Notebookcheck

Test de l'Oppo A72 : le smartphone abordable d'Oppo est un champion de l'autonomie

Bombe en plastique. Un design moderne, de nombreuses fonctionnalités, un appareil photo haute résolution, des haut-parleurs stéréos. Avec l'A72, Oppo propose un appareil séduisant sur le papier. Découvrez dans ce rapport de test de l'Oppo A72 si l'achat de ce smartphone du milieu de gamme est pertinent.
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (traduit par Prévots),
Oppo A72 (A Gamme)
Processeur
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Carte graphique
Mémoire
4096 Mo 
Écran
6.5 pouces 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 405 PPP, capacitif, IPS LCD, Corning Gorilla Glass 3, brillant: oui, 60 Hz
Disque dur
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 Go 
, 106 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: jack 3,5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro SD (FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: capteur géomagnétique, capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, OTG, Miracast
Réseau
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM : 850 / 900 / 1 800 / 1 900 MHz, WCDMA: 1 / 2 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 8 / 19, FDD LTE : 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 7 / 8 / 12 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 26 / 28 / 66, TD-LTE : 38 / 39 / 40 / 41, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.9 x 162 x 75.5
Batterie
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymère
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Système d'exploitation
Android 10
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 48 MPix (f/1,7, 1 / 2.0", 0,8 µm) + 8 MP (f/2,2, 119˚, 1 / 4.0", 1,12µm) + 2 MP (f/2,4) + 2 MP (f/2,4), API Camera2: niveau 3
Appareil photo secondaire: 16 MPix f/2.0, 1/3.1, 1.0µm
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: stéréo, Clavier: virtuel, adaptateur secteur modulaire, coque de protection, câble USB, écouteurs, ColorOS 7.1, 24 Mois Garantie, Widevine L1, DAS : 0,48 W/kg, 0,92 W/kg, fanless
Poids
192 g, Alimentation: 87 g
Prix
250 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Appareils du comparatif

Note
Date
Modèle
Poids
Drive
Taille
Résolution
Best Price
77 %
09/20
Oppo A72
SD 665, Adreno 610
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
80 %
08/20
Samsung Galaxy M31
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
191 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.4"2340x1080
83 %
08/20
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
209 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
80 %
08/20
realme 6 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
195 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.6"2400x1080
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Oppo A72 smartphone
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
619 (283min - 670max) MBit/s ∼100% +78%
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
347 (330min - 356max) MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
336 (282min - 350max) MBit/s ∼54% -3%
realme 6 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
292 (145min - 352max) MBit/s ∼47% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼46% -19%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
551 (465min - 583max) MBit/s ∼100% +67%
Oppo A72
Adreno 610, SD 665, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
330 (284min - 346max) MBit/s ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
297 (258min - 312max) MBit/s ∼54% -10%
realme 6 Pro
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
290 (137min - 336max) MBit/s ∼53% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼49% -19%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø346 (330-356)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø330 (284-346)
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Garmin Edge 500.
GPS Oppo A72.
GPS Oppo A72.
GPS Oppo A72.
GPS Oppo A72.
GPS Oppo A72.
GPS Oppo A72.
Oppo A72 - 10x zoom (max).
Oppo A72 - 10x zoom (max).
Oppo A72 - 10x zoom (max).
Oppo A72 - 10x zoom (max).
Oppo A72 - Zoom x2.
Oppo A72 - Zoom x2.
Oppo A72 - Zoom x10 (max).
Oppo A72 - Zoom x10 (max).

Comparaison des images

Choisir une scène pour naviguer dans la première image. Un clic permet de changer le niveau de zoom, un autre clic permet de revenir à l'image originale dans une nouvelle fenêtre. La première image montre l'original pris par l'appareil testé.

