Notebookcheck

Oppo Reno4 Z 5G smartphone Review - 5G phone with good main camera

Preferences without flexibility. Oppo launches a low-priced 5G phone with the Reno4 Z 5G. A 120 Hz display and a price of around 300 Euros (~$300) seem attractive, but we take a closer look in our detailed review of the Chinese smartphone.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 🇩🇪 🇮🇹 ...
Oppo Reno 4 Z 5G
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G (Reno Series)
Processor
MediaTek Dimensity 800 8 x 2 - 2 GHz, Cortex-A76 / A55
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.57 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 401 PPI, Capacitive touch screen, IPS, glossy: yes, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 128GB, 112 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, 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 5.1, 2G,3G,4G(B1/​2/3/​4/​5/​7/​8/12/​17/18/19/20/26/28/38/39/40/41/66), 5G (n1/​3/5/​7/8/20/28/​38/​40/41/​77/​78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.1 x 163.8 x 75.5 ( = 0.32 x 6.45 x 2.97 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (phase comparison-AF, LED-flash, Videos @2160p/​30fps, f/1.7, 26mm, 1/2.0", 0.8µm) + 8MP wide angle lens (f/2.2, 119˚, 1/4.0", 1.12µm) + 2MP dop (f/2.4) + 2MP b/w (f/2.4)
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix (videos @1080p/​30fps, f/2.0, 26mm, 1/3.06", 1.0µm) + 2MP dop (f/2.4)
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, USB cable, headset, SIM tool, silicone bumper, 24 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
184 g ( = 6.49 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 102 g ( = 3.6 oz / 0.22 pounds)
Price
300 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
81 %7
01/2021
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4
184 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.57"2400x1080
82 %7
12/2020
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619
215 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.67"2400x1080
80 %7
12/2020
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619
193 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.60"1600x720
80 %7
08/2020
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
SD 765, Adreno 620
207 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.70"2520x1080

Case, features and operation - A lot of RAM in the Chinese phone

Oppo wants just under 300 Euros for the Reno4 Z 5G. In return, you get a plastic casing that feels good in the hand, and the Reno 4 Z 5G is not that heavy at 184 grams. Ink Black and Dew White are available, whereas Ink Black looks rather bluish. The back refracts the light in many facets and thus looks quite sophisticated. The camera module with the transversely arranged main lenses is extravagant and chic. The casing could be a bit more stable in terms of pressure, but it looks high-quality overall

8 GB of RAM is a statement and almost twice as much as in some comparison devices from the same price range. 128 GB of mass storage is no longer quite unusual, but still a good configuration for just under 300 Euros. However, the storage cannot be expanded via microSD card. NFC is on board, so you can also use mobile payment services. Wi-Fi 5 is also available, but the Reno4 Z 5G only achieves average data rates in our test with the reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12. 5G is already in the name and the fast mobile standard can also be used with both SIM cards.

The software is based on Android 10 and the security patches were up to date at the time of testing.

A fingerprint sensor is found on the casing's right. Unfortunately, its edges do not quite match the casing, which lowers the quality impression a bit. However, the recognition of stored fingers is very reliable and fast. It is enough to just place the finger on it to unlock the smartphone, even from standby. The 120 Hz display of the Reno4 Z makes operation very smooth.

Size comparison

168 mm / 6.61 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 207 g0.4564 lbs165.38 mm / 6.51 inch 76.8 mm / 3.02 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 215 g0.474 lbs164.4 mm / 6.47 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.6 mm / 0.3386 inch 193 g0.4255 lbs163.8 mm / 6.45 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 184 g0.4057 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
667 (339min - 692max) MBit/s ∼100% +93%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
666 (646min - 677max) MBit/s ∼100% +92%
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
346 (315min - 357max) MBit/s ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
329 (307min - 340max) MBit/s ∼49% -5%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
646 (590min - 656max) MBit/s ∼100% +95%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
551 (465min - 583max) MBit/s ∼85% +66%
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
332 (316min - 339max) MBit/s ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
328 (323min - 332max) MBit/s ∼51% -1%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340315329344342342337340335346344351350351349345354344348350357353349342350352349340347350353315329344342342337340335346344351350351349345354344348350357353349342350352349340347350353333316318328329317319338338338336337337338335338338337338336338339335328329318326336336338Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø345 (315-357)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø332 (316-339)

Cameras - main camera hui, the rest naja

Recording front camera
Recording front camera
Recording front camera "Portrait mode
Recording front camera "Portrait mode

The Oppo phone has 4 lenses on the back, but only two of them can actually be used for taking pictures, the other two only provide supporting data. The 48-megapixel main camera combines 4 pixels into one by default, resulting in 12-megapixel pictures, but with a higher exposure

