Notebookcheck

Oppo Reno3 Smartphone Review – Many Lenses for Little Money

Cameras and cameras. Oppo offers a classic mid-range smartphone with the Reno3. However, a unique selling point is the quadruple camera, which is similarly found in much more expensive models. We take a closer look at the China smartphone in the review.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy),
Oppo Reno3
Oppo Reno3 (Reno Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio P90 8 x 2.2 GHz, Cortex-A75 / A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.4 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 411 PPI, Capacitive, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 114 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Gyroscope, Proximity sensor, Compass, USB-C
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 4 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41) , Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 160.2 x 73.3 ( = 0.31 x 6.31 x 2.89 in)
Battery
4025 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix f/1.8, phase comparison AF, dual LED flash, video @2160p/30fps (camera 1); 13.0MP, f/2.4, telephoto lens (camera 2); 8.0MP, f/2.2, wide angle lens (camera 3); 2.0MP, f/2.4, monochrome, depth of field (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 44 MPix f/​2.4, Videos @1080p/​30fps
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Quick charger, USB cable, headset, silicone bumper, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0.805 W/kg (head), 0.904 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
170 g ( = 6 oz / 0.37 pounds), Power Supply: 89 g ( = 3.14 oz / 0.2 pounds)
Price
329 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
80 %7
06/2020
Oppo Reno3
Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446
170 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2400x1080
81 %7
03/2020
Oppo Reno2
SD 730G, Adreno 618
189 g256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.5"2400x1080
81 %7
07/2019
Xiaomi Mi 9T
SD 730, Adreno 618
191 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.39"2340x1080
80 %7
01/2020
Motorola One Hyper
SD 675, Adreno 612
210 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.5"2340x1080

Case, equipment and operation - Plastic case with large memory

The joy about the fact that Oppo is finally offering its models in Europe is currently further diminished by the fact that the manufacturer is making a mess of the model names: The Oppo Reno3, for example, looks almost exactly like the Oppo Find X2 Lite, but offers a different SoC and no 5G. In our review of the Oppo Reno3 Pro, we noticed even more confusion with numerous different models.

Compared to the Oppo Reno 3 Pro, the normal Reno3 looks simpler on the outside, with a classic plastic chassis in black or blue with a gradient. There is a waterdrop notch in the screen, which means that the predecessor's automatically extending selfie camera no longer exists. The glossy black back of our test device is very susceptible to fingerprints. The smartphone is quite light at 170 grams, the case is slim and only yields minimally under pressure.

The Reno3 is well equipped with 128 GB mass storage, and it also has a brisk UFS 2.1 memory. Even 8 GB of RAM is a decent amount for this price range. Modern Bluetooth 5 and NFC for contactless payment are also on board.

In terms of WiFi speed, the smartphone is on class level. The most important LTE bands are supported to ensure operation in Europe, but worldwide you may have problems dialing into the 4G network on further journeys.

The fingerprint sensor is under the screen and unlocks the smartphone quite reliably. The Reno 3 is also quick to use in other ways. A 90 Hz screen, as in the Reno3 Pro, which lowers the perceived response time of the Smarpthone, isn't available here.

Size comparison

161.8 mm / 6.37 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 210 g0.463 lbs160 mm / 6.3 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs160.2 mm / 6.31 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 170 g0.3748 lbs156.7 mm / 6.17 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 191 g0.4211 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Oppo Reno2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
618 (min: 532, max: 671) MBit/s ∼100% +75%
Oppo Reno3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
353 (min: 297, max: 367) MBit/s ∼57%
Motorola One Hyper
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
337 (min: 325, max: 346) MBit/s ∼55% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
333 (min: 297, max: 343) MBit/s ∼54% -6%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Oppo Reno2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
355 (min: 187, max: 387) MBit/s ∼100% +2%
Oppo Reno3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
347 (min: 331, max: 352) MBit/s ∼98%
Motorola One Hyper
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
314 (min: 268, max: 335) MBit/s ∼88% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
293 (min: 161, max: 346) MBit/s ∼83% -16%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø353 (297-367)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø347 (331-352)

Cameras - Quite good in the price range

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

We already know the four camera lenses on the back from the Oppo Reno3 Pro or also from the Oppo Reno2: The main lens offers up to 48 megapixels, but is probably also used in the 12 megapixel mode, in which four pixels each are combined into one large and very light-sensitive pixel by means of pixel binning.

It actually takes quite decent photos, especially in the test device's price range. The detail sharpness is high, but the very high exposure is noticeable here as well, which sometimes makes bright areas outshine. Even under low light, the pictures are still quite decent, but there could be a bit more detail here. Additionally, there is a telephoto and a wide angle lens, between which you can also zoom in small steps.

