Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
MagyarOppo Reno3 Pro智能手机评测：四摄中端机
Comparison devices
Bewertung | Rating Version | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 08 / 2020 | Oppo Reno3 Pro SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 171 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83.8 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 03 / 2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
| 82.8 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 02 / 2020 | Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18 | 199 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 84.1 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 171 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 601 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.84 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 5.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.276
| Oppo Reno3 Pro AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -107% | -18% | 1% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 8 ? | 8 ? -0% | 10 ? -25% | 8 ? -0% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 6 ? | 24 ? -300% | 6 ? -0% | 6 ? -0% |
| PWM Frequency | 328.9 | 255 -22% | 229.4 -30% | 337.8 3% |
| Screen | 4% | -21% | 6% | |
| Brightness middle | 601 | 579 -4% | 510 -15% | 774 29% |
| Brightness | 574 | 576 0% | 536 -7% | 778 36% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 89 -2% | 91 0% | 95 4% |
| Black Level * | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.84 | 4.61 5% | 6.6 -36% | 5.28 -9% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.26 | 7.72 7% | 17.56 -113% | 8.55 -4% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.2 | 4.2 19% | 2.9 44% | 6.2 -19% |
| Gamma | 2.276 97% | 2.244 98% | 2.242 98% | 2.292 96% |
| CCT | 7164 91% | 7201 90% | 6989 93% | 7319 89% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -52% /
-33% | -20% /
-20% | 4% /
4% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 328.9 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 328.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 328.9 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8687 - 11041, n=16) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (13 - 23, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (12 - 24, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 261, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8.8 - 15, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 119, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (5.3 - 13, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 104, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Reno3 Pro | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite | Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -38% | -24% | 1% | -9% | 121% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 967 | 499.2 -48% | 777 -20% | 961 -1% | 826 ? -15% | 1834 ? 90% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 471.6 | 205.1 -57% | 190.8 -60% | 476.3 1% | 358 ? -24% | 1426 ? 202% |
| Random Read 4KB | 153.1 | 119.2 -22% | 132 -14% | 159.1 4% | 166.6 ? 9% | 278 ? 82% |
| Random Write 4KB | 146.7 | 108.5 -26% | 142 -3% | 145 -1% | 141.5 ? -4% | 310 ? 111% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.9 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.3 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Oppo Reno3 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 71.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 71.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 71.1% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (122.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 90% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Oppo Reno3 Pro 4025 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro 5260 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10 Lite 4500 mAh | Oppo Reno3 Pro 5G 4025 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 893 | 1112 25% | 904 1% | 876 -2% | 982 ? 10% |
Pros
Cons
总结——配置高：
Oppo Reno3 Pro的4G版本也是一个不错的选择，尤其是它比5G版本提供更多的内存，但价格相似。 凭借90 Hz的显示屏，时尚的外壳，纤细的机身，合理的续航和出色的相机，我们绝对可以推荐这款中端设备。
那些重视高端功能（如极限性能，WiFi 6、60 Hz的4K视频或eSIM）的人将不得不在较高的价格范围内重新寻找，而对中端功能满意的人则可以节省几百欧元，并且仍然可以获得功能强大的设备。
Oppo Reno3 Pro是功能强大且配置齐全的中端设备。
很难确定真正缺点，充其量，ColorOS偶尔偶尔有些不好用或仍然有未翻译的界面，不过很少引起注意。
Oppo Reno3 Pro
-
09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
