Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarOppo Reno4 Pro Review: Slim 5G smartphone with a quality camera
Lately, Oppo has been releasing smartphones with great battery life such as the 200-Euro (~$233) A52 and the 500-Euro (~$583) Find X2 Lite. Oppo also makes higher-priced smartphones such as the Find X2 Neo. The 780-Euro (~$909) Reno4 Pro is another high-priced smartphone from Oppo, which offers similar hardware and an impressive camera system.
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.4 % | 10/2020 | Oppo Reno4 Pro SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 172 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.8 % | 10/2020 | OnePlus 8T SD 865, Adreno 650 | 188 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 84.2 % | 10/2020 | Vivo X50 Pro SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 181.5 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.56" | 2376x1080 | |
| 83.8 % | 10/2020 | ZTE Axon 11 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 168 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 03/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 3168x1440 |
Case - Reno4 Pro with a proprietary colour scheme
The Reno4 Pro has a metal frame and a glass back with a matte surface. The build quality is on a good level. The smartphone comes in the following colour schemes: "Galactic Blue", "Space Black" and "Green Glitter". According to the manufacturer, the "Green Glitter" colour scheme was developed in collaboration with Pantone. The screen is protected with Corning Gorilla Glass 5. Our review device is quite light (172 grams/~6 oz) and has very small bezels, which is why it looks very modern.
Connectivity - Oppo smartphone without an audio jack
Our review device features neither a headphone jack nor a microSD card slot. The Oppo Reno4 Pro supports dual SIM functionality. However, only one of the two nanoSIM cards can operate in 5G networks. The Android smartphone supports both VoLTE and VoWiFi. Wired data transfers can be carried out via the USB Type-C port, which operates at USB 2.0 speeds. The Oppo smartphone also supports Widevine L1 DRM and the Level 3 Camera2 API.
Software - Android 10 with ColorOS
The Reno4 Pro runs Android 10 with Oppo’s proprietary launcher known as ColorOS (version 7.2). The security patches were last updated in September, 2020. Oppo’s launcher offers different icons and a custom settings menu when compared to stock Android. Preinstalled applications such as video editor Soloop and WPS Office can be uninstalled without any problems.
Communication & Geolocation - 5G smartphone with Wi-Fi 5
The Oppo Reno4 Pro supports the following mobile communication standards: GSM, 3G, LTE and 5G. For short-distance communication, our review device relies on NFC, Bluetooth 5.1 and Wi-Fi 5. With our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12, Oppo’s smartphone achieves mediocre data reception and transmission rates. When it comes to the download speeds in particular, the Reno4 Pro is beaten by the rest of the competition.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=70, last 2 years) | |
Outdoors, the Oppo smartphone has a margin of error of up to 4 metres (~13 feet). We use an application known as GPS Test to help us determine the margin of error. In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to geolocation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 500. The 5G smartphone was slightly less accurate than the professional navigator.
Telephony & Call Quality - Call partner is easy to understand
The phone application offers direct access to the favourite contacts. Users can bring up the dial pad by tapping a button. There are also two other tabs; one for call history, the other for saved contacts. The Oppo smartphone provides a high call volume. The voices on either end of the call sound clear and intelligible.
Cameras - Good optical zoom
The Reno4 Pro comes with a triple-camera system, which produces well-detailed and colour-accurate images. Photographs taken with the ultra wide-angle camera appear punchy. However, they are somewhat blurry, especially at the edges. Homogeneous surfaces are also poorly reproduced. The telephoto lens produces slightly blurry, but colour-accurate, photographs. Under low-light conditions, the camera system takes very poor photos. The camera application offers a “Pro” mode, which allows users to adjust the white balance, ISO sensitivity, brightness and the shutter speed.
The front-facing camera takes good photographs, which are not as sharp as the pictures taken with the main shooter. The portrait mode allows users to blur the background. The selfie shooter does not offer a “Pro” mode. Videos taken with the Oppo smartphone look as good as the photographs. Video can be recorded at 1080p and 720p at 60 or 30 FPS. The smartphone can only shoot 4K video at 30 FPS.
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.
Main cameraUltra wide-angle lens 1Ultra wide-angle lens 25X Zoom Low-light photography
Accessories & Warranty - USB Type-C headset and protective case in the box
The box of the Oppo Reno4 Pro contains a USB charger with an appropriate USB Type-C cable, a silicone protective case, a SIM card removal tool and a USB Type-C headset. The manufacturer offers additional accessories such as wireless headphones on its website.
The Reno4 Pro comes with a 24-month warranty.
