Oppo Find X5 Lite评论。光学伪装的中档智能手机

Name: Oppo Find X5 Lite
Brand: Oppo

有点失之交臂。

与Oppo Find X5 Pro一样，Find X5 Lite也旨在通过快速的OLED显示屏、人工智能和快速充电时间来争取价格敏感型买家的青睐。然而，在某些方面，Oppo手机在这个价格范围内落后于竞争对手。

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), Published 05/30/2022 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

5G Android Smartphone

建议零售价为629.99美元。奥普Find X5 Lite是该系列中最实惠的机型兴发娱乐官网手机版系列中最实惠的机型。虽然没有哈苏品牌的兴发xf187在线娱乐虽然没有哈苏品牌，但这款中端智能手机提供了这款中档智能手机提供了一些令人兴奋的功能，如AI高光视频、激光直接成像和65瓦的SuperVOOC快速充电。

重达173克的Find X5 Lite使用了一个联发科Dimensity 900，由8GB内存和256GB存储空间支持。此外，这家中国制造商还安装了一个6.43英寸、90赫兹的快速AMOLED显示屏，其峰值亮度应该达到800尼特。

Test device courtesy of Oppo Germany

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Oppo Find X5 Lite (Find X5 Series)

Processor

MediaTek Dimensity 900 8 x 2 - 2.4 GHz, Cortex-A78 / A55

Graphics adapter

ARM Mali-G68 MP4

Memory

8 GB

Display

6.43 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, capacitive Touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, HDR, 90 Hz

Storage

256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash, 256 GB

, 226 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: 3,5 mm jack, Card Reader: microSD slot up to 1TB, 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/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/), Bluetooth 5.2, GSM: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz; WCDMA: Bänder 1/2/4/5/6/8/19; FDD-LTE: Bänder 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/17/18/19/20/26/28/66 (UL: 1710 MHz–1780 MHz, DL: 2110 MHz–2180 MHz ), TD-LTE: Bänder 38/39/40/41; 5G SA: 1/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/40/41/78 5G NSA: 1/3/5/7/8/20/28/38/40/41/66/77/78, Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 7.81 x 160.6 x 73.2

Battery

4500 mAh Lithium-Ion

Charging

fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 11

Camera

Primary Camera: 64 MPix (f/1.7; 80,5°; 6P) + 8 MP (f/2,25; 118,9°; 5P) + 2 MP (Makro), camera API: Level 3; Videos @2160p/30fps (max)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.4; 85°; 5P)

Additional features

Speakers: Mono, charger, USB cable, case, ColorOS 12, 24 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR value - 0.855W/kg Head, 1.134W/kg Body, GNSS: GPS (L1), Galileo (E1), GLONASS, BeiDou, SBAS, fanless

Weight

173 g, Power Supply: 121 g

Price

499 Euro

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

潜在的竞争对手比较

Rating	Date	Model	Weight	Drive	Size	Resolution
83.7 % v7 ^(old)	05 / 2022	Oppo Find X5 Lite Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4	173 g	256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	6.43"	2400x1080
85 % v7 ^(old)	05 / 2022	Realme GT 2 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660	199.8 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.62"	2400x1080
88.1 % v7 ^(old)	03 / 2022	Xiaomi 12X SD 870, Adreno 650	176 g	256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.28"	2400x1080
85.3 % v7 ^(old)	02 / 2022	Motorola Moto G200 5G SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660	202 g	128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	6.80"	2460x1080
85.1 % v7 ^(old)	10 / 2021	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L	189 g	128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6.50"	2400x1080

案例。带冲孔的Oppo智能手机

虽然Oppo手机处于中上水平，但由康宁大猩猩5号玻璃保护的OLED面板周围的边缘却相当宽。下巴尤其突出。用数字表示：显示屏只占正面的84.9%，因此属于低价中档手机的范畴。
做工精良的Find X5 Lite的感觉更相当于一部250美元的智能手机，而不是一部由于塑料框架和塑料背面而导致建议零售价为629.99美元的设备。我们的评测样品的背面被证明很容易凹陷，这一说法得到了进一步的证实。OPPO手机的外壳也没有经过防尘或防水认证。

