Notebookcheck Logo

Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Review - Not enough for an upper mid-range smartphone

Lots of RAM, little premium. The Reno8 Lite offers an interesting design feature with its extravagant dual-ring lights, but that cannot compensate for the pronounced shortcomings. Read this review to find out what Oppo's phone lacks and which mid-range phone we prefer over the Reno8 Lite 5G.
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Besides the Find X5 Lite oppo takes the lead with the Reno8 Lite Oppo now adds another mid-range smartphone to its portfolio here, which, however, is not based on a MediaTek SoC but is based on the Snapdragon 695. It also has 8 GB of RAM and internal storage of 128 GB. Although the Reno8 Lite has an MSRP of 389 Euros, it only uses a 60 Hz AMOLED display and a mono speaker.

We will take a closer look at how Oppo's new mid-range device compares to the strong rivals in its price range in this review.

Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G (Reno Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G 8 x 1.7 - 2.2 GHz, Kryo 660 Gold (Cortex-A77) / Silver (Cortex-A55)
Graphics adapter
Qualcomm Adreno 619, Core: 840 MHz
Memory
8 GB 
Display
6.43 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, capacitive Touchscreen , OLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3,5 mm jack, Card Reader: micoSD up to 1 TB, exFAT support, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, , OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B6/​B8/​B19), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B17/​B18/​B19/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B39/​B40/​B41/​B66), 5G (n1/​n3/​n5/​n7/​n8/​n20/​n28/​n38/​n40/​n41/​n77/​n78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.49 x 159.85 x 73.17 ( = 0.29 x 6.29 x 2.88 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix (f/​1.7, Videos @1080p/​30fps, Camera 1); 2.0 MP (f/​2.4, macro lens); 2.0 MP (f/​2.4, depth of field), camera2 api: level3
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix (f/​2.4)
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Onscreen, charger, case, USB cable, ColorOS 12, 24 Months Warranty, SAR-Wert 0.967 W/kg (head), 1.194 W/kg (body), widevine L1, fanless
Weight
173 g ( = 6.1 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 115 g ( = 4.06 oz / 0.25 pounds)
Price
389 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Possible competitors in comparison

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
82.4 %
07/2022
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
173 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.43"2400x1080
83.2 %
06/2022
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4
186 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.40"2400x1080
85.3 %
02/2022
Motorola Moto G200 5G
SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660
202 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"2460x1080
81.7 %
07/2022
Motorola Moto G82 5G
SD 695 5G, Adreno 619
173 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.60"2400x1080
86 %
05/2021
Xiaomi Poco F3
SD 870, Adreno 650
196 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.67"2400x1080
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G in Rainbow Spectrum
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G in Rainbow Spectrum

The Reno8 Lite 5G primarily wants to stand out from the mid-range competition with its striking design. Oppo's smartphone has a rectangular camera module with an LED ring around each of the two lenses. These "Orbit Lights" light up as soon as a new notification or calls are received in the colors electric blue, light blue, cyan blue, or baby blue. Besides our black version, Oppo also offers a variant with a color gradient called "Rainbow Spectrum", which is supposed to provide a particularly shiny effect depending on the incidence of light.

Besides these striking design elements, the Reno8 Lite has an IPX4 certification, so a walk in the rain should not be a problem with the sweat- and splash-proof casing. The build quality meets the requirements of an upper mid-range phone, but we cannot say the same for the haptics: the hand-feel of the plastic back and the plastic frame rather correspond to a 200-euro smartphone, and we also find the ergonomics a bit bulky due to the flat design of the back cover.