Videos can be recorded in 4K and at 30 fps at maximum, but then only with the main lens. If you want to use the other lenses and the zoom, only 1080p is available.

The front camera has a resolution of 44 megapixels, but uses a few megapixels less by default, possibly to keep the file size of the image files a bit smaller. The full 44 megapixels can also be activated if desired. In detail, the pictures look bright despite the high resolution, but not very detailed and a bit grainy.

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
ColorChecker
29.3 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
34.9 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
40.3 ∆E
52.1 ∆E
44.9 ∆E
28.5 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
27.8 ∆E
54.1 ∆E
56.1 ∆E
25.5 ∆E
40.1 ∆E
30 ∆E
61.7 ∆E
37.5 ∆E
38.1 ∆E
59 ∆E
61.7 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
35.4 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno3: 39.77 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 61.7 ∆E
ColorChecker
3.5 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
2.9 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno3: 7.26 ∆E min: 2.91 - max: 10.64 ∆E

Display - Strong PWM

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

The AMOLED screen is not quite as bright as its predecessor, but still resolves with a slightly enhanced 1080p resolution. Unfortunately, it shows a PWM flicker at a rather low frequency, so sensitive people should try the screen before using it for the first time.

The display's color deviations are within limits and the response times are short. The brightness should be sufficient for outdoor use on cloudy days.

561
cd/m²
600
cd/m²
611
cd/m²
596
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
604
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
621
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 621 cd/m² Average: 598.2 cd/m² Minimum: 2.1 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 595 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.96 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.307
Oppo Reno3
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4
Oppo Reno2
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5
Xiaomi Mi 9T
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Motorola One Hyper
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5
Response Times
67%
61%
335%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
8 (3, 5)
3.6 (2, 1.6)
55%
4 (2, 2)
50%
44 (25, 19)
-450%
Response Time Black / White *
7 (4, 3)
3.2 (2, 1.2)
54%
3.2 (2, 1.2)
54%
22 (11, 11)
-214%
PWM Frequency
136
260.4 (99)
91%
245.1 (99)
80%
2404 (15)
1668%
Screen
14%
27%
-2%
Brightness middle
595
679
14%
589
-1%
455
-24%
Brightness
598
683
14%
589
-2%
444
-26%
Brightness Distribution
90
98
9%
96
7%
78
-13%
Black Level *
0.53
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.96
3.5
29%
2.5
50%
3.86
22%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.54
6.8
20%
4.9
43%
6.59
23%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.2
4.2
-0%
1.6
62%
4
5%
Gamma
2.307 95%
2.27 97%
2.24 98%
2.3 96%
CCT
7072 92%
6532 100%
6544 99%
7367 88%
Contrast
858
Total Average (Program / Settings)
41% / 32%
44% / 38%
167% / 110%

* ... smaller is better

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
7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.1 ms).

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 136 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 136 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 136 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17957 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions and battery life - Good runtime

The MediaTek Helio P90 is a SoC found in many mid-range smartphones. If you look at the pure performance figures, it quickly becomes clear that it is inferior to Qualcomm SoCs, even the Oppo Reno2 with Snapdragon 730G offered more performance. For everyday use and simple apps, the performance difference is quite unproblematic, mostly you can also navigate with the Reno3 without any problems.

It gets annoying when you look at the microSD reader's performance: It can't cope with our reference card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 in the Reno3 and only achieves extremely low transfer rates with a slower microSD card. The internal memory is faster than in the Reno2.

The Oppo Reno3 can definitely get warm when you demand it. The warming is then noticeable, on hot summer days it could also become unpleasant.

The loudspeaker on the bottom edge does a pretty good job: it even offers some audible lower mids and doesn't overdo it too much with the trebles. The sound gets a bit undefined at maximum volume, but if you lower the power a bit, the sound is really pleasant. Additional audio devices can be connected via a 3.5mm connection and Bluetooth, which works without any problems.