Wide-angleLow lightUltra wide-angleWide-angle5x zoom
Cliquer pour charger les images
ColorChecker
27 ∆E
44.5 ∆E
33.9 ∆E
32.7 ∆E
37.4 ∆E
53.1 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
28 ∆E
30.4 ∆E
24.1 ∆E
53.8 ∆E
54.4 ∆E
24.8 ∆E
40.9 ∆E
26.6 ∆E
56.7 ∆E
33.1 ∆E
39 ∆E
59.8 ∆E
59.9 ∆E
45.7 ∆E
34.4 ∆E
23 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A72: 38.32 ∆E min: 13.2 - max: 59.85 ∆E
ColorChecker
7.5 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
3 ∆E
10 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
3 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
4 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Oppo A72: 5.03 ∆E min: 2.51 - max: 10.02 ∆E
472
cd/m²
496
cd/m²
476
cd/m²
470
cd/m²
505
cd/m²
473
cd/m²
472
cd/m²
494
cd/m²
477
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 505 cd/m² Moyenne: 481.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.11 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 93 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 505 cd/m²
Contraste: 918:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.3 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
Oppo A72
IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.5
Samsung Galaxy M31
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
realme 6 Pro
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.6
Screen
36%
45%
7%
Brightness middle
505
622
23%
610
21%
442
-12%
Brightness
482
615
28%
579
20%
419
-13%
Brightness Distribution
93
97
4%
92
-1%
90
-3%
Black Level *
0.55
0.37
33%
0.37
33%
Contrast
918
1649
80%
1195
30%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.3
2.25
64%
1.8
71%
6.1
3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.1
6.22
38%
3
70%
9.7
4%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.8
2.7
60%
2.5
63%
5.9
13%
Gamma
2.29 96%
2.019 109%
2.31 95%
2.35 94%
CCT
8161 80%
6810 95%
6864 95%
7631 85%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion)

Afin d'abaisser la luminosité de l'écran, certains ordinateurs portables font varier très rapidement le rétroéclairage entre éteint et allumé. La fréquence à laquelle le rétroéclairage s'éteint et se rallume est normalement fixée à une valeur qui permet de rendre la variation indétectable à l'œil nu? Si la fréquence est trop basse, certaines personnes peuvent être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire, des maux de tête ou même percevoir les variations.
Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) non décelé

En comparaison, 51 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 17507 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 2500000) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

