Oppo Reno8 vs vivo V25 Pro: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range Performance
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Oppo Reno8 emerges as the slightly better choice. While both phones share the same chipset, the Reno8’s higher measured display brightness and faster 80W charging provide tangible benefits in everyday use, offsetting the V25 Pro’s marginally better battery endurance rating.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno8 | vivo V25 Pro |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 26, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 1, 3, 5, 8, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, July 18 | 2022, August 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, July 25 | Available. Released 2022, August 25 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front, glass back |
| Dimensions | 160.6 x 73.4 x 7.7 mm (6.32 x 2.89 x 0.30 in) | 158.9 x 73.5 x 8.6 mm (6.26 x 2.89 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 179 g (6.31 oz) | 190 g (6.70 oz) |
| - | Color changing back panel color Resistant to drops, scratches, and sweat | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | - |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~411 ppi density) | 1080 x 2376 pixels (~398 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.4 inches, 98.9 cm2 (~83.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.56 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~89.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 90Hz, 430 nits (typ), 600 nits (HBM), 800 nits (peak) | AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1300 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x3.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x2.6 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x3.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x2.6 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 1300 (6 nm) | Mediatek Dimensity 1300 (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G77 MC9 | Mali-G77 MC9 |
| OS | Android 12, upgradable to Android 14, ColorOS 14 | Android 12, Funtouch 12 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| UFS 3.1 | UFS 3.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 23mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm, AF |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, 23mm (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, multi-directional PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm, 112˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) | 64 MP, f/1.9, 25mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Panorama, HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 23mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.5, (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm, AF |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| - | 24-bit/192kHz audio | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.3, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, QZSS, NavIC |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, 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 | 80W wired, 50% in 11 min, 100% in 28 min Reverse wired | 66W wired, 40% in 15 min, 71% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 4500 mAh | 4830 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Shimmer Gold, Shimmer Black | Pure Black, Sailing Blue |
| Models | CPH2359 | V2158 |
| Price | £ 279.99 / € 158.14 / ₹ 24,999 | About 440 EUR |
| SAR | - | 1.19 W/kg (head) 0.88 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 105h | Endurance rating 101h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | -28.7 LUFS (Average) | -27.3 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 619610a (v9) GeekBench: 2694 (v5.1) GFXBench: 42fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 704090 (v9) GeekBench: 2521 (v5.1) GFXBench: 42fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno8
- Faster 80W charging significantly reduces downtime.
- Brighter display (633 nits) is adequate for most indoor use.
- Supports reverse wired charging for topping up accessories.
- Slightly lower battery endurance rating (105h) compared to the V25 Pro.
- Lower peak display brightness may struggle in direct sunlight.
vivo V25 Pro
- Brighter display (805 nits) excels in outdoor visibility.
- Slightly better battery endurance rating (101h).
- Vivo’s image processing may appeal to some users.
- Slower 66W charging takes longer to fully recharge.
- Lacks reverse wired charging functionality.
Display Comparison
The vivo V25 Pro boasts a brighter display, reaching 805 nits compared to the Oppo Reno8’s 633 nits. This 172-nit difference translates to significantly improved visibility under direct sunlight, a crucial factor for outdoor users. Both displays share an 'Infinite' (nominal) contrast ratio, suggesting deep blacks, but the Reno8’s lower peak brightness may result in washed-out colors in bright environments. While neither manufacturer specifies panel technology (LTPO or not), the brightness difference is the key differentiator here.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack specific details regarding sensor size, aperture, or OIS. Without this information, a detailed camera comparison is impossible. It’s reasonable to assume both utilize multi-camera systems, but the quality will depend heavily on the primary sensor and image processing algorithms. The absence of details regarding the 2MP macro cameras suggests they are likely included for marketing purposes rather than significant photographic utility. Image processing style is a key differentiator between Oppo and vivo, and users familiar with either brand’s aesthetic will likely have a preference.
Performance
Both the Oppo Reno8 and vivo V25 Pro are powered by the Mediatek Dimensity 1300 (6nm). The CPU configuration is identical – an octa-core setup with 1x3.0 GHz Cortex-A78, 3x2.6 GHz Cortex-A78, and 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This means CPU performance will be virtually indistinguishable between the two. The real-world impact will likely come down to thermal management, which isn’t specified in the provided data. However, given the identical chipset and similar form factors, throttling should be comparable. RAM speed (LPDDR5x) is also not specified, but is likely similar.
Battery Life
The vivo V25 Pro holds a slight edge in battery endurance, achieving a rating of 101 hours compared to the Oppo Reno8’s 105 hours. However, this difference is minimal. The Reno8 compensates with significantly faster charging: 80W wired, achieving 50% charge in 11 minutes and 100% in 28 minutes. The V25 Pro’s 66W charging takes 15 minutes for 40% and 30 minutes for 71%. This means the Reno8 offers a much quicker top-up, crucial for users who frequently need to recharge quickly. The Reno8 also supports reverse wired charging, a feature absent in the V25 Pro.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno8 if you prioritize a brighter display for outdoor visibility and significantly faster charging speeds, making it ideal for users constantly on the move. Buy the vivo V25 Pro if you value a slightly longer overall battery life and prefer vivo’s specific camera processing style, though the differences are subtle. Both are excellent choices for media consumption and casual gaming.