尺寸比较

硬件。配备UFS 2.2的Find X5 Lite

内部UFS存储的容量为256GB，而由于操作系统和一系列预装的应用程序，实际可用的存储空间明显低于226GB。除了具有USB 2.0功能的Type-C端口外，Oppo智能手机还有Miracast和USB OTG。MicroSD卡也可以存储在Find X5 Lite中，而不必放弃双SIM卡的功能。

微型SD卡读卡器

通过我们的AV PRO V60参考存储卡，我们仔细观察了存储槽的速度。CPDT基准测试和我们的JPEG复制测试的结果都证明了体面的性能水平。

SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Angelbird V60)	52.4 MB/s +21%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)	43.43 MB/s

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø30.3 (21.2-43.6)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø25.9 (16.8-37.8)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø74.1 (29.2-80.1)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø71.8 (50.1-75.6)

软件。采用ColorOS的Oppo智能手机

与之相比发现X5和Find X5 Pro，X5 Lite不得不使用Android 11的ColorOS 12。在审查时，11_A._13版本仍有2022年3月的安全补丁。计划在2022年中期更新到Android 12。

通信和GNSS: 配备5G的Find X5 Lite

对于家庭无线网络，Find X5 Lite覆盖所有与德语国家相关的LTE频率。提供WiFi 6，与我们的华硕ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000参考路由器结合使用时，其传输速率在峰值时足以达到约530 MBit/s。测得的传输速率不是很高，特别是考虑到支持的ax标准。集团兄弟 realme GT2在这里的表现明显更好，但数值仍处于坚实的水平。

Oppo使用5G标准和蓝牙5.2作为通信模块。一个用于近场通信和谷歌支付的NFC芯片也在其中。Find X5 Lite还支持接入总共20个LTE频段，并覆盖与德语国家相关的所有LTE频率。

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	799 (777^min - 812^max) MBit/s +73%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	736 (644^min - 826^max) MBit/s +59%
Average of class Smartphone (34.8 - 1875, n=191, last 2 years)	711 MBit/s +54%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	463 (235^min - 476^max) MBit/s
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	909 (846^min - 929^max) MBit/s +78%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	745 (391^min - 809^max) MBit/s +46%
Average of class Smartphone (40.5 - 1810, n=193, last 2 years)	725 MBit/s +42%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	511 (497^min - 527^max) MBit/s
iperf3 transmit AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	864 (759^min - 906^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	461 (433^min - 470^max) MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	836 (809^min - 863^max) MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	425 (413^min - 432^max) MBit/s

Oppo Find X5 Lite; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø454 (235-476)

Oppo Find X5 Lite; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø511 (497-527)

为了能够确定Oppo中档智能手机在实践中的定位精度，我们还用Garmin Venu 2记录了一条路线进行比较。在5公里路线的终点，偏差总共只有50米。然而，图表历史显示了Find X5 Lite的一两个不准确之处，尤其是在改变方向时。

电话和语音质量。配备双SIM卡的Find X5 Lite

OPPO的双SIM卡智能手机支持VoLTE，也可以通过国内WLAN（WiFi通话）进行通话。语音质量是正常的，内置的麦克风可以在很短的距离内向我们的对话伙伴清晰地传达语音。通过内置的前置摄像头、扬声器和Skype进行的视频通话也没有任何问题。即使在1米远的地方，用户仍然可以清楚地听到和看到。

照相机。OPPO智能手机配备三合一摄像头

3200万像素的前置摄像头位于屏幕左上角的一个冲孔中。自拍提供了良好的清晰度和体面的色彩保真度。人像模式下的虚化效果也没有什么可批评的。另一方面，视频质量不理想（没有UHD选项）。

背面的长方形相机模块配备了一个64MP的主摄像头，其中还有一个8MP的超广角镜头和一个微距镜头。据报道，Find X5 Lite使用的是Omnivision OVB64B，它以像素分档的方式工作，拥有16MP和1.4μm的超级像素。

用Oppo手机在白天拍摄的照片有很好的清晰度，即使在照片的边缘，也有真实的色彩再现。我们用ColorChecker护照进行分析，也发现与实际参考颜色相比，偏差相对较小。然而，Find X5 Lite的动态范围和白平衡仅令人满意。尽管Find X5 Lite拥有f/1.7的开放光圈，但低光质量也是如此。

由于缺少长焦镜头，这款Oppo手机不是一款适合变焦拍摄的智能手机。考虑到Find X5 Lite的价格，用超广角相机拍摄的照片也不尽如人意。特别是图像清晰度和对比度显示可以做得更好，而且分辨率也相当低。

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.

