The Tecno Camon 12 Pro and Oppo F11 Pro represent a fascinating intersection in the budget smartphone market. Both devices aimed to deliver a compelling experience without breaking the bank, but they took different approaches. The Camon 12 Pro focused on camera features, while the F11 Pro prioritized a more refined overall experience with a stronger processor. This comparison dissects their key differences to determine which offers the best value in 2024.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Oppo F11 Pro is the better choice. While both phones offer similar battery endurance (109h), the F11 Pro’s Helio P70 chipset provides a noticeable performance boost over the Camon 12 Pro’s Helio P22, resulting in smoother multitasking and a more responsive user experience.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 - V1 |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat7 300/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| | - | 1, 3, 5, 8, 38, 40, 41 - V3 |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2019, September. Released 2019, September | 2019, March. Released 2019, March |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 158.6 x 75.5 x 7.8 mm (6.24 x 2.97 x 0.31 in) | 161.3 x 76.1 x 8.8 mm (6.35 x 3.00 x 0.35 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 161 g (5.68 oz) | 190 g (6.70 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~276 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~397 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.35 inches, 97.4 cm2 (~81.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.53 inches, 103.6 cm2 (~84.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | IPS LCD |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 | Octa-core (4x2.1 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Mediatek MT6762 Helio P22 (12 nm) | Mediatek MT6771 Helio P70 (12 nm) |
| GPU | PowerVR GE8320 | Mali-G72 MP3 |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie), HIOS 5.5 | Android 9.0 (Pie), ColorOS 6 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 6GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 64GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM |
| | eMMC 5.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | - | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.25", 0.8µm, PDAF
Auxiliary lens |
| Features | Quad-LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Triple | 16 MP, PDAF
8 MP
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | Motorized pop-up 16 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 4.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | GPS | GPS, GLONASS, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | microUSB 2.0 | microUSB 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, proximity | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | - | 20W wired |
| Type | 3500 mAh, non-removable | Li-Po 4000 mAh, non-removable |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Dawn Blue | Thunder Black, Aurora Green |
| Models | - | CPH1969, CPH2209, CPH1987 |
| Price | About 10000 INR | About 320 EUR |
| Tests |
|---|
| Audio quality | - |
Noise -93.4dB / Crosstalk -92.9dB |
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 109h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: 1392:1 (nominal), 2.987 (sunlight) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
Voice 67dB / Noise 72dB / Ring 80dB
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 150218 (v7)
GeekBench: 6020 (v4.4)
GFXBench: 7.4fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Tecno Camon 12 Pro
- Potentially lower price point
- Focus on camera features (though specifics are unknown)
- Similar battery endurance to the F11 Pro
- Inferior chipset performance (Helio P22)
- Slower charging speeds (unspecified)
- Limited information on camera sensor and image processing
Oppo F11 Pro
- Superior chipset performance (Helio P70)
- Faster 20W wired charging
- More responsive user experience
- Potentially higher price point
- Similar display characteristics to the Camon 12 Pro
- Camera details are also limited
Display Comparison
Both the Tecno Camon 12 Pro and Oppo F11 Pro share the same display characteristics: a contrast ratio of 1392:1 (nominal) and 2.987 (sunlight). This suggests a similar viewing experience in both indoor and outdoor conditions. However, the lack of detailed information regarding panel type (IPS, AMOLED) and resolution prevents a deeper analysis. The shared contrast ratio indicates neither phone excels in dynamic range or black levels compared to higher-end displays.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are advertised with 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but specific details are lacking. Without sensor size, aperture, or image processing details, a direct comparison is difficult. The Tecno Camon 12 Pro likely leaned into software enhancements to compensate for potentially lower-end hardware. The F11 Pro, benefiting from its more powerful chipset, likely has an edge in image processing speed and potentially video stabilization. It's reasonable to assume the F11 Pro offers a more consistent and refined camera experience.
Performance
The core difference between these two devices lies in their chipsets. The Oppo F11 Pro’s Mediatek Helio P70, built on a 12nm process, features a more sophisticated CPU configuration – octa-core (4x2.1 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A53) – compared to the Tecno Camon 12 Pro’s Helio P22 (octa-core 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53). The inclusion of Cortex-A73 cores in the F11 Pro provides a significant performance advantage in CPU-intensive tasks. This translates to faster app loading times, smoother multitasking, and a more responsive overall experience. While both are 12nm, the architectural improvements in the P70 are substantial.
Battery Life
Both the Tecno Camon 12 Pro and Oppo F11 Pro boast an endurance rating of 109 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage conditions. However, the Oppo F11 Pro includes 20W wired charging, a significant advantage over the Camon 12 Pro, which lacks specified charging speed. This means the F11 Pro can be charged from 0-100% much faster, reducing downtime and offering greater convenience.
Buying Guide
Buy the Tecno Camon 12 Pro if your primary need is a phone with a focus on camera features and you operate on a very tight budget. It's a reasonable option for casual photography. Buy the Oppo F11 Pro if you prioritize a smoother, more responsive user experience, better performance for everyday tasks, and faster charging, even if it means spending slightly more.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Is the Helio P70 in the Oppo F11 Pro powerful enough for modern mobile games?
The Helio P70 is capable of running many popular mobile games, but it won't deliver the highest frame rates or graphics settings. Expect to play titles like PUBG Mobile and Call of Duty Mobile at medium settings for a smooth experience. It's a step up from the P22, but not a gaming powerhouse.
❓ How does the charging speed of the Oppo F11 Pro compare to other phones in its price range?
20W charging was relatively fast for phones in this price bracket when the F11 Pro was released. While not as fast as modern 33W or 65W charging, it's still significantly quicker than the Tecno Camon 12 Pro's unspecified charging speed, allowing for a much faster top-up.
❓ Does either phone support fast storage standards like UFS 2.1?
Unfortunately, neither Tecno nor Oppo explicitly stated the storage type used in these models. However, given the price point and chipset, it's likely both utilize eMMC storage, which is slower than UFS 2.1. This impacts app loading times and file transfer speeds.