The pictures from the main camera actually look quite decent, are sharp and quite detailed. Some blotchy surfaces are noticed in the ambient picture, and individual details also look a bit blurry here, but the result is also good overall. In low light and high contrasts, the camera also shows that it can reproduce the surroundings quite detailed. In real low-light situations in the test lab, the detail level of pictures decreases considerably, and there are slight contrast weaknesses and blurring in optimal lighting. Overall, however, the camera is quite good for the price level

The wide-angle camera on the other hand takes somewhat blurry pictures and is more suitable for snapshots

Videos can be recorded in 4K and 30 fps at most. There are slight color deviations in the moving pictures, which are also not particularly strong in terms of contrast. Otherwise, the recording is on a good level here as well

There are two camera lenses on the front, but only one can be used for photos, the second one is used for portraits to calculate blur. Standard selfies are okay, but the portrait mode has a hard time with fine structures.

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.

Hauptobjektiv BlumeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low LightUltraweitwinkel
click to load images
ColorChecker
23.8 ∆E
32.1 ∆E
24.2 ∆E
25.9 ∆E
27.2 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
35.1 ∆E
21.5 ∆E
22.7 ∆E
23.6 ∆E
32.4 ∆E
39.2 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
30.2 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
35.4 ∆E
25.8 ∆E
30 ∆E
38.9 ∆E
37.7 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
27.2 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno4 Z 5G: 28.45 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 39.23 ∆E
ColorChecker
18.9 ∆E
15.4 ∆E
20.5 ∆E
21.6 ∆E
19.1 ∆E
14.5 ∆E
16.3 ∆E
17.8 ∆E
15.9 ∆E
10.7 ∆E
15.5 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
19.1 ∆E
15.2 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
16.8 ∆E
20 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
11 ∆E
17 ∆E
15.6 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno4 Z 5G: 14.62 ∆E min: 5.87 - max: 21.64 ∆E

Display - 120 Hz display in the Oppo Reno

Subpixel recording
Subpixel recording

The fact that the Reno4 Z 5G has a 120 Hz display is a great thing. In terms of brightness, the IPS screen is on par with the competition, but it also has quite strong color deviations

Our test with the CalMAN software also revealed a slight blue cast.

450
cd/m²
449
cd/m²
452
cd/m²
446
cd/m²
462
cd/m²
449
cd/m²
418
cd/m²
413
cd/m²
408
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 462 cd/m² Average: 438.6 cd/m² Minimum: 3.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 462 cd/m²
Contrast: 797:1 (Black: 0.58 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.83 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 6.3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
98.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.227
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.57
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
AMOLED, 1600x720, 6.60
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.70
Response Times
-36%
68%
1%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
42 (23, 19)
52 (27.6, 24.4)
-24%
10 (5, 5)
76%
34 (17, 17)
19%
Response Time Black / White *
22 (11, 11)
32.4 (16, 16.4)
-47%
9 (5, 4)
59%
26 (15, 11)
-18%
PWM Frequency
2358 (42)
242.7
Screen
34%
26%
33%
Brightness middle
462
606
31%
466
1%
461
0%
Brightness
439
574
31%
462
5%
458
4%
Brightness Distribution
88
89
1%
85
-3%
93
6%
Black Level *
0.58
0.44
24%
0.52
10%
Contrast
797
1377
73%
887
11%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.83
2.4
50%
2.06
57%
1.01
79%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.1
5.3
35%
6.14
24%
2.1
74%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.3
4.5
29%
1.8
71%
1.5
76%
Gamma
2.227 99%
2.21 100%
2.105 105%
2.25 98%
CCT
7556 86%
6224 104%
6444 101%
6701 97%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-1% / 20%
47% / 36%
17% / 26%

* ... 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
22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 11 ms rise
↘ 11 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 29 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 19 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 55 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (38.5 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 not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9686 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space
CalMAN color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions and battery life - small battery, good runtime

The fairly new MediaTek Dimensity 800 offers four high-performance cores unlike many other mid-range SoCs, but the maximum clock of 2 GHz is a bit lower. The performance is impressive in optimized applications when only two or one core is used, but it is also a bit lower. However, many apps should benefit from this. In any case, the Dimensity 800 is quite fast in the benchmarks and can keep up well with other common SoCs in this price range. The memory is a bit slower than in other devices in this price range, especially when writing.

The case heats up to 46.9 °C under load, which is clearly noticeable. The temperature development can also become unpleasant in high ambient temperatures. The mono speaker on the bottom edge is not a sound miracle, but okay for the price range.