Weitwinkel Weitwinkel Low Light Ultraweitwinkel 5x Zoom

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images

配件和保修。发现X5 Lite，带充电器

Oppo为其中档智能手机配备了一个65瓦的电源，一条USB线和一个保护罩。交货时还在屏幕上贴了一层保护膜。

在德国，保修期为自购买之日起24个月。这在其他国家和地区可能有所不同。

输入设备和操作。带FaceUnlock的Oppo Find X5 Lite

由于刷新率高达90赫兹，即使是快速滚动的段落也能流畅地显示。采样率为120赫兹的电容式多点触控屏可以快速准确地识别输入，甚至可以用多达5个手指操作。此外，对于特殊应用（如游戏），双指操作的屏幕采样率为180赫兹。

OLED面板下的光学指纹传感器不是市场上最快的，但该传感器能可靠地识别手指。该机还配备了一个有点不可靠的2D FaceUnlock功能。

显示屏。采用OLED的Oppo智能手机

Find X5 Lite有一个6.43英寸的OLED面板，长宽比为20:9，刷新率为90赫兹，分辨率为FHD+，使其具有超过400ppi的高像素密度。

屏幕亮度处于稳定的水平，最大为583cd/m²，但竞争对手在这里要亮得多。即使是一个Redmi Note 11，比Find X5 Lite便宜得多，它的6.43英寸OLED面板也很亮眼。在我们的APL18测量中，该值为764 cd/m²，这对于令人印象深刻的HDR体验来说可能太少了。

对于亮度控制，Oppo手机使用PWM，频率相当高，从168到413赫兹，只要亮度被调到56%以下。在此之上，我们测量到90赫兹的闪烁，但随着时间的推移，波动变得相当小。


581 cd/m²	575 cd/m²	583 cd/m²
585 cd/m²	579 cd/m²	585 cd/m²
587 cd/m²	581 cd/m²	590 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 590 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 582.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3

	Oppo Find X5 Lite AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4"	Realme GT 2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6"	Xiaomi 12X OLED, 2400x1080, 6.3"	Motorola Moto G200 5G IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.8"	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5"
Screen		20%	53%	-9%	22%
Brightness middle	579	759 31%	910 57%	512 -12%	736 27%
Brightness	583	756 30%	908 56%	488 -16%	751 29%
Brightness Distribution	97	98 1%	97 0%	87 -10%	96 -1%
Black Level *				0.36
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	3	2.14 29%	0.8 73%	3.42 -14%	2.18 27%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	6.5	5.68 13%	1.8 72%	5.9 9%	5.69 12%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.4	2.8 18%	1.3 62%	3.7 -9%	2.1 38%
Gamma	2.3 ^96%	2.16 ^102%	2.25 ^98%	7154 ^0%	2.27 ^97%
CCT	6476 ^100%	6517 ^100%	6414 ^101%	1.944 ^334362%	6563 ^99%
Contrast				1422

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

412.9 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 412.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 412.9 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 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

在固定的变焦水平和不同的亮度设置下进行的一系列测量

我们对光谱仪和CalMAN软件的分析显示，与sRGB色彩空间的平均delta E偏差相对较低。除了两个测试配置文件外，还可以在设置菜单中调整色温。

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
1.905 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 0.9905 ms rise
1.905 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 0.914 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. » 7 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
2.662 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 1.39 ms rise
2.662 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 1.272 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms).