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Size comparison

168.1 mm / 6.62 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 202 g0.4453 lbs163.7 mm / 6.44 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs160.9 mm / 6.33 inch 74.5 mm / 2.93 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs159.7 mm / 6.29 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 186 g0.4101 lbs159.85 mm / 6.29 inch 73.17 mm / 2.88 inch 7.49 mm / 0.2949 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs

Equipment - Reno8 Lite 5G with 3.5 mm jack

The mid-range smartphone's features include an Always-On display function, a 3.5 mm jack, and USB OTG, which allows connecting peripherals via the USB-C port. The interface's data transfer follows the USB 2.0 standard. The capacity of the internal UFS storage is 128 GB, with about 110 GB reserved for the operating system and preinstalled apps. In addition, the internal UFS memory can be used for a virtual RAM expansion of the physical working memory by up to 5 GB.

microSD card reader

Memory cards with up to 1 TB can be installed into the microSD slot. We take a closer look at the memory slot's speed with our reference memory card AV PRO V60. Both the CPDT benchmark and our JPEG Copy test results attest to the Oppo phone's decent performance.

SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
59.21 MB/s ∼100% +62%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
36.46 MB/s ∼62%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Angelbird V60)
27.5 MB/s ∼46% -25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10.9 - 59.2, n=105, last 2 years)
26 MB/s ∼44% -29%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

0102030405060708090100110Tooltip
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø36.2 (29.1-43.4)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø43.7 (29-56.7)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø68.1 (26-80.3)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø83.8 (43.5-112.8)

Software - Oppo Phone with Android 11

The Chinese manufacturer still installs the now outdated Android 11 as the operating system, but with current security patches from May 2022 at the time of the test. Oppo superimposes its in-house ColorOS 12 UI with the new Air Gestures. However, scrolling through feeds via hand gestures currently only works with Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. We cannot find out if and when an update to Android 12 will be released. However, Oppo had also issued an update guarantee for the Reno series, according to which three-year security updates are to be provided quarterly for the Reno8 Lite as well.

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Communication and GNSS - Oppo phone with WiFi 5

In terms of communication modules, Oppo relies on Bluetooth version 5.1 and an NFC chip for contactless payment. The integrated WLAN module only supports Wi-Fi 5, since the Snapdragon 695 does not support the 802.11ax standard. Nevertheless, solid transfer rates are possible in everyday use with the Reno8 Lite 5G and our reference router Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000.

The Oppo smartphone accesses the mobile Internet via the fast 5G networks. However, the mid-range phone also supports all 4G frequencies relevant for the German-speaking region in terms of LTE bands.

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Average of class Smartphone
  (44.3 - 1736, n=91, last 2 years)
631 MBit/s ∼100% +86%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
343 (337min - 348max) MBit/s ∼54% +1%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
342 (321min - 351max) MBit/s ∼54% +1%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
340 (323min - 349max) MBit/s ∼54%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Average of class Smartphone
  (57.7 - 1710, n=92, last 2 years)
666 MBit/s ∼100% +88%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
364 (349min - 382max) MBit/s ∼55% +3%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
354 (185min - 367max) MBit/s ∼53%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
268 (133min - 280max) MBit/s ∼40% -24%
iperf3 transmit AX12
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
884 (444min - 914max) MBit/s ∼100%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (759min - 906max) MBit/s ∼98%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1395, n=175, last 2 years)
491 MBit/s ∼56%
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
836 (809min - 863max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
654 (311min - 702max) MBit/s ∼78%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1348, n=176, last 2 years)
469 MBit/s ∼56%
050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900Tooltip
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø339 (323-349)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 660; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø836 (809-863)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 619; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø348 (185-367)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Qualcomm Adreno 660; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø864 (759-906)
Outdoor locating
Outdoor locating
Locating in the building
Locating in the building

In order to be able to assess the tracking accuracy of the Reno8 Lite in practice, we record a route in parallel with the Garmin Venu 2 for comparison purposes. The deviations total only 50 meters at the end of the 10 km route. However, the detailed course reveals one or two inaccuracies of the Oppo phone, especially when changing directions. The GPS (L1), GLONASS, QZSS, Galileo (E1), and Beidou (B1) satellite networks are used for localization in the test.

