Breve Análise do Smartphone Oppo Reno2: Desempenho fraco de câmera
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 81.2 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Oppo Reno2 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 189 g | 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83.3 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.8 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | OnePlus 7T SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.2 % v6 (old) | 07/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A80 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 220 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.7 % v7 (old) | 07/2019 | LG G8s ThinQ SD 855, Adreno 640 | 181 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.20" | 2248x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 98 %
iluminação com acumulador: 679 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
| Oppo Reno2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | OnePlus 7T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Samsung Galaxy A80 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | LG G8s ThinQ P-OLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -9% | 6% | -9% | -2% | |
| Brightness middle | 679 | 625 -8% | 693 2% | 478 -30% | 539 -21% |
| Brightness | 683 | 607 -11% | 703 3% | 486 -29% | 556 -19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 98 | 89 -9% | 96 -2% | 96 -2% | 88 -10% |
| Black Level * | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.5 | 4.38 -25% | 3.42 2% | 2.97 15% | 3.78 -8% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.8 | 6.83 -0% | 6.12 10% | 10.18 -50% | 6.95 -2% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 4.1 2% | 3.3 21% | 2.5 40% | 2.2 48% |
| Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.251 98% | 2.265 97% | 2.031 108% | 2.274 97% |
| CCT | 6532 100% | 7251 90% | 6799 96% | 6533 99% | 6013 108% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 260.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 260.4 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 260.4 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 11 % 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 | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=84, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4134 - 34246, n=84, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 28121, n=61, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (8941 - 10200, n=7) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (7134 - 8683, n=7) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (25 - 39, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (41 - 42, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (16 - 29, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (30 - 30, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (251673 - 275660, n=6) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (45.8 - 50.6, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (79.2 - 87.7, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chome 76) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chome 75) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (40.4 - 44.2, n=6) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (66 - 77, n=6) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (16197 - 17768, n=6) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (2770 - 3054, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Oppo Reno2 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | OnePlus 7T | Samsung Galaxy A80 | LG G8s ThinQ | Average 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 109% | 66% | -5% | 11% | 32% | 587% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 469.3 | 480.5 2% | 1406 200% | 502 7% | 791 69% | 484 ? 3% | 1894 ? 304% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 201.8 | 243.6 21% | 218.4 8% | 190.4 -6% | 182.4 -10% | 203 ? 1% | 1476 ? 631% |
| Random Read 4KB | 144.2 | 106.2 -26% | 170.1 18% | 117.5 -19% | 138 -4% | 131.7 ? -9% | 278 ? 93% |
| Random Write 4KB | 22 | 118.9 440% | 29.9 36% | 21.6 -2% | 29.6 35% | 65.3 ? 197% | 312 ? 1318% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 74.5 ? | 67.5 ? -9% | 74.5 ? 0% | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 53.5 ? | 46.7 ? -13% | 53.5 ? 0% |
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9: Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.5 °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 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.3 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Oppo Reno2 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.34 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.7 / 1.25 / 1.36 Watt |
| Carga |
5.38 / 6.71 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -23% | -33% | 3% | -38% | -25% | -26% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.7 | 0.7 -0% | 0.9 -29% | 0.6 14% | 1.2 -71% | 0.84 ? -20% | 0.883 ? -26% |
| Idle Average * | 1.25 | 1.8 -44% | 1.4 -12% | 1.2 4% | 1.6 -28% | 1.953 ? -56% | 1.467 ? -17% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.36 | 2.2 -62% | 2.9 -113% | 1.4 -3% | 2 -47% | 2.26 ? -66% | 1.621 ? -19% |
| Load Average * | 5.38 | 5.2 3% | 4.7 13% | 5 7% | 5 7% | 4.51 ? 16% | 6.58 ? -22% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.71 | 7.5 -12% | 8.3 -24% | 7.1 -6% | 10 -49% | 6.63 ? 1% | 9.91 ? -48% |
* ... smaller is better
| Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 51% | 16% | -6% | -11% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2533 | 2134 -16% | 2003 -21% | 1796 -29% | 1689 -33% |
| H.264 | 1125 | 1423 26% | 967 -14% | 902 -20% | 753 -33% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 616 | 1127 83% | 896 45% | 713 16% | 693 13% |
| Load | 185 | 387 109% | 283 53% | 200 8% | 203 10% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Falta um polimento no Oppo Reno2
Nossos sentimentos sobre o Oppo Reno2 são confusos. Por um lado, possui uma aparência premium e o manuseio e o desempenho do hardware durante o uso diário são muito bons. Por outro lado, um olhar mais atento revela uma câmera bastante medíocre, que consiste basicamente em apenas quatro sensores individuais para diferentes cenários e uma duração relativamente curta, apesar da bateria grande. Além disso, os usuários com olhos sensíveis não poderão apreciar a tela por períodos prolongados.
Embora os compradores do Oppo Reno2 não estejam investindo em um telefone ruim, o sistema de câmeras quádruplas não deve ser o fator decisivo.
A câmera selfie Oppo Reno 2, que sobe automaticamente, é um recurso útil que concede aos usuários mais espaço na tela. Como resultado, nem um entalhe nem um furo interrompem o conteúdo exibido. Além disso, a câmera frontal tira fotos muito boas e até tira os holofotes da câmera principal. Assim, é aconselhável que compradores em potencial considerem suas expectativas pessoais para ver se estão alinhados com os pontos fortes e fracos do Reno2, a fim de evitar decepções no final.
Oppo Reno2
- 09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Mike Wobker
Price comparison
