excellent.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 12 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
The outdoor usability of the Reno2 Z is limited. In direct sunlight, the screen's content is barely discernible, since the Oppo phone lacks the required luminance. By contrast, the viewing angles are good, even though a slight yellow veil can be observed when viewing the display from a steep angle.
Performance - Oppo Phone with MediaTek Helio P90
The MediaTek Helio P90 is an ARM SoC based on the 12-nanometer FinFET process that features two CPU clusters with a total of eight CPU cores. The two Cortex A75 performance cores can achieve a maximum clock speed of 2.2 GHz, whereas the six smaller Cortex A55 cores are limited to a maximum clock frequency of only 2 GHz.
According to our benchmarks, the CPU performance of the Reno2 Z is slightly slower than that of the Snapdragon 730 inside the Xiaomi Mi 9T. Similarly, the Oppo phone falls behind the Xiaomi competition in PCMark for Android's system tests.
The integrated PowerVR GM 9446 supports APIs such as OpenGL ES 3.2, Vulkan 1.1 and OpenCL 1.2. The GPU performance of the Helio P90 is significantly lower compared to the Snapdragon 730's Adreno 618 and only marginally faster than the Adreno 512 inside the Nokia 7.2.
In conjunction with 8 GB of RAM, the Helio P90 subjectively offers a good system performance during daily use. Animations are smooth and stutters are few and far between. Similarly, the relatively fast UFS 2.0 storage facilitates quick loading even for more-demanding apps.
On the other hand, the microSD card slot of the Reno2 Z disappoints. In combination with our reference card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, the performance was subpar.
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=85, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 34246, n=85, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 28121, n=61, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 (8736 - 13156, n=2) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 (7129 - 9654, n=3) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 (11 - 12, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=175, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 (11 - 18, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=175, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Nokia 7.2 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P90 () | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Oppo Reno2 Z | Oppo Reno2 | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Nokia 7.2 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 20% | 91% | 66% | 69% | 7% | 67% | 506% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 519 | 469.3 -10% | 890 71% | 492.7 -5% | 496.1 -4% | 290.8 -44% | 530 ? 2% | 1883 ? 263% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 198.3 | 201.8 2% | 312.8 58% | 179.2 -10% | 184.9 -7% | 161.4 -19% | 212 ? 7% | 1469 ? 641% |
| Random Read 4KB | 148.9 | 144.2 -3% | 96.8 -35% | 128.6 -14% | 110.8 -26% | 79.6 -47% | 130.6 ? -12% | 278 ? 87% |
| Random Write 4KB | 27.33 | 22 -20% | 101 270% | 107.8 294% | 104.4 282% | 13.38 -51% | 101.2 ? 270% | 310 ? 1034% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 45.99 ? | 74.5 ? 62% | 73 ? 59% | 83.3 ? 81% | 68.3 ? 49% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 28.59 ? | 53.5 ? 87% | 60.1 ? 110% | 64 ? 124% | 53.2 ? 86% |
Gaming - Reno2 Z with PowerVR GM 9446
While the installed PowerVR GM 9446 is not particularly powerful, it still manages to run even demanding games from Google's Play Store. For the most part, demanding Android titles can be played smoothly at the lowest settings with the GPU installed in the Reno2 Z, although we recorded periodic frame-rate drops with the GameBench app.
Both the touchscreen and the gyroscope respond quickly and reliably to our inputs.
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
Dead Trigger 2
Emissions - No Throttling for the Reno2 Z
Temperature
The surface temperature of the Oppo smartphone barely increases even during continuous load. Furthermore, we analyze the heat development of the Helio P90 during continuous load with GFXBench's battery test. Over the course of the demanding Manhattan test (OpenGL ES 3.1), there was no considerable throttling.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.7 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 30.6 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.6 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
Even though the speaker on the bottom edge of the Reno2 Z achieves a sufficient maximum volume level of almost 88 dB(A), the quality is disappointing. However, the mono speaker is absolutely suitable for short video playback.
Music fans have access to sound output via a 3.5 mm audio jack for a good audio experience and a sufficient maximum volume level.
Oppo Reno2 Z audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery Life - Oppo Smartphone with a Big Battery
Energy Consumption
The Oppo smartphone is equipped with a 4,000 mAh battery, which can be fully recharged within 90 minutes thanks to the quick-charge technology.
| Off / Standby |   0.01 / 0.19 Watt |
| Idle |  0.57 / 1.2 / 1.33 Watt |
| Load |
3.13 / 5.46 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Reno2 Z 4000 mAh | Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Nokia 7.2 3500 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio P90 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -25% | -70% | 12% | -44% | -62% | 0% | -58% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.57 | 0.7 -23% | 0.66 -16% | 0.54 5% | 0.9 -58% | 0.77 -35% | 0.57 ? -0% | 0.882 ? -55% |
| Idle Average * | 1.2 | 1.25 -4% | 2.37 -98% | 0.95 21% | 1.7 -42% | 2.32 -93% | 1.2 ? -0% | 1.448 ? -21% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.33 | 1.36 -2% | 2.42 -82% | 1.08 19% | 1.8 -35% | 2.41 -81% | 1.33 ? -0% | 1.606 ? -21% |
| Load Average * | 3.13 | 5.38 -72% | 6.8 -117% | 2.7 14% | 5.2 -66% | 4.44 -42% | 3.13 ? -0% | 6.57 ? -110% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.46 | 6.71 -23% | 7.5 -37% | 5.4 1% | 6.6 -21% | 8.79 -61% | 5.46 ? -0% | 9.93 ? -82% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
The Reno2 Z phone lasts for almost 10 hours in our Wi-Fi test and although this is a decent result, competing Xiaomi devices offer significantly more stamina.
| Oppo Reno2 Z 4000 mAh | Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Nokia 7.2 3500 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 578 | 616 7% | 802 39% | 991 71% | 698 21% | 570 -1% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Reno2 Z with Mixed Results
The Reno2 Z is not a bad smartphone, however, the execution of the idea behind the Oppo phone lacks conviction. While the design is good, there is room for improvement when it comes to a few aspects of the build quality. The OLED display offers a rich contrast ratio, although it is fairly dim and the color representation could have been more accurate.
Even though the Reno2 Z is a good mid-range smartphone, there is some fine-tuning left to do.
The call quality is pleasant, although the Reno2 Z's signal strength evidently struggles to match competitors. The transfer rates of the UFS storage are good, while the SD card slot is rather disappointing. The MediaTek processor is more than sufficient for daily use, but the performance is lacking compared to competing solutions, however - particularly in terms of the GPU.
Oppo Reno2 Z
- 09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