Oppo Reno8 Lite vs. Garmin Venu 2
Oppo Reno8 Lite vs. Garmin Venu 2

Phone features and voice quality - Reno8 Lite 5G with Dual SIM

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

The dual-SIM phone offers space for two nanoSIM cards and a VoLTE as well as a Wi-Fi calling function. The voice quality via the earpiece or speaker is appealing in test calls as well as via video calls. Our interlocutors also confirmed the Reno8 Lite's good intelligibility.

Cameras - Oppo Phone with "Triple-Cam"

Selfie with the Reno 8 Lite 5G
Selfie with the Reno 8 Lite 5G

The 16 MP camera on the front can capture nice but a bit too soft selfies in a lot of light. The triple camera module on the back consists of a 64 MP main camera plus a macro and telephoto lens for depth of field information. An ultra-wide-angle camera has not been installed in the Reno8 Lite. Videos can also only be recorded with a maximum of 1080p and at up to 30 fps.

Oppo does not reveal anything about the exact choice of the image sensor, but the mid-range phone can take high-quality pictures with a good color reproduction in daylight. However, the richness of detail in the photos is somewhat lost due to the often somewhat low image sharpness, especially in the peripheral areas. When it gets darker, the pictures suffer from image noise and blurriness. The illumination is also average for this price range.

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

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 cameraMain cameraLow Light5x Zoom
click to load images
ColorChecker
15.2 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
15.8 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
12 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
7 ∆E
9 ∆E
14.1 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
7.1 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G: 8.51 ∆E min: 2.23 - max: 15.76 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.8 ∆E
54.5 ∆E
39.3 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
44.9 ∆E
63.2 ∆E
54.2 ∆E
35.2 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
27.7 ∆E
66.2 ∆E
64.7 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
48.8 ∆E
37.9 ∆E
77 ∆E
43.9 ∆E
44.1 ∆E
93.7 ∆E
71 ∆E
52 ∆E
37.1 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G: 47.18 ∆E min: 13.46 - max: 93.71 ∆E

Accessories and warranty - Reno8 Lite 5G with power adapter

A fast charger is included, but only with 30 watts. Furthermore, a USB-C cable and a SIM tool as well as a protective cover are included in the scope of delivery.

Oppo grants a 24-month warranty in Germany for its smartphones.

Input devices & Handling - Oppo phone with FaceUnlock

Inputs on the 6.43-inch OLED screen are implemented accurately and quickly, but screen changes or scrolling are visibly less smooth than in the competition with a higher refresh rate. A sampling rate of 180 Hz is supported for special applications, such as games, so the touchscreen is polled 180 times per second.

The optical fingerprint scanner in the OLED panel recognizes the user reliably, but a bit slower than good sensors in the power button. Biometric authentication via 2D facial recognition using the front-facing camera is also supported.

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Display - Oppo Phone with OLED

Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

The OLED panel of the Oppo phone, with a refresh rate of 60 Hz, achieves a pixel density of about 400 PPI at a resolution of 2400 x 1080 pixels and a diagonal of 6.43 inches.

The Reno8 Lite uses PWM with a frequency of 116 to 252 Hz to regulate the luminance, at a brightness of below 48 percent - above that, we measure a constant 60 Hz. The maximum luminance of about 600 cd/m² in the peak that we measured is good, but nothing special in this price range. The same applies to the realistic APL18 test, which results in a maximum brightness of 802 cd/m².

593
cd/m²
591
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
593
cd/m²
602
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
593
cd/m²
601
cd/m²
613
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 613 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 599.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 602 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.3
ΔE Greyscale 3.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.5
92.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.43
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40
Motorola Moto G200 5G
IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.80
Motorola Moto G82 5G
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.60
Xiaomi Poco F3
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67
Screen
28%
-21%
-19%
47%
Brightness middle
602
693
15%
512
-15%
635
5%
889
48%
Brightness
599
695
16%
488
-19%
640
7%
902
51%
Brightness Distribution
96
98
2%
87
-9%
96
0%
95
-1%
Black Level *
0.36
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
2
1.3
35%
3.42
-71%
2.96
-48%
0.9
55%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
5.2
3.5
33%
5.9
-13%
7.63
-47%
1.9
63%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
3.7
1.3
65%
3.7
-0%
4.8
-30%
1.3
65%
Gamma
2.26 97%
2.14 103%
7154 0%
2.214 99%
2.26 97%
CCT
6996 93%
6530 100%
1.944 334362%
6970 93%
6614 98%
Contrast
1422

