Oppo Reno4 F vs. Google Pixel 4a 5G: A Detailed Comparison of Mid-Range 5G Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Google Pixel 4a 5G emerges as the stronger choice. Its Snapdragon 765G chipset, built on a more efficient 7nm process, provides a noticeable performance advantage and superior thermal management compared to the Reno4 F’s Helio P95. While both offer 18W charging, the Pixel’s software experience and camera capabilities further solidify its position.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno4 F | Google Pixel 4a 5G |
| 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, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 66, 71 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 28, 41, 66, 71, 77, 78 Sub6, mmWave (market dependant) |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, October 10. Released 2020, October 16 | 2020, September 30 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, November 05 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 160.1 x 73.8 x 7.5 mm (6.30 x 2.91 x 0.30 in) | 153.9 x 74 x 8.2 mm (Sub-6) or 8.5 mm (Sub-6 and mmWave) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM |
| Weight | 164 g (5.78 oz) | 168 g (5G Sub-6); 171 g ( 5G Sub-6 and mmWave) (5.93 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~413 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~84.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.2 inches, 95.7 cm2 (~84.1% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 430 nits (typ), 800 nits (peak) | OLED, HDR |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6779V Helio P95 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | PowerVR GM9446 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7.2 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 14 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 12.2 MP, f/1.7, 27mm (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 16 MP, f/2.2, 107˚ (ultrawide), 1.0µm |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, Pixel Shift, Auto-HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚, 16mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 16 MP, f/2.4, (wide), 1/3.09", 1.0µm 2 MP, f/2.4, (depth) | - |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | - | 8 MP, f/2.0, 24mm (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, QZSS, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 3.1 |
| 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 (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 18W wired, PD2.0 |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | Li-Po 3885 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Matte Black, Metallic White | Just Black, Clearly White |
| Models | SPH2209 | GD1YQ, G025I, G025E, G025H, G6QU3 |
| Price | About 250 EUR | About 140 EUR |
Oppo Reno4 F
- Potentially lower price point
- May offer a more compact form factor (specifications unavailable)
- Oppo’s ColorOS offers customization options
- Less powerful and efficient Helio P95 chipset
- Likely inferior camera performance
- Less frequent software updates
Google Pixel 4a 5G
- More powerful and efficient Snapdragon 765G chipset
- Superior camera quality with Google’s computational photography
- Clean Android experience with guaranteed updates
- USB-PD 2.0 charging support
- Slightly higher price
- Larger form factor may not suit all users
- No expandable storage
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. Both likely utilize IPS LCD panels, a common choice in this price bracket. However, the Reno4 F’s display specifications are not provided, making a direct comparison difficult. The Pixel 4a 5G’s 6.7-inch display is larger, which benefits media consumption. The Snapdragon 765G’s ISP likely supports better display calibration, potentially leading to more accurate colors on the Pixel. Without knowing the Reno4 F’s panel characteristics, it’s difficult to assess its brightness or color gamut.
Camera Comparison
While both phones likely feature multi-camera setups, the Pixel 4a 5G benefits from Google’s renowned computational photography expertise. The Snapdragon 765G’s ISP is a key enabler of this, allowing for faster image processing and superior noise reduction. The Reno4 F’s camera specifications are not detailed enough to make a precise comparison, but it’s unlikely to match the Pixel’s image quality, particularly in low-light conditions. Google’s software algorithms excel at dynamic range and detail preservation, offering a more consistent and pleasing photographic experience. The Pixel’s camera is a clear advantage.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Google Pixel 4a 5G’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, fabricated on a 7nm process, is significantly more efficient and powerful than the Oppo Reno4 F’s MediaTek Helio P95 (12nm). The Snapdragon 765G’s Kryo CPU architecture – with a prime core clocked at 2.4GHz – offers superior single-core performance, crucial for responsive app launches and smooth multitasking. The Helio P95’s Cortex-A75 cores, while capable, are older and less efficient. The 7nm process of the Snapdragon also translates to better thermal management, reducing the likelihood of performance throttling during sustained workloads like gaming. The Pixel 4a 5G will demonstrably outperform the Reno4 F in demanding applications.
Battery Life
Both devices feature 18W wired charging, but the Pixel 4a 5G adds support for USB Power Delivery (PD2.0), offering potentially faster and more efficient charging with compatible chargers. Battery capacity isn’t specified for the Reno4 F, but given the less efficient Helio P95 chipset, it will likely need a larger battery to achieve comparable battery life to the Pixel 4a 5G. The Snapdragon 765G’s 7nm process contributes to lower power consumption, meaning the Pixel 4a 5G can deliver all-day battery life for moderate users, despite its larger display.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno4 F if you prioritize a slightly lower initial cost and are primarily focused on everyday tasks like social media, browsing, and light multimedia consumption. Buy the Google Pixel 4a 5G if you value smoother performance, a cleaner Android experience with guaranteed updates, and a more capable camera system, even if it means spending a bit more upfront.