Oppo Ace2 vs Realme X50 Pro 5G: A Deep Dive into Two Snapdragon 865 Flagships
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing the fastest possible charging and a slightly more refined wireless charging experience, the Oppo Ace2 emerges as the winner. While both phones offer comparable performance thanks to the Snapdragon 865, the Ace2's 65W wired and 40W wireless charging provide a significant convenience advantage.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Ace2 | Realme X50 Pro 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 - China | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66 - Global |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 41, 78, 79 SA/NSA - China | 1, 3, 5, 7, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA - Global |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| CDMA2000 1xEV-DO | 41, 78, 79 SA/NSA - India | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, April 13. Released 2020, April 20 | 2020, February 24. Released 2020, March 05 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 160 x 75.4 x 8.6 mm (6.30 x 2.97 x 0.34 in) | 159 x 74.2 x 8.9 mm (6.26 x 2.92 x 0.35 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 186 g (6.56 oz) | 205 g (7.23 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~402 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.55 inches, 103.6 cm2 (~85.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.44 inches, 100.1 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10+, 500 nits (typ) | Super AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10+ |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.84 GHz Cortex-A77 & 3x2.42 GHz Cortex-A77 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.84 GHz Cortex-A77 & 3x2.42 GHz Cortex-A77 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G (7 nm+) | Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G (7 nm+) |
| GPU | Adreno 650 | Adreno 650 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7.1 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 11, Realme UI 2.0 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| UFS 3.0 | UFS 3.0 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm, AF Auxiliary lenses | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF 12 MP, f/2.5, 54mm (telephoto), 2x optical zoom, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.3, 13mm (ultrawide), PDAF Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps; gyro-EIS | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 32 MP, f/2.5, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm 8 MP, f/2.2, 17mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.4, 29mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with dual speakers |
| - | 24-bit/192kHz audio | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (G1), BDS (B1I+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5) | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, NavIC |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 65W wired, 100% in 30 min 40W wireless, 100% in 56 min 10W wireless reversed | 65W wired, PD, 100% in 35 min |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | 4200 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Aurora Silver, Moon Rock Grey, Fantasy Purple | Moss Green, Rust Red |
| Models | PDHM00 | RMX2075, RMX2071, RMX2076 |
| Price | About 520 EUR | About 360 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 90h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -23.2 LUFS (Very good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 592447 (v8) GeekBench: 3175 (v5.1) GFXBench: 45fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Ace2
- Faster 65W wired charging (30 minutes)
- 40W wireless charging support
- 10W reverse wireless charging
- Potentially more refined software experience (Oppo's ColorOS)
- Battery capacity not specified
- Camera specs largely unknown
Realme X50 Pro 5G
- Strong 90h battery endurance rating
- 65W wired charging with PD support
- High peak display brightness (635 nits)
- Potentially more affordable price point
- Slower charging time (35 minutes)
- No wireless charging support
Display Comparison
Both devices utilize high refresh rate displays, though specific refresh rate data isn't provided. The Realme X50 Pro 5G boasts a measured peak brightness of 635 nits, suggesting a vibrant viewing experience in most conditions. While the Oppo Ace2's display specs are not detailed, it's reasonable to assume similar brightness levels given its flagship positioning. Contrast ratio is listed as infinite (nominal) for the Realme X50 Pro 5G, typical for AMOLED panels. Without PWM dimming rate data, it's difficult to assess potential eye strain differences.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature capable camera systems, but detailed specifications are limited to 'Photo / Video' for both. Without sensor size, aperture, or OIS details, a direct comparison is challenging. The absence of information suggests neither phone prioritizes groundbreaking camera innovation. It's likely both rely on Qualcomm's ISP for image processing. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on either device is likely a marketing feature with limited real-world utility.
Performance
At the heart of both the Oppo Ace2 and Realme X50 Pro 5G lies the Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G (7 nm+). Both utilize the same octa-core CPU configuration: 1x2.84 GHz Cortex-A77, 3x2.42 GHz Cortex-A77, and 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A55. This means raw processing power will be virtually identical. However, thermal management – not specified in the data – could lead to differing sustained performance levels under heavy load. The 7nm+ process node is efficient, but prolonged gaming or video encoding could still induce throttling. RAM specifications are missing, but both likely employ LPDDR5 for fast memory access.
Battery Life
The Realme X50 Pro 5G claims an endurance rating of 90 hours, indicating strong battery life. The Oppo Ace2's battery capacity is not specified, but its charging capabilities are a standout feature. Both support 65W wired charging, achieving a 100% charge in 35 minutes for the Realme X50 Pro 5G and 30 minutes for the Oppo Ace2 – a noticeable difference. The Ace2 further distinguishes itself with 40W wireless charging (56 minutes to full) and 10W reverse wireless charging, features absent in the Realme X50 Pro 5G.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Ace2 if you need the absolute fastest charging speeds, both wired and wireless, and value the convenience of reverse wireless charging. This phone is ideal for power users who frequently top up their devices throughout the day. Buy the Realme X50 Pro 5G if you prioritize a potentially longer battery life based on its 90h endurance rating and are comfortable with a slightly slower charging experience. It's a strong contender for users who want a solid flagship experience without breaking the bank.