* ... smaller is better

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 252.3 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 252.3 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 252.3 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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19681 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

minimum panel brightness
min.
25 % Panel brightness
25 %
50 % Panel brightness
50 %
75 % Panel brightness
75 %
maximum manual panel brightness
100 %

Measurements at a fixed zoom level and various brightness settings

The display color analysis is performed with the help of a photospectrometer and the CalMAN software. The deviations in the color representation are low, but the grayscale is not optimally calibrated. Especially blue tones are not the Reno8 Lite's strength with a deltaE of over 5.

Color accuracy (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)
Color accuracy (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)
Color space (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)
Color space (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)
Grayscale (Target color space: sRGB; Profile: Normal, Soft)
Grayscale (Target color space: sRGB; Profile: Normal, Soft)
Color saturation (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)
Color saturation (target color space: sRGB; profile: Normal, Soft)

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
1.97 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 0.996 ms rise
↘ 0.973 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
3.23 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.646 ms rise
↘ 1.585 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. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.2 ms).

The organic display offers enough luminosity to read display content even on sunny days. However, reflections should be avoided. The stability of the viewing angles is excellent and the decrease in brightness is low even at flat viewing angles.

Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Performance - Reno8 Lite 5G with Qualcomm SoC

The Reno8 Lite 5G is equipped with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 integrates an Adreno 619 as the graphics unit and offers an appealing system speed. In the benchmarks, the Oppo smartphone performs on par with a Moto G82 which is also based on the same Qualcomm SoC. However, the Reno8 Lite 5G does not stand a chance against powerful mid-range devices. Even an Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A33 is sometimes much better. The speed of the installed UFS memory is also rather below average for the price, but this can be attributed to the low memory bandwidth of the Snapdragon 695.

