vivo X300 Pro vs Oppo Find X7 Ultra: A Deep Dive into Flagship Performance
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing sustained performance and faster charging, the Oppo Find X7 Ultra emerges as the winner. Its Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, coupled with 100W charging, provides a slight edge. However, the vivo X300 Pro’s impressive battery endurance and peak brightness make it a compelling alternative.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo X300 Pro | Oppo Find X7 Ultra |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - China | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 66, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA/Sub6 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2025, October 13 | 2024, January 08 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, October 17 | Available. Released 2024, January 12 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Armor Glass), aluminum alloy frame, glass back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus 2), glass back (Gorilla Glass) or eco leather back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 161.2 x 75.5 x 8 mm (6.35 x 2.97 x 0.31 in) | 164.3 x 76.2 x 9.5 mm (6.47 x 3.00 x 0.37 in) |
| SIM | · Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM + eSIM (max 2 at a time) - International· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM - China | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 226 g (7.97 oz) | 221 g (7.80 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Armor Glass, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2 |
| Resolution | 1260 x 2800 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~452 ppi density) | 1440 x 3168 pixels (~510 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.78 inches, 111.5 cm2 (~91.6% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.82 inches, 113.0 cm2 (~90.3% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | LTPO AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 2160Hz PWM, HDR10+, HDR Vivid, Dolby Vision, 4500 nits (peak) | LTPO AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, Dolby Vision, HDR10+, 1600 nits (typ), 2600 nits (HBM), 4500 nits (peak) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x4.21 GHz C1-Ultra & 3x3.5 GHz C1-Premium & 4x2.7 GHz C1-Pro) | Octa-core (1x3.3 GHz Cortex-X4 & 3x3.2 GHz Cortex-A720 & 2x3.0 GHz Cortex-A720 & 2x2.3 GHz Cortex-A520) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 9500 (3 nm) | Qualcomm SM8650-AB Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Arm G1-Ultra | Adreno 750 |
| OS | Android 16, up to 5 major Android upgrades, OriginOS 6 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, ColorOS 14 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM, 1TB 16GB RAM | 256GB 12GB RAM, 256GB 16GB RAM, 512GB 16GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Laser AF, color spectrum sensor, Zeiss optics, Zeiss T* lens coating, LED flash, panorama, HDR, 3D LUT import | Laser AF, color spectrum sensor, Hasselblad Color Calibration, LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | - | 50 MP, f/1.8, 23mm (wide), 1.0"-type, 1.6µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 50 MP, f/2.6, 65mm (periscope telephoto), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, 2.8x optical zoom, multi-directional PDAF (25cm - ∞), OIS 50 MP, f/4.3, 135mm (periscope telephoto), 1/2.51", 0.7µm, 6x optical zoom, dual pixel PDAF (35cm - ∞), OIS 50 MP, f/2.0, 14mm, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/1.95", 1.0µm, PDAF |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.6, 24mm (wide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, PDAF, OIS 200 MP, f/2.7, 85mm (periscope telephoto), 1/1.4", 0.56µm, multi-directional PDAF, OIS, 3.7x optical zoom, macro 2.7:1 50 MP, f/2.0, 15mm, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, AF | - |
| Video | 8K@30fps, 4K@30/60/120fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps, gyro-EIS, 4K@120fps 10-bit Log, Dolby Vision HDR | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps; gyro-EIS; HDR, 10‑bit video, Dolby Vision |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | Panorama |
| Single | 50 MP, f/2.0, 20mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, AF | 32 MP, f/2.4, 21mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm, PDAF |
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60fps | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, LHDC 5 | 5.4, A2DP, LE, aptX HD, LHDC |
| Infrared port | Yes | Yes |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (L1), BDS (B1I+B1c+B2a+B2b), GALILEO (E1+E5a+E5b), QZSS (L1+L5), NavIC (L5) | GPS (L1+L5), BDS (B1I+B1c+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5), GLONASS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.2, OTG | USB Type-C 3.2, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6/7, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6e/7, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, ultrasonic), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 90W wired 40W wireless Reverse wireless Reverse wired | 100W wired, PD, 50% in 10 min, 100% in 26 min 50W wireless 10W reverse wireless |
| Type | · Si/C Li-Ion 6510 mAh (Global)· Si/C Li-Ion 5440 mAh (EU markets) | 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Phantom Black, Mist Blue, Dune Brown, Cloud White | Black, Dark Blue, Light Brown |
| Models | V2514, V2502A | PHY110, PHY120 |
| Price | About 1400 EUR | $ 546.64 |
| EU LABEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 48:21h endurance, 1200 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class B | - |
| Free fall | Class B (180 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class C | - |
vivo X300 Pro
- Exceptional battery life (48:21h endurance)
- Significantly brighter display (2113 nits)
- Potentially more power-efficient chipset (3nm Dimensity 9500)
- Slower charging speeds (90W wired, 40W wireless)
- Chipset performance may not match Snapdragon in sustained loads
Oppo Find X7 Ultra
- Faster charging (100W wired, 50W wireless)
- Proven Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 performance
- Optimized software experience (typically)
- Lower peak display brightness (1165 nits)
- Slightly lower battery endurance
Display Comparison
The vivo X300 Pro boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 2113 nits, compared to the Oppo Find X7 Ultra’s 1165 nits. This translates to superior readability under direct sunlight. While both likely employ LTPO technology for adaptive refresh rates (not specified in the data), the X300 Pro’s brightness advantage is a clear win for outdoor users. The lack of PWM frequency data prevents a definitive statement on flicker, but the higher peak brightness suggests a more robust panel overall.
Camera Comparison
Unfortunately, the provided data lacks camera specifications. However, given both phones’ flagship status, we can expect advanced camera systems. Oppo’s Find X series is known for its innovative camera technology, potentially including a large main sensor and advanced computational photography. Vivo often focuses on selfie camera quality and portrait modes. Without sensor size, aperture, or OIS details, a direct comparison is impossible, but the Find X7 Ultra likely prioritizes overall camera versatility, while the X300 Pro may excel in specific scenarios like selfies.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Oppo Find X7 Ultra’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (4nm) is a proven performer, utilizing a 1x3.3 GHz Cortex-X4 prime core. The vivo X300 Pro counters with the MediaTek Dimensity 9500 (3nm), featuring a more complex core configuration: 1x4.21 GHz C1-Ultra, 3x3.5 GHz C1-Premium, and 4x2.7 GHz C1-Pro. The 3nm process of the Dimensity 9500 *should* offer better power efficiency, but the Snapdragon’s architecture is highly optimized. Real-world performance will depend on software tuning and thermal management, but the Snapdragon generally has a stronger track record in sustained workloads.
Battery Life
The vivo X300 Pro demonstrates superior battery endurance with a measured 48:21h, despite having a similar active use score (12:45h) to the Oppo Find X7 Ultra (12:47h). This suggests more efficient standby power consumption. The charging speeds differ significantly: 90W wired and 40W wireless for the X300 Pro versus 100W wired and 50W wireless for the Find X7 Ultra. The Find X7 Ultra’s 100W charging promises a faster 0-100% charge (claimed 26 minutes) compared to the X300 Pro, while both offer reverse wireless and wired charging capabilities.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X300 Pro if you prioritize exceptional battery life – its 48:21h endurance is a standout feature – and a brighter display for outdoor visibility. Buy the Oppo Find X7 Ultra if you demand the absolute fastest charging speeds (100W) and a slightly more refined, Qualcomm-optimized performance profile, particularly for demanding gaming and multitasking.