Both the Oppo Reno4 F and the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW represent attempts to bring 5G connectivity to a more accessible price point. However, they achieve this with significantly different approaches to core hardware. The Reno4 F leans on MediaTek’s Helio P95, while Samsung opted for Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 765G. This comparison dissects those choices and determines which phone delivers the better overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW is the stronger choice. The Snapdragon 765G’s superior architecture and 7nm process provide a noticeable performance advantage, particularly in sustained tasks and 5G connectivity, despite the Reno4 F’s slightly faster peak CPU clock speeds. While the Reno4 F offers a competitive package, the A51 5G UW’s efficiency and future-proofing are key advantages.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 38, 40, 41 | 2, 4, 5, 13, 66 |
| 5G bands | - | 260, 261 mmWave |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020, October 10. Released 2020, October 16 | 2020, August 14 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, August 14 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 160.1 x 73.8 x 7.5 mm (6.30 x 2.91 x 0.30 in) | 158.8 x 73.4 x 8.6 mm (6.25 x 2.89 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM (pre-installed) |
| Weight | 164 g (5.78 oz) | 188.8 g (6.67 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~84.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~87.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 430 nits (typ), 800 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED |
| 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 10, One UI 2 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | 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/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide)
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | - | 5 MP, AF |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps; 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 | - | 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 |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio, RDS, recording |
| 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, proximity, compass |
| | - | ANT+ |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 15W wired |
| Stand-by | - | Up to 672 h |
| Talk time | - | Up to 5 h |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Matte Black, Metallic White | Prism Bricks Blue |
| Models | SPH2209 | SM-A516V |
| Price | About 250 EUR | About 470 EUR |
| SAR | - | 0.70 W/kg (head) 1.25 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.59 W/kg (head) 1.32 W/kg (body) |
Oppo Reno4 F
- Potentially lower price point
- Faster wired charging (18W)
- Oppo’s typically vibrant display tuning
- Less efficient Helio P95 chipset
- Potentially lower 5G performance
- Inferior ISP compared to Snapdragon 765G
Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW
- More efficient Snapdragon 765G chipset
- Superior 5G modem integration
- Better image processing capabilities
- Slower wired charging (15W)
- Potentially higher price
- Samsung’s One UI can be resource intensive
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. Both likely utilize IPS LCD panels, common in this price bracket. The key difference lies under the hood. While specific display specs are unavailable, the A51 5G UW benefits from the Snapdragon 765G’s superior ISP, potentially leading to better image processing for display output. The Reno4 F’s display is likely tuned for vibrant colors, a common Oppo trait, but may lack the color accuracy of Samsung’s panels. Bezels are expected to be similar, with neither phone aiming for a premium, near-bezel-less experience.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specs beyond the chipsets, analysis focuses on image signal processing (ISP) capabilities. The Snapdragon 765G’s ISP is generally considered more advanced than the Helio P95’s, offering better dynamic range, noise reduction, and overall image quality. While both phones likely feature multi-camera setups, the A51 5G UW’s ISP will likely extract more detail and produce more natural-looking photos, especially in challenging lighting conditions. The Reno4 F may rely more on software processing to enhance images, potentially leading to over-sharpening or artificial-looking results. The presence of OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) on either device is unknown, but would be a significant advantage for video recording and low-light photography.
Performance
The performance gap is the most significant differentiator. The Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7nm) is architecturally superior to the Oppo Reno4 F’s MediaTek Helio P95 (12nm). The 7nm process allows for greater transistor density and improved power efficiency, translating to less thermal throttling under sustained load. While the Reno4 F’s CPU boasts slightly higher peak clock speeds (2.2 GHz Cortex-A75 vs 2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime), the Snapdragon 765G’s Kryo cores and Adreno 620 GPU offer a more balanced and powerful experience. This is particularly noticeable in gaming and demanding applications. The A51 5G UW also benefits from Qualcomm’s 5G modem integration, offering potentially faster and more reliable 5G connectivity.
Battery Life
Battery life is a complex equation. While the exact battery capacities are unknown, the Snapdragon 765G’s 7nm process gives the A51 5G UW a significant advantage in power efficiency. Despite the Reno4 F’s 18W wired charging being slightly faster than the A51 5G UW’s 15W charging, the A51 5G UW is likely to offer longer screen-on time due to its more efficient chipset. The Reno4 F may achieve faster initial charge rates, but the A51 5G UW will likely drain slower during typical usage. The impact of 5G connectivity on battery life should also be considered, and the A51 5G UW’s more efficient modem will mitigate this drain.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno4 F if you prioritize a potentially lower price and are primarily focused on everyday tasks like social media and light web browsing. Its 18W charging is a plus for quick top-ups. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW if you value smoother multitasking, better 5G performance, and a more efficient processor that will hold up better over time. Gamers and power users will find the A51 5G UW a more rewarding experience.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 765G in the A51 5G UW handle demanding games like PUBG Mobile smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 765G is capable of running PUBG Mobile at medium to high settings with stable frame rates. While it won't match the performance of flagship chipsets, it provides a significantly smoother gaming experience than the Helio P95, especially during prolonged gaming sessions due to better thermal management.
❓ Does the Oppo Reno4 F’s 18W charging make a substantial difference in real-world usage compared to the A51 5G UW’s 15W charging?
While 18W is faster on paper, the difference in 0-100% charge time is likely to be around 15-20 minutes. The A51 5G UW’s superior power efficiency means you may not need to charge as frequently, mitigating the slower charging speed. The Reno4 F’s faster charging is more beneficial for quick top-ups.
❓ How will 5G performance differ between the two phones?
The Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW benefits from Qualcomm’s integrated 5G modem, which is generally considered more reliable and efficient than the 5G modem solution likely used in the Oppo Reno4 F. This translates to potentially faster download and upload speeds, and better signal stability in areas with 5G coverage.