在户外使用时，Oppo手机给人以体面的印象。然而，应避免阳光直射和反射。那些停用自动亮度控制的人不得不忍受407cd/m²和降低的可读性。
OLED面板的可视角度非常好，从侧面看时，亮度的降低也是最小的。

性能。配备联发科SoC的Find X5 Lite

OPPO使用的是联发科Dimensity 900用于其中档手机，它结合了两个强大的Cortex-A78处理核心（2.4 GHz）和六个经济的Cortex-A55核心（2.0 GHz）。A 马里-G68 MP4已被集成为图形单元，这确保了去年的奥普一代在我们的游戏测试中。

Find X5 Lite的系统速度非常好。在日常使用中，操作很顺畅，几乎不发生卡顿。然而，在这个价格范围内，性能相当低于平均水平。在我们的基准测量中，其数值既没有跟上骁龙778G中的三星Galaxy A52s 5G的性能，也赶不上骁龙870 5G中的小米12X.13GB的内存也无济于事。Find X5 Lite使用8GB的固定内存和高达5GB的虚拟内存，这些内存被保留在闪存上用于数据存储。

那些没有在设置菜单中激活性能模式的人也不得不忍受SoC约10%的节流。我们的基准测试包是在最大性能下完成的。这里应该指出的是，Oppo在Find X5 Lite上取得的结果比我们数据库中Dimensity 900智能手机的平均值高3-11%。

Geekbench 5.5
Single-Core
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	1130 Points +52%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	1076 Points +44%
Average of class Smartphone (126 - 2437, n=175, last 2 years)	1040 Points +40%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	1000 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	771 Points +3%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	745 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (693 - 747, n=5)	725 Points -3%
Multi-Core
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	3477 Points +53%
Average of class Smartphone (473 - 8816, n=175, last 2 years)	3474 Points +53%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	3377 Points +49%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	3286 Points +45%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	2808 Points +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	2266 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (2062 - 2266, n=5)	2153 Points -5%

Antutu v9 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (99654 - 2056989, n=104, last 2 years)	810694 Points +70%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	794271 Points +66%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	714406 Points +50%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	477831 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (424921 - 477831, n=4)	447053 Points -6%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	438254 Points -8%

PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	18567 Points +71%
Average of class Smartphone (4609 - 27169, n=197, last 2 years)	13174 Points +21%
Realme GT 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G, Adreno 660, 12288	12804 Points +18%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	12625 Points +16%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	11778 Points +8%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	10863 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (8055 - 12444, n=6)	9793 Points -10%

CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone (187 - 2485, n=165, last 2 years)	917 Points +85%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	719 Points +45%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (497 - 625, n=3)	576 Points +16%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	497 Points

BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 12993, n=159, last 2 years)	6470 Points +42%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	5711 Points +25%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	5551 Points +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	4567 Points
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	4349 Points -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (3817 - 4567, n=4)	4075 Points -11%
System
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 17953, n=159, last 2 years)	10306 Points +15%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	9089 Points +1%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	9002 Points +1%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	8957 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	8546 Points -5%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (6854 - 8957, n=4)	8250 Points -8%
Memory
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 18911, n=159, last 2 years)	7031 Points +4%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	6784 Points
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	6683 Points -1%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (5292 - 6784, n=4)	5768 Points -15%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	5648 Points -17%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	4269 Points -37%
Graphics
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=159, last 2 years)	17891 Points +277%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	13865 Points +192%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	10386 Points +119%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	6783 Points +43%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	4746 Points
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (3994 - 4746, n=4)	4402 Points -7%
Web
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	1665 Points +8%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2363, n=159, last 2 years)	1575 Points +3%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	1535 Points
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	1519 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	1359 Points -11%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1017 - 1535, n=4)	1291 Points -16%

AImark - Score v2.x
Motorola Moto G200 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192	286905 Points +594%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144	139024 Points +236%
Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G, Adreno 650, 8192	123847 Points +199%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (40983 - 42107, n=4)	41462 Points 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900, Mali-G68 MP4, 8192	41356 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1498 Points +141%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1453 Points +134%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1232 Points +98%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	687 Points +11%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	621 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Extreme
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1564 Points +159%
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1548 Points +156%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	1237 Points +104%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	690 Points +14%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	605 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5896 Points +193%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5711 Points +184%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4304 Points +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2485 Points +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2012 Points