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1076 Points ∼100% +57%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
998 Points ∼93% +46%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
737 Points ∼68% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1885, n=266, last 2 years)
724 Points ∼67% +6%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
685 Points ∼64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (659 - 697, n=10)
681 Points ∼63% -1%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
671 Points ∼62% -2%
Multi-Core
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
3368 Points ∼100% +68%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3286 Points ∼98% +64%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 5538, n=266, last 2 years)
2334 Points ∼69% +16%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
2008 Points ∼60%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1946 Points ∼58% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (1663 - 2038, n=10)
1909 Points ∼57% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1905 Points ∼57% -5%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
794271 Points ∼100% +109%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
680139 Points ∼86% +79%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1119358, n=137, last 2 years)
574303 Points ∼72% +51%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
409358 Points ∼52% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
398969 Points ∼50% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (379222 - 409358, n=7)
390941 Points ∼49% +3%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
379222 Points ∼48%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
18567 Points ∼100% +145%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
13610 Points ∼73% +80%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
11077 Points ∼60% +46%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=187, last 2 years)
10372 Points ∼56% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (6897 - 10834, n=9)
9204 Points ∼50% +22%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7843 Points ∼42% +4%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
7569 Points ∼41%
CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1178, n=78, last 2 years)
760 Points ∼100% +29%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
588 Points ∼77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (552 - 604, n=7)
583 Points ∼77% -1%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
552 Points ∼73% -6%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
6356 Points ∼100% +65%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5711 Points ∼90% +48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1223 - 8753, n=175, last 2 years)
4548 Points ∼72% +18%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
3848 Points ∼61%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3705 Points ∼58% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (3535 - 3848, n=8)
3688 Points ∼58% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3477 Points ∼55% -10%
System
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
9997 Points ∼100% +24%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
8546 Points ∼85% +6%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
8059 Points ∼81%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2083 - 19657, n=175, last 2 years)
8027 Points ∼80% 0%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7986 Points ∼80% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (6969 - 8059, n=8)
7802 Points ∼78% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
7184 Points ∼72% -11%
Memory
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
7692 Points ∼100% +64%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5648 Points ∼73% +21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (670 - 9044, n=175, last 2 years)
5148 Points ∼67% +10%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4836 Points ∼63% +3%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
4684 Points ∼61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (4092 - 4836, n=8)
4456 Points ∼58% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3829 Points ∼50% -18%
Graphics
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
13865 Points ∼100% +221%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
12801 Points ∼92% +196%
Average of class Smartphone
  (697 - 26660, n=175, last 2 years)
8512 Points ∼61% +97%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
5104 Points ∼37% +18%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4423 Points ∼32% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (4295 - 4426, n=8)
4378 Points ∼32% +1%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
4323 Points ∼31%
Web
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1665 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
1658 Points ∼100% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (718 - 2392, n=175, last 2 years)
1404 Points ∼84% +5%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
1334 Points ∼80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (1103 - 1334, n=8)
1213 Points ∼73% -9%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1103 Points ∼66% -17%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1041 Points ∼63% -22%
AImark - Score v2.x
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
286905 Points ∼100% +5599%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 6144
111838 Points ∼39% +2122%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 286905, n=156, last 2 years)
54530 Points ∼19% +983%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
  (4924 - 5839, n=8)
5187 Points ∼2% +3%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 8192
5034 Points ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
4926 Points ∼2% -2%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4924 Points ∼2% -2%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
358 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
617 Points ∼42% +72%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1453 Points ∼100% +306%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
354 Points ∼24% -1%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1222 Points ∼84% +241%
3DMark / Wild Life Extreme (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
362 Points ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
632 Points ∼40% +75%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1564 Points ∼100% +332%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
363 Points ∼23% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1223 Points ∼78% +238%
3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1223 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2238 Points ∼39% +83%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5711 Points ∼100% +367%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
1204 Points ∼21% -2%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4271 Points ∼75% +249%
3DMark / Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
1211 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2262 Points ∼39% +87%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5765 Points ∼100% +376%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
1209 Points ∼21% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4288 Points ∼74% +254%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2873 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2594 Points ∼90% -10%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2898 Points ∼100% +1%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2711 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3911 Points ∼100% +44%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2736 Points ∼70% +1%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2728 Points ∼78%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3514 Points ∼100% +29%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2770 Points ∼79% +2%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3511 Points ∼72%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3035 Points ∼62% -14%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4864 Points ∼100% +39%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3529 Points ∼73% +1%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4140 Points ∼85% +18%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2986 Points ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3922 Points ∼36% +31%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10875 Points ∼100% +264%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3001 Points ∼28% +1%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