Temps de réponse de l'écran

Le temps de réponse d'un écran mesure la rapidité à laquelle l'écran est capable de changer une couleur pour une autre. Un temps de réponse élevé se traduit par une image floutée pour les objets en mouvement. Les joueurs bénéficieront de faibles latences d'affichage en jeu.
       Temps de réponse noir à blanc
22.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 9.2 ms hausse
↘ 13.2 ms chute
L'écran montre de bons temps de réponse, mais insuffisant pour du jeu compétitif.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 32 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (24.4 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
40.4 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 18.8 ms hausse
↘ 21.6 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences très élevées, à éviter pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 49 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (38.7 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
OpenCL Score 5.2 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
387 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1605 Points ∼77% +315%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (369 - 387, n=3)
375 Points ∼18% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 5532, n=33)
2072 Points ∼100% +435%
Vulkan Score 5.2 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
453 Points ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1345 Points ∼76% +197%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (453 - 457, n=3)
456 Points ∼26% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 4789, n=35)
1768 Points ∼100% +290%
Vulkan Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
982 Points ∼59%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1063 Points ∼64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (432 - 483, n=5)
455 Points ∼27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=68)
1657 Points ∼100%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1163 Points ∼65%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1201 Points ∼67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (363 - 368, n=5)
366 Points ∼20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (272 - 4739, n=62)
1789 Points ∼100%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1256 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1325 Points ∼68% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1771 Points ∼91% +41%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1759 Points ∼90% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1256 - 1405, n=7)
1346 Points ∼69% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=124)
1945 Points ∼100% +55%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
309 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
348 Points ∼61% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
569 Points ∼100% +84%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
567 Points ∼100% +83%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (309 - 313, n=7)
311 Points ∼55% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=124)
553 Points ∼97% +79%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11432 Points ∼100%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
5587 Points ∼49% -51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7829 Points ∼68% -32%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
10106 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6189 - 11432, n=11)
7048 Points ∼62% -38%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=527)
5985 Points ∼52% -48%
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7651 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6202 Points ∼45% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9091 Points ∼66% +19%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
13777 Points ∼100% +80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7437 - 9051, n=10)
8163 Points ∼59% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=685)
6569 Points ∼48% -14%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2287 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2163 Points ∼79% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2721 Points ∼100% +19%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2562 Points ∼94% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2185 - 2444, n=11)
2284 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=178)
2668 Points ∼98% +17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1442 Points ∼47% +47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2250 Points ∼73% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2255 Points ∼73% +130%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (897 - 995, n=11)
933 Points ∼30% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 9104, n=178)
3070 Points ∼100% +213%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1123 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1557 Points ∼57% +39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2340 Points ∼86% +108%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2317 Points ∼85% +106%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1035 - 1140, n=11)
1074 Points ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6977, n=178)
2732 Points ∼100% +143%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2154 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2332 Points ∼72% +8%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3236 Points ∼100% +50%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3067 Points ∼95% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2154 - 2541, n=10)
2378 Points ∼73% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=530)
2235 Points ∼69% +4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
987 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1533 Points ∼60% +55%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2539 Points ∼99% +157%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2558 Points ∼100% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (980 - 999, n=10)
988 Points ∼39% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=530)
2171 Points ∼85% +120%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1097 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1659 Points ∼62% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2667 Points ∼100% +143%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2656 Points ∼100% +142%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1097 - 1151, n=10)
1135 Points ∼43% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=531)
2024 Points ∼76% +85%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2199 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2308 Points ∼72% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3226 Points ∼100% +47%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3125 Points ∼97% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2199 - 2503, n=11)
2365 Points ∼73% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=562)
2151 Points ∼67% -2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1653 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1993 Points ∼52% +21%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3785 Points ∼99% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3835 Points ∼100% +132%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1650 - 1692, n=11)
1668 Points ∼43% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=562)
2924 Points ∼76% +77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2055 Points ∼56% +16%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3645 Points ∼100% +107%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3651 Points ∼100% +107%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1754 - 1810, n=11)
1786 Points ∼49% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=562)
2453 Points ∼67% +39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2246 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2258 Points ∼71% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3170 Points ∼100% +41%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3083 Points ∼97% +37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2212 - 2580, n=11)
2417 Points ∼76% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=611)
2113 Points ∼67% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
980 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1478 Points ∼62% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2356 Points ∼99% +140%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2388 Points ∼100% +144%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (927 - 999, n=11)
968 Points ∼41% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=611)
1831 Points ∼77% +87%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1134 Points ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1601 Points ∼64% +41%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2499 Points ∼99% +120%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
2514 Points ∼100% +122%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1076 - 1152, n=11)
1118 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=612)
1741 Points ∼69% +54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2282 Points ∼70%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2195 Points ∼67% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3263 Points ∼100% +43%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3076 Points ∼94% +35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2282 - 2596, n=11)
2429 Points ∼74% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=654)
1983 Points ∼61% -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1564 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2020 Points ∼55% +29%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3620 Points ∼98% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3683 Points ∼100% +135%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1564 - 1663, n=11)
1622 Points ∼44% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=653)