3DMark / Wild Life Score
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5886 Points +188%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5765 Points +182%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4309 Points +111%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2490 Points +22%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2045 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2776 Points
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	2539 Points -9%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5263 Points +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4054 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4250 Points +16%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3675 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5281 Points +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	4864 Points +56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4664 Points +49%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3121 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10875 Points +169%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10436 Points +158%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5591 Points +38%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4043 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	8576 Points +123%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	8234 Points +114%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5355 Points +39%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3843 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4442 Points +52%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2923 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	7241 Points +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	5711 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6352 Points +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	4796 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4967 Points +35%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3675 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	5140 Points +29%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3996 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4444 Points +53%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	2911 Points
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	Points -100%

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	10277 Points +105%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	6559 Points +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	5021 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	14028 Points +134%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	7496 Points +25%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	6005 Points

3DMark / Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	5309 Points +65%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	4563 Points +42%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	3212 Points

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	121 fps +102%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	108 fps +80%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	101 fps +68%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	60 fps

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	171 fps +69%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	161 fps +59%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	132 fps +31%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	101 fps

GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	102 fps +89%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	81 fps +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	69 fps +28%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	54 fps

GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	104 fps +68%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	92 fps +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	77 fps +24%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	62 fps

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	74 fps +106%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	54 fps +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	49 fps +36%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	36 fps

GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	72 fps +71%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	62 fps +48%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	56 fps +33%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	42 fps

GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	45 fps +125%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	35 fps +75%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	28 fps +40%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	20 fps

GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	43 fps +72%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +68%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	33 fps +32%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	25 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +180%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	33 fps +120%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	30 fps +100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	19 fps +27%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	15 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	26 fps +160%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	19 fps +90%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	18 fps +80%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	13 fps +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	10 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	59 fps +157%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	49 fps +113%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	42 fps +83%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	30 fps +30%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	23 fps

GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Realme GT 2 Adreno 660, SD 888 5G, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	70 fps +159%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	50 fps +85%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	39 fps +44%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	34 fps +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	27 fps

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal / Overall Score
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	1019 Points

Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Native
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	43.27 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / OpenGL Medium Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	48.57 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Native
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	39.55 fps

Basemark GPU 1.2 / Vulkan Medium Offscreen
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	45.96 fps

Jetstream 2 | WebXPRT 3 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years)	124.4 Points +61%
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	97.5 Points +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	77.463 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	75.9 Points -2%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	71.8 Points -7%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (50.5 - 77.5, n=4)	58.9 Points -24%

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	151 Points +122%
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years)	150.2 Points +121%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	147 Points +116%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	107 Points +57%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (65 - 71, n=4)	68.3 Points 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	68 Points

Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	40652 Points +33%
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=211, last 2 years)	38432 Points +26%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome 101)	30485 Points
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	28695 Points -6%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	25119 Points -18%
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (2800 - 30485, n=6)	21819 Points -28%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Average MediaTek Dimensity 900 (1658 - 28190, n=5)	7117 ms * -329%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)	1802 ms * -9%
Oppo Find X5 Lite (Chrome101)	1657.65 ms *
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years)	1523 ms * +8%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)	1358 ms * +18%
Xiaomi 12X (Chrome 98.0.4758.101)	1069 ms * +36%

* ... smaller is better

	Oppo Find X5 Lite	Realme GT 2	Xiaomi 12X	Motorola Moto G200 5G	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G	Average 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		34%	32%	24%	-21%	-4%	59%
Sequential Read 256KB	987.54	1914.4 94%	1732 75%	1898 92%	951 -4%	889 ?(482 - 1009, n=33) -10%	1889 ?(226 - 4512, n=198, last 2 years) 91%
Sequential Write 256KB	812.8	776 -5%	795 -2%	712 -12%	486.5 -40%	700 ?(369 - 913, n=33) -14%	1473 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=198, last 2 years) 81%
Random Read 4KB	227.21	283.6 25%	291.9 28%	155.9 -31%	168.2 -26%	227 ?(99.7 - 291, n=33) 0%	278 ?(22.2 - 483, n=198, last 2 years) 22%
Random Write 4KB	221.33	267.3 21%	279.9 26%	322.5 46%	192.5 -13%	239 ?(99.2 - 319, n=33) 8%	312 ?(9.4 - 753, n=198, last 2 years) 41%