The small 4,000 mAhbattery does not do a bad job and can almost keep up with the Moto G 5G Plus, although the latter has a much stronger battery. 15:03 hours in our WLAN test should be enough for several days of operation without charging. Although the charger is large and heavy, it still only brings a maximum charging power of 18 watts. That is enough for charging times between 1:30 and 2 hours when the device is empty.

Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
2143 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2009 Points ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
1979 Points ∼92% -8%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
1954 Points ∼91% -9%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
2143 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=185)
1931 Points ∼90% -10%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
523 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
658 Points ∼100% +26%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
658 Points ∼100% +26%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
596 Points ∼91% +14%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
523 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (63 - 1604, n=185)
557 Points ∼85% +7%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
7511 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7547 Points ∼86% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
8063 Points ∼92% +7%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
8756 Points ∼100% +17%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
7511 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=583)
6149 Points ∼70% -18%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
9674 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
8853 Points ∼89% -8%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
9914 Points ∼100% +2%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
9674 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=731)
6786 Points ∼68% -30%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3626 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3649 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
3636 Points ∼100% 0%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3457 Points ∼95% -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3626 Points ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=589)
2309 Points ∼63% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3353 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2823 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
2845 Points ∼85% -15%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3165 Points ∼94% -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3353 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=589)
2342 Points ∼70% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3410 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2973 Points ∼87% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
2990 Points ∼88% -12%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3236 Points ∼95% -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3410 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=590)
2154 Points ∼63% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3593 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3651 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
3597 Points ∼99% 0%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3512 Points ∼96% -2%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3593 Points ∼98% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=616)
2213 Points ∼61% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
4497 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4263 Points ∼88% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
4298 Points ∼88% -4%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
4865 Points ∼100% +8%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
4497 Points ∼92% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 22052, n=618)
3161 Points ∼65% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
4259 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4110 Points ∼92% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
4120 Points ∼92% -3%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
4484 Points ∼100% +5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
4259 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=618)
2597 Points ∼58% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3909 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3542 Points ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
3588 Points ∼92% -8%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3445 Points ∼88% -12%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3909 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=665)
2167 Points ∼55% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3145 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2617 Points ∼83% -17%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
2667 Points ∼85% -15%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
2963 Points ∼94% -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3145 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=665)
1910 Points ∼61% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3288 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2778 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
2828 Points ∼86% -14%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3015 Points ∼92% -8%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3288 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=666)
1811 Points ∼55% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
3855 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3523 Points ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
3607 Points ∼94% -6%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
3498 Points ∼91% -9%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
3855 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5301, n=708)
2044 Points ∼53% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
4722 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4072 Points ∼86% -14%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
4189 Points ∼89% -11%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
4654 Points ∼99% -1%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
4722 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=707)
2563 Points ∼54% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
4497 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2825 Points ∼63% -37%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
4044 Points ∼90% -10%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
4401 Points ∼98% -2%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
4497 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=710)
2186 Points ∼49% -51%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
21499 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
20076 Points ∼93% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
19708 Points ∼92% -8%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
20156 Points ∼94% -6%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
21499 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=852)
16095 Points ∼75% -25%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
37882 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
55911 Points ∼89% +48%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
56286 Points ∼90% +49%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
62756 Points ∼100% +66%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
37882 Points ∼60% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 224130, n=850)
29331 Points ∼47% -23%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
32396 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
40032 Points ∼94% +24%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
39850 Points ∼93% +23%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
42735 Points ∼100% +32%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
32396 Points ∼76% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=850)
22459 Points ∼53% -31%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
12 fps ∼57%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
11 fps ∼52% -8%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
21 fps ∼100% +75%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
11 fps ∼52% -8%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
12 fps ∼57% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=382)
12 fps ∼57% 0%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
8.2 fps ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7.4 fps ∼89% -10%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
7.4 fps ∼89% -10%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
7.5 fps ∼90% -9%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
8.2 fps ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=380)
8.32 fps ∼100% +1%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
20 fps ∼61%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
17 fps ∼52% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
33 fps ∼100% +65%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
18 fps ∼55% -10%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
20 fps ∼61% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 64, n=386)
17.9 fps ∼54% -10%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4, 8192
22 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
20 fps ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 4096
20 fps ∼91% -9%
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765, Adreno 620, 4096
21 fps ∼95% -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 800
 