Input Devices & Handling - Sluggish in-display fingerprint scanner
The Reno4 Pro comes with Android’s standard keyboard, which is known as GBoard. The touchscreen reacts reliably and promptly to inputs. The drag-and-drop functionality works well. In landscape mode, the keyboard can be moved around the screen.
The in-screen fingerprint sensor proved to be unreliable in our review. The face unlock worked much better. However, it does not get you straight to the home screen. In order to get to the home screen, users will have to swipe up on the lock screen.
Display - Responsive 90-Hz panel
The 6.5-inch AMOLED display of the Oppo Reno4 Pro has a native resolution of 2400x1080 pixels. Thanks to an average brightness of 789 cd/m², the Oppo smartphone takes first place in our comparison chart. In the APL50 test, in which the screen displays a pattern of alternating black and white squares of equal size, we measured an even higher brightness of 1034 cd/m². With the light sensor disabled, the screen brightness drops to 485 cd/m². The minimum brightness level amounts to 3.07 cd/m².
According to our measurements, the OLED screen of the smartphone flickers at frequencies ranging from 183.8 Hz to 367.6 Hz.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 790 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.8 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
95.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
| Oppo Reno4 Pro AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | OnePlus 8T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Vivo X50 Pro AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.56 | ZTE Axon 11 5G AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47 | Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 34% | 5% | -2% | -14% | |
| Brightness middle | 790 | 743 -6% | 784 -1% | 603 -24% | 778 -2% |
| Brightness | 789 | 734 -7% | 780 -1% | 608 -23% | 775 -2% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 91 -4% | 97 2% | 92 -3% | 99 4% |
| Black Level * | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 0.89 68% | 3.5 -25% | 3 -7% | 4.4 -57% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.7 | 1.69 78% | 6.4 17% | 6.2 19% | 8.7 -13% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5 | 1.4 72% | 3 40% | 3.8 24% | 5.6 -12% |
| Gamma | 2.29 96% | 2.199 100% | 1.99 111% | 2.21 100% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6716 97% | 6423 101% | 6666 98% | 7242 90% | 7250 90% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 367.6 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 367.6 Hz (Likely 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 367.6 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 19046 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Both the contrast ratio and the black value of the AMOLED panel are superb. Users can adjust the colour reproduction in the settings menu.
There are two preconfigured colour profiles: "Vivid" and "Normal". In Vivid mode, there is an observable bluish cast and the colours appear oversaturated. In Normal mode, the colours appear more natural and the colour temperature is closer to the desirable target.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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 0.25 (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 (35.1 ms). | ||
Thanks to a high brightness, the screen of the Reno4 Pro is legible outside. However, occasionally, reflections make the screen difficult to read.
There is a green cast when the AMOLED screen of the Reno4 Pro is viewed at extreme angles. However, at normal angles, there are no issues.
Performance - Good level of performance, but not ahead of the competition
The Oppo Reno4 Pro comes with the Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G. It performs as well as other devices with the above-mentioned SoC. In our benchmarks, the Oppo smartphone is only able to compete with the ZTE Axon 11 5G. Nevertheless, in everyday use, the smartphone feels very responsive and applications work without any issues.
| Geekbench 5.4 | |
| Single-Core (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (554 - 673, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (119 - 1885, n=241, last 2 years) | |
| Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (1520 - 1966, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (473 - 5538, n=241, last 2 years) | |
| Vulkan Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (168 - 1278, n=12) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (79 - 9992, n=177, last 2 years) | |
| OpenCL Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (1231 - 1302, n=10) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (368 - 10711, n=166, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8687 - 11041, n=16) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (43 - 86, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (48 - 97, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (30 - 55, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (31 - 56, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (21 - 37, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (22 - 38, n=15) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8T | |
| Vivo X50 Pro | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (285731 - 332305, n=14) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (101336 - 725649, n=39, last 2 years) | |
In the browser benchmarks, the Android smartphone achieves below-average results and is only able to beat the Vivo X50 Pro. However, in day-to-day use, the scrolling is smooth and webpages and media content load quickly.