The battery offers 4.025 mAh, which is a quite usual capacity, but the Reno smartphone can still score with good runtime, the somewhat weaker SoC probably pays off here. The charger is a bit weaker than the Oppo Reno3 Pro with a maximum of 20 watts, but can still fully recharge the smartphone in a little over 2 hours.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
1524 Points ∼77%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
1762 Points ∼89% +16%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1524 - 1534, n=2)
1529 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (445 - 3531, n=89)
1990 Points ∼100% +31%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
407 Points ∼72%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
547 Points ∼96% +34%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (407 - 416, n=2)
412 Points ∼73% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=89)
567 Points ∼100% +39%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
7129 Points ∼85%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
7134 Points ∼85% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
7533 Points ∼90% +6%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
7852 Points ∼94% +10%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (7129 - 9654, n=2)
8392 Points ∼100% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=490)
5834 Points ∼70% -18%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
8736 Points ∼80%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
9145 Points ∼84% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
9049 Points ∼83% +4%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
9304 Points ∼85% +7%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (8736 - 13156, n=2)
10946 Points ∼100% +25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=648)
6373 Points ∼58% -27%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2784 Points ∼86%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3162 Points ∼98% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3241 Points ∼100% +16%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
3011 Points ∼93% +8%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (2699 - 2784, n=2)
2742 Points ∼85% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=496)
2175 Points ∼67% -22%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
1116 Points ∼46%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2434 Points ∼100% +118%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2176 Points ∼89% +95%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1094 Points ∼45% -2%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1116 - 2217, n=2)
1667 Points ∼68% +49%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=496)
2075 Points ∼85% +86%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
1287 Points ∼50%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2565 Points ∼100% +99%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2347 Points ∼92% +82%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1274 Points ∼50% -1%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1287 - 2365, n=2)
1826 Points ∼71% +42%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=497)
1926 Points ∼75% +50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2776 Points ∼84%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3112 Points ∼94% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3296 Points ∼100% +19%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
2984 Points ∼91% +7%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (2575 - 2776, n=2)
2676 Points ∼81% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=526)
2085 Points ∼63% -25%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2410 Points ∼66%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3647 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3316 Points ∼91% +38%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1878 Points ∼51% -22%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1086 - 2410, n=2)
1748 Points ∼48% -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=526)
2762 Points ∼76% +15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2483 Points ∼71%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3513 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3312 Points ∼94% +33%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
2047 Points ∼58% -18%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1245 - 2483, n=2)
1864 Points ∼53% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=526)
2321 Points ∼66% -7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2687 Points ∼83%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3088 Points ∼96% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3227 Points ∼100% +20%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
3026 Points ∼94% +13%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (2499 - 2687, n=2)
2593 Points ∼80% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=576)
2062 Points ∼64% -23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
1083 Points ∼48%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2243 Points ∼100% +107%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2008 Points ∼90% +85%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1000 Points ∼45% -8%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1083 - 2167, n=2)
1625 Points ∼72% +50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=576)
1735 Points ∼77% +60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
1249 Points ∼52%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
2388 Points ∼100% +91%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2192 Points ∼92% +76%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1175 Points ∼49% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (224 - 1249, n=2)
737 Points ∼31% -41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=577)
1658 Points ∼69% +33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2685 Points ∼83%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3075 Points ∼95% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3239 Points ∼100% +21%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
3000 Points ∼93% +12%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (2486 - 2685, n=2)
2586 Points ∼80% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=618)
1924 Points ∼59% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2308 Points ∼66%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3504 Points ∼100% +52%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3184 Points ∼91% +38%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1814 Points ∼52% -21%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1076 - 2308, n=2)
1692 Points ∼48% -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=617)
2277 Points ∼65% -1%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
2382 Points ∼70%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
3399 Points ∼100% +43%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3196 Points ∼94% +34%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
1989 Points ∼59% -16%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (1248 - 2382, n=2)
1815 Points ∼53% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=620)
1961 Points ∼58% -18%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
21123 Points ∼95%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
14820 Points ∼67% -30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
19433 Points ∼88% -8%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
19511 Points ∼88% -8%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (21123 - 23188, n=2)
22156 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=766)
15263 Points ∼69% -28%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
30124 Points ∼59%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
50829 Points ∼100% +69%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
46605 Points ∼92% +55%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
30180 Points ∼59% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (27134 - 30124, n=2)
28629 Points ∼56% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=764)
25897 Points ∼51% -14%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
27518 Points ∼77%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
33007 Points ∼93% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
35557 Points ∼100% +29%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
26910 Points ∼76% -2%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (26132 - 27518, n=2)
26825 Points ∼75% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=764)
20366 Points ∼57% -26%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
5.8 fps ∼52%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
10 fps ∼89% +72%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
9.3 fps ∼83% +60%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
5.2 fps ∼46% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (3.5 - 5.8, n=2)
4.65 fps ∼42% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=288)
11.2 fps ∼100% +93%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
3.8 fps ∼47%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
6.7 fps ∼83% +76%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
6.1 fps ∼76% +61%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
3.3 fps ∼41% -13%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (3.8 - 4.3, n=2)
4.05 fps ∼50% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=286)
8.07 fps ∼100% +112%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
9.3 fps ∼56%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼96% +72%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
15 fps ∼90% +61%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
8.9 fps ∼54% -4%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (7.6 - 9.3, n=2)
8.45 fps ∼51% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=292)
16.6 fps ∼100% +78%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno3
Mediatek Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446, 8192
11 fps ∼57%
Oppo Reno2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼93% +64%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
16 fps ∼83% +45%
Motorola One Hyper
Qualcomm Snapdragon 675, Adreno 612, 4096
9.9 fps ∼51% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio P90
  (8.4 - 11, n=2)
9.7 fps ∼50% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=291)
19.3 fps ∼100% +75%
Oppo Reno3Oppo Reno2Xiaomi Mi 9TMotorola One HyperAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
151%
-12%
158%
179%
117%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
8.4 (Kingston 32GB)
53.54 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
537%
53.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
538%
58.1 (8.4 - 72.4, n=31)
592%
50.7 (1.7 - 87.1, n=509)
504%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
13.4 (Kingston 32GB)
74.52 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
456%
74.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
454%
72.9 (13.4 - 88.2, n=31)
444%
68.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=509)
413%
Random Write 4KB
143.9
22
-85%
107.82
-25%
106.9
-26%
106 (18.2 - 250, n=58)
-26%
33.1 (0.14 - 319, n=856)
-77%
Random Read 4KB
127.3
144.24
13%
128.65
1%
129.4
2%
142 (96.8 - 179, n=58)
12%
57.1 (1.59 - 324, n=856)
-55%
Sequential Write 256KB
227.3
201.78
-11%
179.19
-21%
190.8
-16%
234 (182 - 503, n=58)
3%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=856)
-46%
Sequential Read 256KB
504.2
469.31
-7%
492.74
-2%
492.2
-2%
760 (427 - 980, n=58)
51%
329 (12.1 - 1802, n=856)
-35%

