Sharp Aquos Zero 2 vs Oppo Reno Ace: A Deep Dive into Snapdragon 855 Flagships
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Oppo Reno Ace emerges as the stronger choice. Its 65W SuperVOOC charging, capable of a full charge in just 30 minutes, is a game-changer. While the Aquos Zero 2 offers a unique form factor, the Reno Ace’s performance edge and superior charging speed outweigh its slightly larger size.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Sharp Aquos Zero 2 | Oppo Reno Ace |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 38, 39, 41 - Taiwan | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE |
| - | CDMA2000 1xEV-DO | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, May 22. Released 2020, May 22 | 2019, October. Released 2019, October |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 6), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 158 x 74 x 8.8 mm (6.22 x 2.91 x 0.35 in) | 161 x 75.7 x 8.7 mm (6.34 x 2.98 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 141 g (4.97 oz) | 200 g (7.05 oz) |
| IP68 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 30 mins) | - | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 6 | Corning Gorilla Glass 6 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~403 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~402 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.4 inches, 100.5 cm2 (~86.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 103.5 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | OLED, 1B colors, 240Hz, HDR10, Dolby Vision | AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10, 500 nits (typ) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.84 GHz Kryo 485 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485 & 4x1.78 GHz Kryo 485) | Octa-core (1x2.96 GHz Kryo 485 & 3x2.42 GHz Kryo 485 & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 485) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855 (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855+ (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 640 | Adreno 640 (700 MHz) |
| OS | Android 10 | Android 9.0 (Pie), upgradable to Android 10, ColorOS 7.0 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| UFS 3.0 | UFS 3.0 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 12.2 MP, f/1.7, (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 20 MP, f/2.4, 125˚ (ultrawide), AF | - |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | Dual-LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | - | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 13 MP, f/2.4, 53mm (telephoto), 1/3.4", 1.0µm, PDAF, 2x optical zoom 8 MP, f/2.2, 13mm (ultrawide), 1/3.2", 1.4µm, AF 2 MP B/W, f/2.4, 1/5.0", 1.75µm |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps; (gyro-EIS); video rec. only with main camera |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.2, 23mm (wide) | 16 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | Yes |
| 35mm jack | No | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with dual speakers |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, QZSS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS, BDS |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | 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 |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | Wired, PD2.0 | 65W wired, 100% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Ion 3130 mAh | Li-Po 4000 mAh, non-removable |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Blue | Electric purple, Interstellar blue, Gundam Edition |
| Models | SH-Z20, SHV47, 906SH | PCLM10 |
| Price | About 670 EUR | About 380 EUR |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Audio quality | - | Noise -92.0dB / Crosstalk -93.3dB |
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 99h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | Voice 79dB / Noise 75dB / Ring 87dB |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 354367 (v7), 434063 (v8) GeekBench: 11008 (v4.4), 2627 (v5.1) GFXBench: 35fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Sharp Aquos Zero 2
- Exceptionally lightweight and compact design
- Minimalist aesthetic
- PD2.0 charging support
- Slower charging speeds
- Less powerful processor (Snapdragon 855)
- Limited display specifications
Oppo Reno Ace
- 65W SuperVOOC charging (30-minute full charge)
- More powerful processor (Snapdragon 855+)
- Brighter display (717 nits)
- Larger and heavier than the Aquos Zero 2
- Potentially less refined software experience (depending on user preference)
- May be harder to find new
Display Comparison
The Oppo Reno Ace boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 717 nits, compared to an unspecified brightness for the Aquos Zero 2. This translates to better visibility outdoors under direct sunlight. While both likely utilize AMOLED panels (based on brand history), the Reno Ace’s infinite contrast ratio suggests a more refined panel calibration. The Zero 2’s display specs are less detailed, making a direct comparison of color accuracy and viewing angles difficult, but its focus on minimalism likely prioritized cost savings in this area.
Camera Comparison
Both devices feature capable photo and video capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are limited. The Reno Ace likely benefits from Oppo’s established image processing algorithms, potentially delivering more vibrant and shareable photos. Without sensor size or aperture information for either device, it’s difficult to assess low-light performance. The absence of detailed camera specs suggests neither phone was positioned as a primary camera-focused device, instead prioritizing overall flagship features.
Performance
Both phones are powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, but the Reno Ace features the slightly overclocked Snapdragon 855+ variant. The Reno Ace’s CPU clocks at 2.96 GHz versus the Zero 2’s 2.84 GHz, offering a marginal performance increase in CPU-bound tasks. More importantly, the 855+ generally exhibits better sustained performance due to improved thermal management. Both devices utilize an octa-core configuration with the same Kryo 485 architecture, but the Reno Ace’s higher clock speeds and potentially more aggressive cooling solution give it an edge in demanding applications and prolonged gaming sessions.
Battery Life
Both the Aquos Zero 2 and Reno Ace achieve an impressive endurance rating of 99 hours, suggesting similar real-world battery life despite potentially different battery capacities (not specified for the Zero 2). However, the Reno Ace’s 65W SuperVOOC charging is a massive advantage, allowing a full charge in just 30 minutes. The Aquos Zero 2 utilizes PD2.0, a slower charging standard, making it significantly less convenient for users who need quick top-ups. This charging speed disparity is the Reno Ace’s most significant advantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Sharp Aquos Zero 2 if you prioritize an exceptionally lightweight and compact flagship experience, and are comfortable with slower charging speeds. It’s ideal for users who value one-handed usability above all else. Buy the Oppo Reno Ace if you demand the fastest possible charging, a brighter display, and a slight performance boost for gaming and demanding applications. This is the phone for power users who don’t want to be tethered to a charger.