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (27.5 - 414, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (10.8 - 96.9, n=11) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro (Chrome 86) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (34 - 292, n=144, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=13) | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro (Chrome 86) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=14) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro (Chrome 86) | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro (Chrome 86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2359 - 15230, n=14) | |
| ZTE Axon 11 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10031, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8T (Chrome 86) | |
* ... smaller is better
The Oppo smartphone features 256 GB of UFS 2.1 memory. In the storage benchmarks, the Reno4 Pro achieves mediocre read and write speeds when compared to the rest of the competition. There is no microSD card slot.
| Oppo Reno4 Pro | OnePlus 8T | Vivo X50 Pro | ZTE Axon 11 5G | Oppo Find X2 Pro | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 25% | -11% | -4% | 50% | -11% | 42% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 943 | 1659 76% | 925 -2% | 956 1% | 1606 70% | 819 ? -13% | 1183 ? 25% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 473.7 | 728 54% | 209.1 -56% | 417.1 -12% | 729 54% | 331 ? -30% | 743 ? 57% |
| Random Read 4KB | 159.4 | 132.6 -17% | 165.2 4% | 166.3 4% | 202.6 27% | 161.9 ? 2% | 208 ? 30% |
| Random Write 4KB | 139.6 | 121.4 -13% | 156.8 12% | 128.4 -8% | 205 47% | 135.1 ? -3% | 217 ? 55% |
Gaming - Current titles are playable
The Oppo Reno4 Pro can run all current games on high settings. The smartphone is easy to handle when gaming and the touchscreen has a very smooth surface. The motion sensor worked well when gaming.
Emissions - Mediocre speakers and low temperatures
Temperature
The surface temperatures of the Reno4 Pro reach 34.6 °C (94.28 °F) under load. The Oppo smartphone never gets too hot to hold in the hand.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.6 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.7 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.4 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speakers
The speaker of the Reno4 Pro works in combination with the earpiece. The smartphone offers a relatively high volume. The highs are overrepresented, which is why voices sound very clear. For listening to music, we recommend using external speakers or headphones.
Oppo Reno4 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
OnePlus 8T audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 34% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Battery Life - Reno4 Pro achieves great battery runtimes
Energy Consumption
According to our measurements, the Reno4 Pro is quite energy efficient. It draws slightly less power than the rest of the competition. However, the Oppo smartphone does not allow a lot of applications to run in the background.
The included 65-watt USB-C power adapter should have no trouble supplying the 5G smartphone from Oppo with enough energy.
| Off / Standby |   0.03 / 0.39 Watt |
| Idle |  0.95 / 2.49 / 2.58 Watt |
| Load |
3.52 / 5.9 Watt |
    
| |
| Oppo Reno4 Pro 4000 mAh | OnePlus 8T 4500 mAh | Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | ZTE Axon 11 5G 4000 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -6% | -3% | 6% | -57% | 5% | 8% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.95 | 1.1 -16% | 1.18 -24% | 0.78 18% | 1.47 -55% | 0.965 ? -2% | 0.883 ? 7% |
| Idle Average * | 2.49 | 1.5 40% | 2.45 2% | 1.43 43% | 3.43 -38% | 1.899 ? 24% | 1.487 ? 40% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.58 | 1.7 34% | 2.51 3% | 1.54 40% | 3.52 -36% | 2.07 ? 20% | 1.701 ? 34% |
| Load Average * | 3.52 | 4.6 -31% | 3.61 -3% | 5.04 -43% | 6.2 -76% | 3.98 ? -13% | 4.26 ? -21% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.9 | 9.4 -59% | 5.36 9% | 7.49 -27% | 10.63 -80% | 6.19 ? -5% | 7.1 ? -20% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
In our practically oriented Wi-Fi test, the Oppo smartphone achieves a battery runtime of almost 16 hours. This means that the 4000-mAh battery of the Reno4 Pro lasted almost as long as the 4500-mAh battery of the OnePlus 8T.
The included fast charger takes a little over half an hour to fully charge the Reno4 Pro.
| Oppo Reno4 Pro 4000 mAh | OnePlus 8T 4500 mAh | Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | ZTE Axon 11 5G 4000 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 950 | 1023 8% | 763 -20% | 679 -29% | 654 -31% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Oppo Reno4 Pro slots in the 5G segment
The Oppo Reno4 Pro is a modern and slim smartphone. The camera performance is good and the system performance leaves nothing to be desired as well. The great battery life is a big positive. Moreover, the battery can be fully charged in half an hour. The Oppo smartphone scores some major points when it comes to LTE and 5G performance, but it does not do particularly well when it comes to Wi-Fi performance. 256 GB of internal storage is more than enough at the moment. However, the storage capacity is not expandable, because the Reno4 Pro does not have a microSD card slot.
The Oppo Reno4 Pro is a 5G smartphone with aggressive energy-saving features, which bring something to the table.
However, users should pay attention to the aggressive energy management. The smartphone routinely closes applications that are running in the background, which may not be welcome in certain situations. For instance, we had trouble getting an application, which prevents the screen from switching off, to run in the background. The same applies to fitness trackers and navigation applications. Howbeit, users can disable energy-saving functions for any application they choose.
Oppo Reno4 Pro
-
08/31/2022 v7
Mike Wobker
Pricecompare
