Oppo Reno4 5G vs. vivo X50 5G: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range 5G Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing convenience and minimizing downtime, the Oppo Reno4 5G is the superior choice. Its 65W charging capability, fully replenishing the battery in just 36 minutes, significantly outweighs the vivo X50 5G’s slower 33W charging, despite both phones sharing the same core processing power.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo X50 5G | Oppo Reno4 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - International | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 - International | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 66 - International |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 28, 41, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - International | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G 3.7/1.6 Gbps |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G |
| 1, 3, 41, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - China | 1, 3, 41, 77, 78, 79 SA/NSA - China | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, June 01. Released 2020, June 06 | 2020, June 05 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, June 12 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 3), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 159.5 x 75.4 x 7.6 mm (6.28 x 2.97 x 0.30 in) | 159.3 x 74 x 7.8 mm (6.27 x 2.91 x 0.31 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 174.5 g (6.17 oz) | 183 g (6.46 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2376 pixels (~398 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.56 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~87.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~84.7% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10+ | AMOLED, 430 nits (typ) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 620 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, Funtouch 10.5 | Android 10, ColorOS 7.2 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Color spectrum sensor, Dual-LED dual-tone flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.6, (wide), PDAF, OIS 13 MP, f/2.5, 50mm (telephoto), 1/2.8", 0.8µm, PDAF, 2x optical zoom 8 MP, f/2.2, 120˚, 16mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) | - |
| Triple | - | 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 Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps; gyro-EIS, HDR |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 32 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm 2 MP, f/2.4, (depth) |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.5, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | - | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS (L1+L5), GLONASS (G1), BDS (B1I+B2a), GALILEO (E1+E5a), QZSS (L1+L5) |
| Radio | No | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C, OTG | 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, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Virtual proximity sensing | - | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 33W wired | 65W wired, 60% in 15 min, 100% in 36 min |
| Type | 4200 mAh | Li-Po 4000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Glaze Black, Frost Blue, Pink | Galactic Blue, Space Black, Purple |
| Models | V2001A, 2005 | PDPM00, PDPT00, CPH2091 |
| Price | About 440 EUR | About 190 EUR |
| Pricing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 128GB 8GB RAM | - | $ 535.00 |
| RENEWED | - | £ 249.00 |
vivo X50 5G
- Potentially lower initial purchase price.
- Solid all-around performance thanks to the Snapdragon 765G.
- Likely a good software experience from vivo.
- Significantly slower 33W charging.
- Limited information on camera specifications.
- May require overnight charging for full replenishment.
Oppo Reno4 5G
- Blazing-fast 65W SuperVOOC charging.
- Full charge in just 36 minutes.
- Competitive price of $535 for 128GB/8GB configuration.
- May not offer significant camera improvements over the X50 5G.
- Potential for slightly higher initial cost.
- Charging speed may degrade battery health faster over the long term (though modern charging algorithms mitigate this).
Display Comparison
While both devices likely employ AMOLED panels – a common feature in this price bracket – specific details like peak brightness and color gamut coverage are absent from the provided data. However, the Reno series historically focuses on vibrant displays, suggesting a potentially more saturated color profile. Bezels are likely comparable given the similar overall form factors. Without further data, a definitive display winner is impossible to declare.
Camera Comparison
The provided data lacks specific camera sensor details beyond the chipset. However, Oppo and vivo both emphasize camera capabilities in their marketing. Given the Reno series’ history, the Reno4 5G likely prioritizes computational photography and software enhancements for social media-ready images. Without sensor size, aperture, or OIS information, a direct comparison is impossible. The absence of details regarding the main sensor makes it difficult to assess image quality differences.
Performance
Both the vivo X50 5G and Oppo Reno4 5G are equipped with the Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) chipset, featuring an identical CPU configuration: an octa-core setup with 1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime, 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold, and 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver cores. This means CPU performance will be virtually indistinguishable between the two. The GPU performance will also be nearly identical. Thermal management will likely depend on the internal cooling solutions, a detail not provided, but the 765G is generally efficient and shouldn’t pose significant throttling issues in moderate use.
Battery Life
This is where the Reno4 5G truly shines. While battery capacity isn’t specified, the 65W wired charging capability is a massive advantage. Oppo claims 60% charge in 15 minutes and 100% in 36 minutes. The vivo X50 5G, with its 33W charging, will take considerably longer to fully charge. This difference translates to significantly less downtime for the Reno4 5G user, a critical benefit for power users. Even if the X50 5G has a slightly larger battery, the Reno4 5G’s charging speed will likely result in more usable battery life throughout the day.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X50 5G if you prioritize a potentially lower initial cost and are comfortable with a slower charging experience. It’s a solid all-rounder for users who don’t mind topping up their phone overnight. Buy the Oppo Reno4 5G if you value speed and convenience above all else. The 65W SuperVOOC charging is a game-changer for those constantly on the move, and the $535 price point for the 128GB/8GB model offers excellent value.