The vivo X50 and Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G represent a fascinating intersection of features and price in the mid-range smartphone market. Both devices aim to deliver a premium experience without the flagship price tag, but they achieve this through different approaches to chipset selection, charging technology, and display characteristics. This comparison dives deep into the specifics to determine which phone best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G emerges as the stronger contender. Its Snapdragon 765G offers a noticeable performance edge, coupled with significantly faster 65W charging that replenishes the battery in just 36 minutes. While the X50 holds its own, the Reno4 Pro 5G’s superior charging and processing power make it the more compelling overall package.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 40 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66 - International |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA - International |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G 3.7/1.6 Gbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE / 5G |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020, July 07. Released 2020, July 16 | 2020, June 05. Released 2020, June 12 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 159.5 x 75.4 x 7.6 mm (6.28 x 2.97 x 0.30 in) | 159.6 x 72.5 x 7.6 mm (6.28 x 2.85 x 0.30 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 173 g (6.10 oz) | 172 g (6.07 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2376 pixels (~398 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~402 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.56 inches, 104.6 cm2 (~87.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.55 inches, 103.6 cm2 (~89.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10+ | AMOLED, 90Hz, HDR10+, 500 nits (typ) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 470 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 470 Silver) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SDM730 Snapdragon 730 (8 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 618 | 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 12GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | - |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | Color spectrum sensor, Dual-LED dual-tone flash, HDR, panorama | Laser AF, 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) | - |
| Single | 5 MP, AF | - |
| Triple | - | 48 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS
13 MP, f/2.4, 52mm (telephoto), 1/3.4", 1.0µm, PDAF, 2x optical zoom
12 MP, f/2.2, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.43", 1.4µm, AF |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps; gyro-EIS, OIS, HDR |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.5, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.4, 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, with stereo speakers |
| | 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 | No |
| 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 |
| Stand-by | Up to 570 h (2G) / Up to 420 h (3G) | - |
| Talk time | Up to 17 h 50 min (2G) / Up to 8 h 20 min (3G) | - |
| Type | 4200 mAh | Li-Po 4000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Glaze Black, Frost Blue | Galactic Blue, Space Black, White, Pink, Green |
| Models | 2004 | PDNM00, PDNT00, CPH2089 |
| Price | About 400 EUR | About 1000 EUR |
| SAR EU | 0.52 W/kg (head) | - |
| Tests |
|---|
| Audio quality |
Noise -87.8dB / Crosstalk -87.3dB | - |
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 91h |
| Camera |
Photo / Video |
Photo / Video |
| Display |
Contrast ratio: 853:1 (nominal) |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker |
Voice 69dB / Noise 66dB / Ring 67dB |
-24.8 LUFS (Very good) |
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 317139 (v8)
GeekBench: 1805 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 18fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
vivo X50
- Potentially more compact design
- Solid all-around performance for everyday tasks
- Reliable camera system (based on brand reputation)
- Slower Snapdragon 730 chipset
- Significantly slower 33W charging
- Less future-proof without 5G modem
Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G
- Faster Snapdragon 765G chipset with 5G support
- Ultra-fast 65W SuperVOOC 2.0 charging
- Brighter display for better outdoor visibility
- Potentially larger and heavier design
- May have more aggressive image processing
- Price may be slightly higher
Display Comparison
The Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G boasts a brighter display, reaching a measured peak brightness of 845 nits, compared to the vivo X50’s nominal 853:1 contrast ratio. While the contrast ratio suggests good black levels on the X50, the Reno4 Pro 5G’s higher brightness translates to better visibility in direct sunlight. Both displays likely utilize AMOLED technology, common in this price bracket, but the Reno4 Pro 5G’s 'Infinite' contrast ratio (nominal) suggests deeper blacks. The lack of refresh rate information for both devices means a smooth scrolling experience isn't guaranteed, a feature becoming increasingly common in mid-range phones.
Camera Comparison
Both phones are advertised as having strong camera capabilities, but detailed sensor information is lacking. Without specifics on megapixel counts or sensor sizes, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment. However, the presence of OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) on both devices suggests a focus on image quality in low-light conditions. The Reno4 Pro 5G’s image processing algorithms may differ, potentially leaning towards more vibrant colors, while the X50 might prioritize a more natural look. The absence of details on the main sensor size is a significant omission, making it hard to assess dynamic range and detail capture.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the vivo X50 utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (8nm), while the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G features the Snapdragon 765G (7nm). The 765G’s 7nm process node is more efficient, and its Kryo 475 Prime core (2.4 GHz) offers a performance boost over the X50’s Kryo 470 Gold cores (2.2 GHz). This translates to faster app loading times and smoother multitasking on the Reno4 Pro 5G. While both phones share the same 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 470/475 Silver cores, the 765G’s integrated 5G modem also provides future-proofing and faster network speeds where available. Gamers will see a more significant advantage on the Reno4 Pro 5G.
Battery Life
Both devices achieve an endurance rating of 91 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage scenarios. However, the charging speeds are drastically different. The vivo X50 supports 33W wired charging, while the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G boasts a blazing-fast 65W SuperVOOC 2.0 charging. The Reno4 Pro 5G can reach 60% charge in just 15 minutes and a full charge in 36 minutes, a significant advantage for users who need to quickly replenish their battery. This difference in charging speed effectively mitigates any potential battery life discrepancies.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X50 if you prioritize a slightly more compact form factor and are comfortable with a slower charging speed. It’s a solid all-rounder for everyday tasks and casual photography. Buy the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G if you value faster performance for gaming and demanding apps, and if rapid charging is a must-have feature. The Reno4 Pro 5G is the better choice for power users and those who frequently find themselves needing to top up their battery quickly.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Snapdragon 765G in the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G handle demanding games like PUBG Mobile smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 765G is a capable chipset for gaming. Its Adreno 620 GPU provides a noticeable performance boost over the Snapdragon 730’s Adreno 618, allowing for smoother frame rates and higher graphics settings in games like PUBG Mobile. While it won't match flagship-level performance, it delivers a very enjoyable gaming experience.
❓ How much faster is the 65W charging on the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G compared to the 33W charging on the vivo X50 in real-world use?
The difference is substantial. The Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G can go from 0% to 60% in just 15 minutes and fully charge in 36 minutes. The vivo X50, with its 33W charging, will take considerably longer – likely over an hour to reach a full charge. This makes the Reno4 Pro 5G ideal for users who frequently need to quickly top up their battery.
❓ Are there any known thermal throttling issues with the Snapdragon 765G in the Oppo Reno4 Pro 5G during prolonged gaming sessions?
While the Snapdragon 765G is generally efficient, some users have reported mild thermal throttling during extended, graphically intensive gaming sessions. However, the Reno4 Pro 5G incorporates cooling solutions to mitigate this, and throttling is typically not severe enough to significantly impact gameplay. The 7nm process node also contributes to better thermal efficiency compared to the 8nm Snapdragon 730.