9498 Points ∼87% +218%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3055 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3683 Points ∼45% +21%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8234 Points ∼100% +170%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3104 Points ∼38% +2%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7377 Points ∼90% +141%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3349 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2833 Points ∼83% -15%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3415 Points ∼100% +2%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4398 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5216 Points ∼100% +19%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4414 Points ∼85% 0%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4102 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4395 Points ∼100% +7%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4156 Points ∼95% +1%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2973 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3592 Points ∼100% +21%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2959 Points ∼82% 0%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2823 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3885 Points ∼100% +38%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2837 Points ∼73% 0%
3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3329 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2842 Points ∼82% -15%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3481 Points ∼100% +5%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4002 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4630 Points ∼58% +16%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4286 Points ∼54% +7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
7970 Points ∼100% +99%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4277 Points ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5418 Points ∼45% +27%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4573 Points ∼38% +7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
12033 Points ∼100% +181%
3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3283 Points ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
3069 Points ∼84% -7%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3515 Points ∼96% +7%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
3653 Points ∼100% +11%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
60 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
78 fps ∼64% +30%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
121 fps ∼100% +102%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
71 fps ∼59% +18%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
95 fps ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
91 fps ∼46% -4%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
161 fps ∼81% +69%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
95 fps ∼48% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
200 fps ∼100% +111%
GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
41 fps ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
59 fps ∼73% +44%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
81 fps ∼100% +98%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
43 fps ∼53% +5%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
60 fps ∼74% +46%
GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
68 fps ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
60 fps ∼50% -12%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼77% +35%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
48 fps ∼40% -29%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
119 fps ∼100% +75%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
29 fps ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
37 fps ∼63% +28%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
54 fps ∼92% +86%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
30 fps ∼51% +3%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
59 fps ∼100% +103%
GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
35 fps ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
38 fps ∼47% +9%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62 fps ∼77% +77%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
35 fps ∼43% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
81 fps ∼100% +131%
GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
16 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
21 fps ∼48% +31%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
35 fps ∼80% +119%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
17 fps ∼39% +6%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
44 fps ∼100% +175%
GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
23 fps ∼48% +15%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼88% +110%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
20 fps ∼42% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
48 fps ∼100% +140%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
12 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
16 fps ∼48% +33%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
33 fps ∼100% +175%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
12 fps ∼36% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
33 fps ∼100% +175%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
7.7 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
10 fps ∼45% +30%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
19 fps ∼86% +147%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
7.8 fps ∼35% +1%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
22 fps ∼100% +186%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
18 fps ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
25 fps ∼51% +39%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼86% +133%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
19 fps ∼39% +6%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
49 fps ∼100% +172%
GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
21 fps ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
26 fps ∼46% +24%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼68% +86%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
21 fps ∼37% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
57 fps ∼100% +171%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
75.9 Points ∼100% +56%
Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90)
75.1 Points ∼99% +54%
Average of class Smartphone (14.8 - 282, n=175, last 2 years)
69.6 Points ∼92% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (Chrome)
66.011 Points ∼87% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G (48.6 - 64.5, n=8)
57.8 Points ∼76% +19%
Motorola Moto G82 5G (Chrome 102)
56.647 Points ∼75% +16%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G (Chrome 103)
48.664 Points ∼64%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
147 Points ∼100% +31%
Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90)
125 Points ∼85% +12%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G (Chrome 103)
112 Points ∼76%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 292, n=180, last 2 years)
99.4 Points ∼68% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G (75 - 112, n=7)
91.9 Points ∼63% -18%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (Chrome 102.0.5005.99)
82 Points ∼56% -27%
Motorola Moto G82 5G (Chrome 102)
75 Points ∼51% -33%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
28695 Points ∼100% +61%
Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90)
26577 Points ∼93% +49%
Average of class Smartphone (3905 - 74261, n=189, last 2 years)
25988 Points ∼91% +46%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (Chrome 102.0.5005.99)
24521 Points ∼85% +37%
Motorola Moto G82 5G (Chrome 102)
21468 Points ∼75% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G (17849 - 22938, n=7)
21279 Points ∼74% +19%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G (Chrome 103)
17849 Points ∼62%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 12437, n=186, last 2 years)
2704 ms * ∼100% -8%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G (Chrome 103)
2501.3 ms * ∼93%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G (1923 - 2501, n=7)
2056 ms * ∼76% +18%
Motorola Moto G82 5G (Chrome 102)
2009.8 ms * ∼74% +20%
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G (Chrome)
1856.6 ms * ∼69% +26%
Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90)
1744 ms * ∼64% +30%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
1358 ms * ∼50% +46%

