Test: Oppo Reno4 Z 5G - 5G-telefon med bra huvudkamera (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Bewertung | Rating Version | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80.7 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 01/2021 | Oppo Reno4 Z 5G Dimensity 800, Mali-G57 MP4 | 184 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.57" | 2400x1080 | |
| 82.1 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 12/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619 | 215 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80.1 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 01/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A42 5G SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619 | 193 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 1600x720 | |
| 80 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 08/2020 | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus SD 765, Adreno 620 | 207 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Hauptobjektiv BlumeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low LightUltraweitwinkel
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 88 %
Mitt på batteriet: 462 cd/m²
Kontrast: 797:1 (Svärta: 0.58 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.83 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.227
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A42 5G AMOLED, 1600x720, 6.6" | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -36% | 68% | 1% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 42 ? | 52 ? -24% | 10 ? 76% | 34 ? 19% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 22 ? | 32.4 ? -47% | 9 ? 59% | 26 ? -18% |
| PWM Frequency | 2358 ? | 242.7 | ||
| Screen | 34% | 26% | 33% | |
| Brightness middle | 462 | 606 31% | 466 1% | 461 0% |
| Brightness | 439 | 574 31% | 462 5% | 458 4% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 89 1% | 85 -3% | 93 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.58 | 0.44 24% | 0.52 10% | |
| Contrast | 797 | 1377 73% | 887 11% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.83 | 2.4 50% | 2.06 57% | 1.01 79% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.1 | 5.3 35% | 6.14 24% | 2.1 74% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.3 | 4.5 29% | 1.8 71% | 1.5 76% |
| Gamma | 2.227 99% | 2.21 100% | 2.105 105% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 7556 86% | 6224 104% | 6444 101% | 6701 97% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -1% /
20% | 47% /
36% | 17% /
26% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (9674 - 9959, n=2) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (7511 - 8315, n=2) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (20 - 21, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 247, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (22 - 22, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 261, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (12 - 13, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 119, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 800 (8.2 - 8.2, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 104, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G | Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G | Samsung Galaxy A42 5G | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 50% | 48% | -3% | 14% | 245% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 935 | 938 0% | 963 3% | 885 -5% | 760 ? -19% | 1847 ? 98% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 201 | 463.5 131% | 476 137% | 180.2 -10% | 297 ? 48% | 1436 ? 614% |
| Random Read 4KB | 125.2 | 176.6 41% | 168.5 35% | 138.1 10% | 152.9 ? 22% | 277 ? 121% |
| Random Write 4KB | 125.7 | 162.3 29% | 147.7 18% | 119.3 -5% | 131.6 ? 5% | 308 ? 145% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 87 ? | 86.3 ? | 87.1 ? | 76 ? | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 65.8 ? | 67.7 ? | 65.7 ? | 59.6 ? |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.9 °C / 116 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 46.3 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.9 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 60% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A42 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 68.5% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 68.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 68.5% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (114.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 10% 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, 1% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Oppo Reno4 Z 5G 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10T Lite 5G 4820 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A42 5G 5000 mAh | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus 5000 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 903 | 1096 21% | 967 7% | 914 1% | 985 ? 9% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Välutrustad, men inte för alla
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G har en 120 Hz-skärm trots ett pris som ligger strax under 3.000 kronor, men skärmen är inte särskilt ljusstark och behöver komma ifatt en del i fråga om färgprecision. Huvudkameran tar skapliga bilder men de övriga kameralinserna är antingen inte till för att ta foton eller ger medelmåttig kvalitet. Således är Oppo Reno4 Z 5G bra om du värderar en bra huvudkamera högt men inte är så noggrann med flexibilitet.
Batteriet har relativt låg kapacitet, vilket gör telefonen lätt och påverkar ändå inte batteritiden särskilt mycket. Det gör heller inget att laddaren inte är särskilt kraftfull. Oppo har tydligen optimerat bra på den punkten.
Oppo Reno4 Z är en billig 5G-telefon med en bra huvudkamera.
Prestandan ligger på den nivå man förväntar sig från den här klassen och önskar man en fysisk fingeravtrycksläsare får man valuta för pengarna.
Höljet känns inte särskilt motståndskraftigt, vilket är irriterande, och det går onekligen att få ännu snabbare WiFi på andra enheter. Huruvida Oppo Reno4 Z 5G är ett bra val beror på dina krav. Men den har definitivt en del fördelar, såsom mycket arbetsminne, och har även i övrigt bra utrustning.
Oppo Reno4 Z 5G
- 01/02/2021 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