Temperatur

Max. Load
 44.8 °C
113 F
39.9 °C
104 F
36.3 °C
97 F
 
 45.3 °C
114 F
39.6 °C
103 F
36.4 °C
98 F
 
 45.2 °C
113 F
40.5 °C
105 F
36.7 °C
98 F
 
Maximum: 45.3 °C = 114 F
Average: 40.5 °C = 105 F
34.5 °C
94 F
38.2 °C
101 F
42.5 °C
109 F
35.4 °C
96 F
38.9 °C
102 F
43.8 °C
111 F
35.2 °C
95 F
39.3 °C
103 F
42.9 °C
109 F
Maximum: 43.8 °C = 111 F
Average: 39 °C = 102 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.3 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.9 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.3 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.8 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Backside
Heatmap Backside
Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2043.837.9254141.33133.234.34033.432.25036.134.96329.430.18027.525.110025.724.512521.224.816020.431.820019.240.425018.246.231517.654.34001759.950017.763.263018.265.380016.763.210001766.9125015.271.616001672.3200015.374.9250015.776.1315015.370.6400015.863500016.263.463001668.5800016.164.91000016.760.61250016.5541600016.752.3SPL59.828.582.5N12.41.148.7median 16.7median 63.2Delta18.940.133.132.929.827.126.630.524.733.832.825.924.823.632.224.624.720.428.919.541.118.747.617.255.916.56014.461.216.362.415.363.214.6681473.414.972.314.2731573.814.776.614.578.514.379.514.676.315.176.91575.114.975.915.363.416502787.50.969.3median 15median 681.312.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Reno3Oppo Reno2
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Reno3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Oppo Reno2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Oppo Reno3
4025 mAh
Oppo Reno2
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9T
4000 mAh
Motorola One Hyper
4000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
802
616
-23%
991
24%
753
-6%
689 (223 - 2636, n=721)
-14%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
13h 22min

Pros

+ flexible cameras
+ a lot of memory
+ good battery life

Cons

- strong PWM flickering
- low power reserves
- excessive heating under load

Verdict – Favourable and solid

In review: Oppo Reno3.
In review: Oppo Reno3.

The Oppo Reno3 has become a decent mid-range device that can convince with its flexible cameras at a relatively low price. Good for the Reno3 that its predecessor is currently often traded even more expensively in Europe, so it can place itself well in the middle class despite less performance. The battery life is also better than in the last generation, but the screen is not quite as bright.

The loudspeaker is convincing and the Oppo Reno3 is also a good smartphone for those who want to carry little weight around with them. You shouldn't expect numerous LTE frequencies and the screen with the low PWM frequency could become a problem for some users.

The Oppo Reno3 is a good offer in the middle class.

Nevertheless, the Oppo Reno3 is a good offer for those who want lots of cameras and decent battery life and don't want to spend too much money on it.

Oppo Reno3 - 06/12/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
78%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
90%
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 65%
Weight
91%
Battery
90%
Display
84%
Games Performance
17 / 64 → 26%
Application Performance
69 / 86 → 81%
Temperature
86%
Noise
100%
Audio
77 / 90 → 86%
Camera
70%
Average
74%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo Reno3 Smartphone Review – Many Lenses for Little Money
Florian Schmitt, 2020-06-12 (Update: 2020-06-13)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.