22 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=386)
20.4 fps ∼93% -7%
Oppo Reno4 Z 5GXiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5GSamsung Galaxy A42 5GMotorola Moto G 5G PlusAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
50%
48%
-3%
3%
-51%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
65.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
67.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.2 (8.4 - 72.4, n=42)
51.8 (1.7 - 87.1, n=576)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
87.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
86.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
87.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
76.4 (13.4 - 88.3, n=42)
69.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=576)
Random Write 4KB
125.7
162.33
29%
147.7
18%
119.3
-5%
115 (18.2 - 290, n=74)
-9%
42 (0.14 - 319, n=953)
-67%
Random Read 4KB
125.2
176.59
41%
168.5
35%
138.14
10%
144 (92.6 - 239, n=74)
15%
64.7 (1.59 - 325, n=953)
-48%
Sequential Write 256KB
201
463.5
131%
476
137%
180.21
-10%
250 (182 - 511, n=74)
24%
144 (2.99 - 1321, n=953)
-28%
Sequential Read 256KB
934.9
938.14
0%
963
3%
885.34
-5%
779 (427 - 999, n=74)
-17%
370 (12.1 - 2037, n=953)
-60%

Temperature

Max. Load
 46.9 °C
116 F
42.4 °C
108 F
40 °C
104 F
 
 46 °C
115 F
42.2 °C
108 F
39.6 °C
103 F
 
 45.6 °C
114 F
41.4 °C
107 F
40 °C
104 F
 
Maximum: 46.9 °C = 116 F
Average: 42.7 °C = 109 F
38.3 °C
101 F
41.8 °C
107 F
42.4 °C
108 F
38.6 °C
101 F
41.5 °C
107 F
46.3 °C
115 F
38.8 °C
102 F
42.3 °C
108 F
45.7 °C
114 F
Maximum: 46.3 °C = 115 F
Average: 41.7 °C = 107 F
Power Supply (max.)  40.2 °C = 104 F | Room Temperature 21.6 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42.7 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.9 °C / 116 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 46.3 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.9 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front
Heatmap back side
Heatmap back side

Loudspeaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.934.22539.334.93131.130.84033.531.35034.536.56325.424.98019.219.310018.518.212516.819.916014.928.420011.634.325010.941.931511.648.240010.75550010.76063010.262.380017.765.2100015.271.3125010.768.416009.569.5200010.471250010.671.7315010.969.2400012.270.3500012.671.5630013.267.8800013.865.11000014.569.51250015.461.91600016.147.3SPL67.566.75966.424.981.3N21.119.91220.40.648.8median 12.2median 65.1Delta2.312.538.946.339.337.531.128.433.533.134.537.925.428.119.219.518.519.416.823.814.936.911.643.110.948.311.653.710.758.810.761.810.261.317.764.715.269.810.769.49.57110.470.110.66910.966.412.267.912.673.713.273.913.877.514.570.915.46016.156.966.424.982.920.40.654.1median 12.2median 64.72.39.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Reno4 Z 5GSamsung Galaxy A42 5G
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 48% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A42 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G
4820 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
5000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
903
1096
21%
967
7%
914
1%
720 (223 - 2636, n=824)
-20%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
15h 03min

Pros

+ a lot of RAM
+ snappy 120 Hz display
+ relatively light
+ good main camera
+ high performance
+ decent battery life

Cons

- high temperature rise under load
- moderate quality in wide-angle and front camera
- Blue cast in the display

Verdict - Well equipped, but not for everyone

In review: Oppo Reno4 Z 5G. Test device provided by Oppo Germany.
In review: Oppo Reno4 Z 5G. Test device provided by Oppo Germany.

The Oppo Reno 4 Z 5G offers a 120 Hz screen for just under 300 Euros, but it is not too bright and also has some catching up to do in terms of color accuracy. It also has a main camera that can take decent pictures. However, all other camera lenses on the device cannot be used for taking pictures or only deliver mediocre quality. This means that the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G is a good choice if you value a good main camera, but not if you want flexibility.

The battery is relatively low in capacity, which makes the device light and does not affect the runtime that much. It is also not that bad that the charger cannot provide such a high charging power. Oppo has apparently optimized well here.

The Oppo Reno4 Z 5G is a cheap 5G phone with a good main camera.

The performance is also on class level and those who want a physical fingerprint sensor will also get their money's worth here.

The somewhat less resistant casing is a bit annoying, and you can certainly get even faster Wi-Fi in other devices. Thus, it depends on the user's demands whether the Oppo Reno4 Z 5G is a good choice. However, it definitely has some advantages with a lot of working memory and otherwise good equipment.

Oppo Reno4 Z 5G - 01/02/2021 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
48 / 70 → 68%
Weight
89%
Battery
91%
Display
84%
Games Performance
36 / 64 → 56%
Application Performance
71 / 86 → 82%
Temperature
84%
Noise
100%
Audio
64 / 90 → 71%
Camera
59%
Average
74%
81%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Oppo Reno4 Z 5G smartphone Review - 5G phone with good main camera
Florian Schmitt, 2021-01- 3 (Update: 2021-01- 3)
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.