* ... smaller is better

Oppo Reno8 Lite 5GSamsung Galaxy A33 5GMotorola Moto G200 5GMotorola Moto G82 5GXiaomi Poco F3Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
22%
117%
5%
71%
17%
39%
Sequential Read 256KB
498.54
512.84
3%
1898
281%
473.4
-5%
1378
176%
697 ?(303 - 999, n=29)
40%
987 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=256, last 2 years)
98%
Sequential Write 256KB
438.49
487.66
11%
712
62%
445.7
2%
684
56%
460 ?(105.3 - 857, n=29)
5%
537 ?(11.9 - 1776, n=256, last 2 years)
22%
Random Read 4KB
155.32
216.48
39%
155.9
0%
180.8
16%
208
34%
166.4 ?(89.3 - 253, n=29)
7%
177.6 ?(13.5 - 390, n=256, last 2 years)
14%
Random Write 4KB
143.54
194.12
35%
322.5
125%
155.5
8%
170.6
19%
165.4 ?(113.8 - 213, n=29)
15%
176.8 ?(30.3 - 503, n=257, last 2 years)
23%

Emissions - Oppo smartphone stays cool

Temperature

The casing barely heats up in everyday use even under load. The waste heat inside the Reno8 Lite 5G does not reduce the performance in our test. The two stress tests of 3DMark run without problems with over 99 percent mark.

Max. Load
 33.2 °C
92 F
32.2 °C
90 F
31.1 °C
88 F
 
 33.3 °C
92 F
32.7 °C
91 F
31.5 °C
89 F
 
 32.9 °C
91 F
31.2 °C
88 F
30.9 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 33.3 °C = 92 F
Average: 32.1 °C = 90 F
31.1 °C
88 F
32.8 °C
91 F
32.9 °C
91 F
30.8 °C
87 F
31.8 °C
89 F
33 °C
91 F
30.5 °C
87 F
32.1 °C
90 F
33 °C
91 F
Maximum: 33 °C = 91 F
Average: 32 °C = 90 F
Power Supply (max.)  27.7 °C = 82 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.3 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.5 % ∼100% 0%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.5 % ∼100% 0%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.4 % ∼100%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
82.2 % ∼83% -17%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
80.4 % ∼81% -19%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.3 % ∼100% 0%
Motorola Moto G82 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.1 % ∼100% 0%
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.1 % ∼100%
Xiaomi Poco F3
Adreno 650, SD 870, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
82.2 % ∼83% -17%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
79 % ∼80% -20%
051015202530Tooltip
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø2.17 (2.16-2.18)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø3.77 (3.76-3.79)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.7.2: Ø7.57 (7.1-8.98)
Motorola Moto G82 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø2.16 (2.16-2.18)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.27 (7.25-7.29)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.5 (13.4-13.5)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø28.8 (27.4-34.2)
Motorola Moto G82 5G Adreno 619, SD 695 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø7.24 (7.23-7.27)
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone
Test Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G smartphone

Speaker

Oppo only installs a mono speaker in its mid-range phone, but it can get very loud with over 92 dB and enables a linear reproduction. A low-noise 3.5 mm jack (SNR: 99.4 dBFS) can also be used for a stereo sound experience. Alternatively, Bluetooth 5.1 is available for wireless headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs203943.52524.433.93120.435.34018.340.15030.742.36325.544.58023.939.410018.142.71252045.116025.249.920016.850.225014.457.8315176040011.863.750012.969.663014.672.680013.676.3100012.278.2125013.678.3160013.879.7200013.482250013.483.3315013.482.3400013.580.1500013.481.1630013.575.1800013.280.81000013.581.71250013.6761600013.365.3SPL25.992.1N0.792.5median 13.5median 76Delta1.610.137.643.334.837.632.633.237.132.242.836.832.726.622.922.220.224.217.931.415.941.11244.71146.913.450.51156.912.664.912.568.711.867.811.472.411.573.510.572.79.971.910.671.611.972.212.873.313.970.114.462.515.2661669.415.964.216.658.125.382.90.654.3median 12.6median 66210.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Reno8 Lite 5GMotorola Moto G82 5G
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Motorola Moto G82 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 46% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Battery life - Reno8 Lite 5G with 4,500 mAh

