Oppo Reno4 F vs. Motorola Moto G 5G Plus: A Detailed 5G Mid-Range Showdown
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus emerges as the stronger choice. Its Snapdragon 765 5G chipset, built on a more efficient 7nm process, provides a noticeable performance advantage and better long-term thermal management compared to the Reno4 F’s Helio P95. While both offer similar battery endurance, the Moto G 5G Plus’s faster 20W charging is a welcome addition.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno4 F | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus |
| 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, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 7, 8, 28, 38, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66 | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, October 10. Released 2020, October 16 | 2020, July 07. Released 2020, July 08 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 160.1 x 73.8 x 7.5 mm (6.30 x 2.91 x 0.30 in) | 168.3 x 74 x 9.7 mm (6.63 x 2.91 x 0.38 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 164 g (5.78 oz) | 207 g (7.30 oz) |
| - | Water-repellent coating | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2520 pixels, 21:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~84.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 104.9 cm2 (~84.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 430 nits (typ), 800 nits (peak) | IPS LCD, 90Hz, HDR10 |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.3 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 765 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | PowerVR GM9446 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7.2 | Android 10 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Dual-LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| 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 | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 5 MP (macro), AF Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 16 MP, f/2.4, (wide), 1/3.09", 1.0µm 2 MP, f/2.4, (depth) | 16 MP, f/2.0, 29mm (normal), 1.0µm 8 MP, f/2.2, 118˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| 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 (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 20W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Matte Black, Metallic White | Surfing Blue, Mystic Lilac |
| Models | SPH2209 | XT2075, XT2075-2, XT2075-3 |
| Price | About 250 EUR | About 260 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 114h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: 1269:1 |
| Loudspeaker | - | -28.4 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 299926 (v8) GeekBench: 1898 (v5.1) GFXBench: 16fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno4 F
- Sleek and stylish design (assumed based on Oppo’s brand image)
- Adequate performance for everyday tasks
- Competitive price point (likely)
- Less powerful chipset compared to Snapdragon 765
- Slower charging speed (18W)
- Potentially more thermal throttling under load
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus
- More powerful and efficient Snapdragon 765 5G chipset
- Faster 20W wired charging
- Brighter display for better outdoor visibility
- Design may be less visually striking than the Reno4 F (subjective)
- Software updates may be slower compared to Oppo (based on brand history)
- Potentially larger physical size
Display Comparison
Both devices feature similar contrast ratios at 1269:1, indicating good black levels. However, the Moto G 5G Plus boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 543 nits, compared to an unstated brightness for the Reno4 F. This higher peak brightness translates to better visibility outdoors under direct sunlight. While neither manufacturer specifies panel technology (LCD vs AMOLED), the Moto G 5G Plus’s superior brightness gives it a clear edge for outdoor usability.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is lacking for the Reno4 F. The Moto G 5G Plus likely benefits from Qualcomm’s image signal processor (ISP) within the Snapdragon 765, offering improved image processing and noise reduction. Without specific details on the Reno4 F’s camera hardware, it’s difficult to make a definitive comparison, but the Snapdragon 765’s ISP generally provides a more refined camera experience. The prevalence of low-resolution auxiliary cameras on both devices suggests focusing on the main sensor’s quality is more important than the number of lenses.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Motorola Moto G 5G Plus utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 5G (7nm), featuring an octa-core CPU with Kryo 475 cores in a prime, gold, and silver configuration. This architecture prioritizes performance and efficiency. Conversely, the Oppo Reno4 F is powered by the MediaTek Helio P95 (12nm), employing a more traditional Cortex-A75 and A55 arrangement. The 7nm process of the Snapdragon 765 offers superior transistor density and thermal efficiency, meaning the Moto G 5G Plus is less likely to throttle under sustained load, crucial for gaming and demanding applications. The Snapdragon’s integrated 5G modem also provides a more robust and reliable 5G experience.
Battery Life
Both devices achieve an endurance rating of 114 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage patterns. However, the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus offers faster 20W wired charging, while the Oppo Reno4 F is limited to 18W. This translates to quicker top-ups, reducing downtime and providing more convenience. While the battery capacity isn’t specified for either device, the faster charging speed of the Moto G 5G Plus provides a practical advantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno4 F if you prioritize a sleek design and are primarily focused on everyday tasks like social media and light web browsing. Its strengths lie in its aesthetic appeal and adequate performance for non-demanding users. Buy the Motorola Moto G 5G Plus if you value performance, 5G connectivity, and faster charging. It’s the better option for gamers, power users, and those who want a phone that will remain responsive over time.