Oppo Reno4 Pro vs. vivo X50 Pro+: A Deep Dive into Flagship Performance and Value
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing a smooth, all-day experience and incredibly fast charging, the Oppo Reno4 Pro emerges as the winner. While the vivo X50 Pro+ boasts a more powerful chipset, the Reno4 Pro’s efficiency and 65W charging offer a more practical benefit in daily use.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno4 Pro | vivo X50 Pro+ |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - International | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 - International | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 26, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 41, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| 1, 3, 5, 8, 38, 40, 41 - Asia Pacific | CDMA 800 & TD-SCDMA | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, July 31. Released 2020, August 05 | 2020, June 01. Released 2020, July 11 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back | Glass front, eco leather back or glass back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 160.2 x 73.2 x 7.7 mm (6.31 x 2.88 x 0.30 in) | 158.5 x 73 x 8.8 mm (6.24 x 2.87 x 0.35 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 161 g (5.68 oz) | 192.2 g (6.77 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | - |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~402 ppi density) | 1080 x 2376 pixels (~398 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.5 inches, 103.5 cm2 (~88.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.56 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~90.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10, 500 nits (typ) | AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+ |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.3 GHz Kryo 465 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 465 Silver) | Octa-core (1x2.84 GHz Cortex-A77 & 3x2.42 GHz Cortex-A77 & 4x1.80 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7125 Snapdragon 720G (8 nm) | Qualcomm SM8250 Snapdragon 865 5G (7 nm+) |
| GPU | Adreno 618 | Adreno 650 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7.2 | Android 10, Funtouch 10.5 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Color spectrum sensor, Dual-LED dual-tone flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | 50 MP, f/1.9, 24mm (wide), 1/1.31", 1.2µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 13 MP, f/3.0, 135mm (periscope telephoto), 1/3.1", 1.12µm, PDAF, OIS, 5x optical zoom 32 MP, f/2.1, 50mm (telephoto), 1/2.8", 0.8µm, PDAF, 2x optical zoom 13 MP, f/2.2, 120˚, 16mm (ultrawide), 1/3.4", 1.0µm |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS | 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.5, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| - | 32-bit/192kHz audio | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS, GNSS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C, 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 |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 65W wired, 60% in 15 min, 100% in 36 min | 44W wired, 62% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 4000 mAh | 4350 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Starry Night, Silky White | Blue, Brown |
| Models | CPH2109 | V2011A |
| Price | About 390 EUR | About 630 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 96h | Endurance rating 93h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | -28.8 LUFS (Average) | -27.5 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 261359 (v8) GeekBench: 1781 (v5.1) GFXBench: 15fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 621433 (v8) GeekBench: 3411 (v5.1) GFXBench: 43fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno4 Pro
- Incredibly fast 65W charging
- Excellent battery endurance (96h)
- Efficient Snapdragon 720G chipset
- Bright 843 nit display
- Less powerful chipset than the X50 Pro+
- Limited camera details available
vivo X50 Pro+
- Powerful Snapdragon 865 chipset
- Potentially superior camera system
- Flagship-level performance
- Good battery endurance (93h)
- Slower 44W charging
- Potential for thermal throttling
Display Comparison
Both the Oppo Reno4 Pro and vivo X50 Pro+ feature displays with an infinite (nominal) contrast ratio, suggesting excellent black levels. However, the Reno4 Pro’s measured peak brightness of 843 nits gives it a clear advantage in outdoor visibility. While both likely utilize AMOLED panels, the Reno4 Pro’s brightness is a tangible benefit for users frequently exposed to sunlight. Details regarding refresh rates are missing, but given the era, both likely support at least 90Hz, though the X50 Pro+ may have a slight edge in panel quality due to its flagship positioning.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are advertised as having strong camera capabilities, but specifics are limited. Without detailed sensor information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. However, the X50 Pro+’s flagship status suggests a more sophisticated camera system, potentially with larger sensors and more advanced image processing algorithms. The Reno4 Pro likely focuses on delivering good all-around performance, while the X50 Pro+ may excel in low-light photography and offer more creative control. The absence of details on OIS and lens apertures hinders a deeper analysis.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The vivo X50 Pro+’s Snapdragon 865 (7nm+) significantly outperforms the Oppo Reno4 Pro’s Snapdragon 720G (8nm). The 865’s octa-core configuration, featuring a Cortex-A77 prime core clocked at 2.84 GHz, provides a substantial uplift in CPU and GPU performance. This translates to faster app loading times, smoother multitasking, and a better gaming experience. However, the 7nm+ process of the 865 is more prone to thermal throttling under sustained load compared to the 8nm process of the 720G, potentially limiting peak performance during extended gaming sessions. The Reno4 Pro’s efficiency is a key strength.
Battery Life
The battery endurance ratings are remarkably close, with the Reno4 Pro scoring 96 hours and the X50 Pro+ at 93 hours. This suggests similar real-world battery life despite the more power-hungry Snapdragon 865 in the X50 Pro+. However, the charging speeds are drastically different. The Reno4 Pro’s 65W wired charging is significantly faster, achieving 60% charge in just 15 minutes and 100% in 36 minutes. The X50 Pro+’s 44W charging, while respectable, takes 30 minutes to reach 62%. This charging speed disparity is a major advantage for the Reno4 Pro, minimizing downtime.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno4 Pro if you need exceptional battery life, incredibly fast charging, and a consistently smooth experience for everyday tasks and moderate gaming. Buy the vivo X50 Pro+ if you prioritize maximum processing power for demanding games, intensive multitasking, and are willing to trade some battery endurance for that performance boost.