排放。奥普智能手机保持冷静

温度

Oppo智能手机的外壳在负载下几乎没有发热。我们还通过3DMark压力测试分析了SoC的温度行为。即使在性能模式下，Find X5 Lite也只是略微节流或根本不节流。

Max. Load

Idle


33.1 °C	32.8 °C	30.5 °C
33.4 °C	32.3 °C	30.8 °C
32.7 °C	32.9 °C	29.9 °C

Maximum: 33.4 °C
Average: 32 °C


30.1 °C	31 °C	31.3 °C
29.9 °C	31.3 °C	32.3 °C
29 °C	29.4 °C	31.4 °C

Maximum: 32.3 °C
Average: 30.6 °C

Power Supply (max.) 26.8 °C | Room Temperature 22 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32 °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 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.7 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	99.8 (12.1^min) %
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	98.9 (14.8^min) % -1%
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	80.4 (27.4^min) % -19%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.8 (17.5^min) % -32%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	99.6 (4.14^min) % 0%
Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash	99.4 (3.54^min) %
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	79 (7.1^min) % -21%
Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash	67.5 (5^min) % -32%

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø3.55 (3.54-3.56)

Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.8.1: Ø6.78 (5-7.42)

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)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø4.14 (4.14-4.15)

Oppo Find X5 Lite Mali-G68 MP4, Dimensity 900, 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø12.1 (12.1-12.1)

Xiaomi 12X Adreno 650, SD 870, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø23.3 (17.5-25.8)

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)

Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø14.8 (14.8-15)

发言人

在日常使用中，单声道扬声器在92分贝的最大音量下表现得很稳定。然而，以629.99美元的建议零售价计算，我们更希望有一个双扬声器系统。正如预期的那样，声音被中频和高频的音调所主导，但特别是中频没有被线性地再现。

内置的3.5毫米插孔可以实现丰富的低音再现，但噪音水平非常明显，信噪比值为58.1。

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Oppo Find X5 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 83% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Xiaomi 12X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% 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, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

电池寿命。配备SUPERVOOC的Oppo Find X5 Lite

消耗功率

电源由两块2250毫安时的电池提供，完全空载时，用65瓦的电源适配器可在38分钟内完成充电。不支持无线充电。

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.07 / 0.23 Watt
Idle	0.85 / 1.83 / 1.93 Watt
Load	3.19 / 4.83 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Oppo Find X5 Lite 4500 mAh	Xiaomi 12X 4500 mAh	Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh	Average MediaTek Dimensity 900	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-25%	-18%	-12%	-14%	-36%
Idle Minimum *	0.85	0.75 12%	0.6 29%	1.2 -41%	0.932 ?(0.78 - 1.13, n=5) -10%	0.883 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=161, last 2 years) -4%
Idle Average *	1.83	1.88 -3%	0.9 51%	1.4 23%	1.794 ?(1.3 - 2.35, n=5) 2%	1.467 ?(0.6 - 4.36, n=161, last 2 years) 20%
Idle Maximum *	1.93	1.94 -1%	1.5 22%	1.7 12%	1.994 ?(1.6 - 2.49, n=5) -3%	1.621 ?(0.83 - 4.46, n=161, last 2 years) 16%
Load Average *	3.19	4.99 -56%	7 -119%	3.6 -13%	3.95 ?(3.19 - 4.5, n=5) -24%	6.58 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=155, last 2 years) -106%
Load Maximum *	4.83	8.66 -79%	8.4 -74%	6.9 -43%	6.43 ?(4.83 - 8.45, n=5) -33%	9.91 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=155, last 2 years) -105%

* ... smaller is better

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900: Ø3.37 (1.018-6.84)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G: Ø5.14 (1.004-10.4)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø3.58 (3.2-5.12)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø5.18 (4-6.32)

Oppo Find X5 Lite MediaTek Dimensity 900; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.22 (1.122-1.33)

Xiaomi 12X Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 5G; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø1.237 (1.126-1.787)