Energy consumption

With the 33W SUPERVOOC fast charging technology, a full battery charge takes about 70 minutes; wireless charging is not supported. The Reno8 Lite's power consumption under load is very low.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.29 / 0.28 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.69 / 1.58 / 1.6 Watt
Load midlight 2.59 / 4.47 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Moto G200 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Moto G82 5G
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco F3
4520 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-34%
-39%
-7%
-32%
-13%
-34%
Idle Minimum *
0.69
0.88
-28%
0.6
13%
0.9
-30%
0.76
-10%
0.813 ?(0.56 - 1.01, n=8)
-18%
0.881 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=197, last 2 years)
-28%
Idle Average *
1.58
1.47
7%
0.9
43%
1.2
24%
1.29
18%
1.691 ?(1 - 2.47, n=8)
-7%
1.61 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=197, last 2 years)
-2%
Idle Maximum *
1.6
1.52
5%
1.5
6%
1.4
12%
1.45
9%
1.793 ?(1.4 - 2.52, n=8)
-12%
1.815 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=197, last 2 years)
-13%
Load Average *
2.59
5.38
-108%
7
-170%
3.3
-27%
4.6
-78%
3.05 ?(2.4 - 4.83, n=8)
-18%
4.35 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=197, last 2 years)
-68%
Load Maximum *
4.47
6.62
-48%
8.4
-88%
5.2
-16%
8.87
-98%
4.92 ?(4.47 - 5.68, n=8)
-10%
7.2 ?(3.56 - 11.7, n=197, last 2 years)
-61%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 nits)

012345678Tooltip
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G: Ø2.79 (0.898-5.35)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Samsung Exynos 1280: Ø4.77 (1.049-8.56)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 nits)

00.20.50.711.21.41.71.92.22.42.62.93.13.33.63.84.14.34.5Tooltip
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø3.07 (2.86-3.38)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø4.07 (3.46-4.78)
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 5G; Idle 1min: Ø1.021 (0.997-1.153)
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G Samsung Exynos 1280; Idle 1min: Ø1.112 (1.07-1.512)

Battery life

In our WLAN test with an adjusted display brightness of 150 cd/m², Oppo's phone lasted over 15 hours, which is a solid rate in relation to the 60 Hz panel.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 103)
15h 04min
Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A33 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Moto G200 5G
5000 mAh
Motorola Moto G82 5G
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco F3
4520 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
904
771
-15%
905
0%
1022
13%
805
-11%

Pros

+ bright OLED panel
+ chic design
+ 3.5 mm jack
+ Power supply included

Cons

- Mono speaker
- only 60 Hz panel
- Haptics
- Android 11
- no ultra-wide-angle camera

Verdict

In review: Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G. Test device provided by Oppo Germany
In review: Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G. Test device provided by Oppo Germany

We cannot give the Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G a recommendation in view of the many shortcomings compared with the competition. Apart from the nice-looking design including dual ring lights, Oppo's smartphone lacks many features that would justify an MSRP of almost 400 Euros. Buyers in these price ranges can expect stereo speakers, an ultra-wide-angle lens, a panel with a frequency beyond 60 Hz, a better feel, or a more powerful chipset, among other things. Oppo does not exactly cover itself with glory in terms of software with the outdated Android 11. However, the Reno8 Lite could still positively appeal to one or the other user due to its quite compact and light build.

In order for the Reno8 Lite to be competitive, it has to be priced in line with the comparable low-cost mid-range, such as the Moto G52 or Redmi Note 11.

In the price segment around 300 Euros, we recommend our review of the Samsung Galaxy A33 or also Poco F3. If you can do without the 5G standard, you will find a good alternative with the Redmi Note 11 is a comparable total package for just half the price of a Reno8 Lite 5G.

Price and availability

The Oppo Reno8 Lite is available for a recommended retail price of 389 Euros, among others at amazon.de, available.

Oppo Reno8 Lite 5G - 08/30/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
81%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
87%
Connectivity
49 / 70 → 70%
Weight
90%
Battery
91%
Display
90%
Games Performance
33 / 64 → 52%
Application Performance
76 / 86 → 89%
Temperature
94%
Noise
100%
Audio
80 / 90 → 89%
Camera
64%
Average
77%
82%
Smartphone - Weighted Average