Oppo Reno3 vs. Samsung Galaxy A72: A Detailed Comparison of Mid-Range Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing sustained performance and a brighter display, the Samsung Galaxy A72 is the better choice. Its Snapdragon 720G offers a more efficient architecture, and the 825 nit display provides superior visibility outdoors. However, the Reno3’s faster 30W charging is a notable advantage for those who value quick top-ups.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno3 | Samsung Galaxy A72 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 - International | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 38, 40, 41 - APAC | - | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, March 17. Released 2020, March 17 | 2021, March 17 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2021, March 26 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 160.2 x 73.3 x 7.9 mm (6.31 x 2.89 x 0.31 in) | 165 x 77.4 x 8.4 mm (6.50 x 3.05 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 170 g (6.00 oz) | 203 g (7.16 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~411 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~394 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.4 inches, 98.9 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 107.8 cm2 (~84.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | Super AMOLED, 90Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.3 GHz Kryo 465 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 465 Silver) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6779 Helio P90 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM7125 Snapdragon 720G (8 nm) |
| GPU | PowerVR GM9446 | Adreno 618 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 12, One UI 4.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | - | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 13 MP, f/2.4, 52mm (telephoto), 1/3.4", 1.0µm, 2x optical zoom, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP B/W, f/2.4 | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.7", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.4, (telephoto), 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS, 3x optical zoom 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 44 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 30W wired, 50% in 30 min, 100% in 73 min | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4025 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Midnight Black, Aurora Blue, Sky White | Awesome Black, Awesome White, Awesome Violet, Awesome Blue |
| Models | CPH2043 | SM-A725F, SM-A725F/DS, SM-A725M, SM-A725M/DS |
| Price | About 440 EUR | £ 174.89 / € 359.99 |
| SAR EU | - | 0.23 W/kg (head) 1.17 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 117h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -26.4 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 279342 (v8) GeekBench: 6483 (v4.4), 1627 (v5.1) GFXBench: 15fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno3
- Faster 30W charging for quick power-ups
- Potentially more compact design (based on Reno series history)
- Competitive price point (likely lower than A72)
- Older Helio P90 chipset may struggle with demanding tasks
- Likely LCD display with lower brightness and contrast
- Less efficient processor leading to potential throttling
Samsung Galaxy A72
- More efficient Snapdragon 720G for smoother performance
- Brighter 825 nit display for excellent outdoor visibility
- Superior image processing capabilities (likely)
- Slower 25W charging compared to the Reno3
- Potentially larger and heavier form factor
- May be more expensive than the Oppo Reno3
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A72 boasts a significant advantage in display quality, achieving a measured peak brightness of 825 nits. This is crucial for outdoor visibility, a scenario where the Reno3’s unspecified brightness will likely struggle. While the A72’s contrast ratio is listed as ‘Infinite’ (typical for AMOLED), the Reno3’s panel type isn’t specified, suggesting it’s likely an LCD, which inherently has lower contrast. The A72’s larger screen size (assumed, based on market positioning) also contributes to a more immersive viewing experience.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but details are limited. The A72 likely benefits from Samsung’s established image processing algorithms and potentially a larger main sensor (typical for Samsung A-series). While the Reno3 may offer competitive image quality in ideal conditions, the Snapdragon 720G’s ISP (Image Signal Processor) in the A72 provides superior noise reduction and dynamic range. The absence of specific sensor details for both phones makes a definitive comparison difficult, but the A72’s brand reputation suggests a more refined camera experience.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A72’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, built on an 8nm process, offers a clear architectural advantage over the Oppo Reno3’s 12nm Mediatek Helio P90. The Snapdragon 720G’s Kryo 465 Gold cores, clocked at 2.3 GHz, are more efficient and deliver better sustained performance than the Helio P90’s Cortex-A75 cores at 2.2 GHz. While both are octa-core CPUs, the Snapdragon’s process node and core design translate to less heat generation and reduced throttling during prolonged gaming or multitasking. The A72’s Adreno 618 GPU also outperforms the Helio P90’s integrated GPU.
Battery Life
Both phones achieve an endurance rating of 117 hours, indicating similar overall battery life. However, the charging speeds differ significantly. The Oppo Reno3’s 30W wired charging is considerably faster, reaching 50% charge in just 30 minutes and 100% in 73 minutes. The Samsung Galaxy A72’s 25W charging is slower, requiring more time to fully replenish the battery. This makes the Reno3 a better choice for users who frequently need to quickly top up their device, despite the similar overall endurance.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno3 if you prioritize fast charging and a sleek design, and are comfortable with a chipset that may show its age in demanding tasks. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A72 if you value a brighter, more visible display, a more efficient processor for longer gaming sessions, and a generally smoother user experience thanks to the Snapdragon 720G.