电池寿命

在我们的实际Wi-Fi测试中，在调整后的150cd/m²的显示亮度下，Oppo智能手机在选择90Hz选项的情况下持续了约14.5小时。考虑到小米12X的运行时间小米12X刷新率为120赫兹，Find X5 Lite的耐力是可以接受的。但是，尽管Oppo手机的功耗相对较低，但它并不是一个马拉松选手。

Battery Runtime


WiFi Websurfing (Chrome101)		14h 37min

	Oppo Find X5 Lite 4500 mAh	Realme GT 2 5000 mAh	Xiaomi 12X 4500 mAh	Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3	877	964 10%	1028 17%	905 3%	721 -18%

Pros

+ 快速充电

+ 美丽的90赫兹OLED

+ 几乎没有任何废热

+ 包括电源装置

Cons

- 触觉

- Android 11

- 不具备完整的性能前期工作

- 显示屏边缘较宽

- WLAN可以更快

- 性能低下（对于这个价格范围）。

- 只有单声道声音

对Oppo Find X5 Lite的评判

乍一看，Find X5系列的Lite机型，其厚厚的显示屏边缘看起来更像一部200美元的智能手机，而不是中上阶层的代表。OPPO Find X5 Lite还通过塑料外壳在光学上将自己 "伪装 "成一款低价中档手机。629.99美元的建议零售价主要是由于高达65瓦的极速充电。配套的电源装置包括在交货中，这是一个很大的收获。

MediaTek Dimensity 900 的系统性能在日常使用中绝对令人满意。然而，考虑到强大的竞争，在性能方面仍有改进的余地。该公司的兄弟，realme GT 2 ，明显更强大。如果你不激活相当隐蔽的高性能模式，你会失去系统性能。由于Oppo的中档手机在负载下没有任何发热问题，我们认为系统的节流是一个批评点。

鉴于一些弱点，Find X5 Lite的价格必须大幅下降，以便与强大的中端竞争者相比，总体上成为一个有吸引力的包装。

那些可以不使用5G，并且满足于5G的性能的人，可以使用骁龙680的人将会发现一个非常相似的中端智能手机，那就是 Redmi Note 11，尤其是在显示屏、外观和感觉方面：一款非常相似的中端智能手机，价格甚至不到Oppo Find X5 Lite的一半。另一方面，Oppo智能手机更好的软件支持应该是一个优势。

价格和可用性

在发稿时，Oppo Find X5 Lite通过美国亚马逊销售售价为629.99美元。

Oppo Find X5 Lite - 08/30/2022 v7 ^(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis

80%

Keyboard

66 / 75 → 88%

Pointing Device

87%

Connectivity

54 / 70 → 77%

Weight

90%

Battery

90%

Display

89%

Games Performance

42 / 64 → 65%

Application Performance

86 / 86 → 99%

Temperature

93%

Noise

100%

Audio

79 / 90 → 88%

Camera

65%

Average

79%

84%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Jacob Fisher - Translator - 1431 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2022

Translator: Ninh Ngoc Duy - Editorial Assistant - 471132 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2008

contact me via: Facebook

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Notebookcheck中文版（NBC中国） > 评测 > Oppo Find X5 Lite评论。光学伪装的中档智能手机

Marcus Herbrich, 2022-05-30 (Update: 2022-05-30)

潜在的竞争对手比较

案例。带冲孔的Oppo智能手机

尺寸比较

硬件。配备UFS 2.2的Find X5 Lite

微型SD卡读卡器

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

软件。采用ColorOS的Oppo智能手机

通信和GNSS: 配备5G的Find X5 Lite

电话和语音质量。配备双SIM卡的Find X5 Lite

照相机。OPPO智能手机配备三合一摄像头

配件和保修。发现X5 Lite，带充电器

输入设备和操作。带FaceUnlock的Oppo Find X5 Lite

显示屏。采用OLED的Oppo智能手机

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

性能。配备联发科SoC的Find X5 Lite

排放。奥普智能手机保持冷静

温度

3DMark Wild Life Stress Test

发言人

Oppo Find X5 Lite audio analysis

Xiaomi 12X audio analysis

电池寿命。配备SUPERVOOC的Oppo Find X5 Lite

消耗功率

Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

电池寿命

Pros

Cons

对Oppo Find X5 Lite的评判

价格和可用性

More articles related to this device

Price comparison