2426 Points ∼66% +55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1675 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2056 Points ∼58% +23%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3534 Points ∼100% +111%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3528 Points ∼100% +111%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1675 - 1795, n=11)
1750 Points ∼50% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=656)
2079 Points ∼59% +24%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17865 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
20128 Points ∼96% +13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
20054 Points ∼96% +12%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
14849 Points ∼71% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (17865 - 24652, n=10)
20916 Points ∼100% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=798)
15611 Points ∼75% -13%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24321 Points ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
25160 Points ∼47% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
51789 Points ∼97% +113%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
53600 Points ∼100% +120%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15403 - 25351, n=10)
23960 Points ∼45% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=796)
27366 Points ∼51% +13%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
22445 Points ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
23836 Points ∼62% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
38315 Points ∼100% +71%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
33926 Points ∼89% +51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (22445 - 25046, n=10)
23870 Points ∼62% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=796)
21256 Points ∼55% -5%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
35 fps ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
36 fps ∼42% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
85 fps ∼100% +143%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
85 fps ∼100% +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (35 - 36, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼42% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=799)
46 fps ∼54% +31%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
32 fps ∼53%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
32 fps ∼53% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +88%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +88%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (30 - 52, n=9)
35.8 fps ∼60% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=808)
31.5 fps ∼53% -2%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
19 fps ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18 fps ∼44% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
41 fps ∼100% +116%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
41 fps ∼100% +116%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (19 - 20, n=9)
19.2 fps ∼47% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=704)
27.3 fps ∼67% +44%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17 fps ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19 fps ∼49% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
39 fps ∼100% +129%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
38 fps ∼97% +124%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15 - 34, n=9)
21.1 fps ∼54% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=712)
22.8 fps ∼58% +34%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
13 fps ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
16 fps ∼53% +23%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
30 fps ∼100% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
30 fps ∼100% +131%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (13 - 13, n=9)
13 fps ∼43% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=567)
21.9 fps ∼73% +68%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11 fps ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
14 fps ∼48% +27%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
29 fps ∼100% +164%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
27 fps ∼93% +145%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (10 - 27, n=9)
15 fps ∼52% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=569)
19.8 fps ∼68% +80%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
5.7 fps ∼50% +43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
11 fps ∼96% +175%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
11 fps ∼96% +175%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (3.9 - 9.1, n=11)
5.65 fps ∼49% +41%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=323)
11.5 fps ∼100% +188%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.7 fps ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
3.6 fps ∼44% +33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6.9 fps ∼85% +156%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
7 fps ∼86% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2.7 - 2.8, n=11)
2.77 fps ∼34% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=321)
8.13 fps ∼100% +201%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.2 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9.4 fps ∼55% +52%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼99% +174%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼99% +174%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.2 - 15, n=11)
9.31 fps ∼54% +50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=327)
17.1 fps ∼100% +176%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.8 fps ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 fps ∼51% +28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼92% +131%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
19 fps ∼97% +144%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7.8 - 8.4, n=11)
8.13 fps ∼41% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=326)
19.6 fps ∼100% +151%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.9 fps ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 fps ∼56% +45%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼100% +161%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼100% +161%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.9 - 7.2, n=9)
7.06 fps ∼39% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=492)
14.7 fps ∼82% +113%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6 fps ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9.1 fps ∼54% +52%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼100% +183%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼94% +167%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (5.7 - 13, n=9)
7.86 fps ∼46% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=496)
13 fps ∼76% +117%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
177251 Points ∼55%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
187087 Points ∼58% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
271934 Points ∼84% +53%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
275464 Points ∼85% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (167305 - 181432, n=9)
171951 Points ∼53% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=121)
322987 Points ∼100% +82%
BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1231 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1226 Points ∼99% 0%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
1233 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (926 - 1400, n=9)
1101 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=738)
827 Points ∼67% -33%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1897 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2168 Points ∼58% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3757 Points ∼100% +98%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3768 Points ∼100% +99%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1881 - 1932, n=9)
1906 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=738)
2554 Points ∼68% +35%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2451 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1775 Points ∼39% -28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
4452 Points ∼97% +82%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
4573 Points ∼100% +87%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1804 - 3174, n=9)
2681 Points ∼59% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=738)
1906 Points ∼42% -22%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4787 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4699 Points ∼68% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6856 Points ∼99% +43%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
6908 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (4391 - 5089, n=9)
4825 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=738)
3506 Points ∼51% -27%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2232 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy M31
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
649 Points ∼19% -71%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3444 Points ∼99% +54%
realme 6 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 8192
3481 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2001 - 2556, n=9)
2271 Points ∼65% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=738)
1794 Points ∼52% -20%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
47.901 Points ∼100% +109%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=196)
40.9 Points ∼85% +79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (22.9 - 31.2, n=6)
29.2 Points ∼61% +28%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
27.807 Points ∼58% +21%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
22.887 Points ∼48%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
45.2 runs/min ∼100% +60%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=177)
43 runs/min ∼95% +52%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chome 83)
29.4 runs/min ∼65% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (25.4 - 30.8, n=6)
28.9 runs/min ∼64% +2%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
28.2 runs/min ∼62%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
17265 Points ∼100% +85%
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83)
17157 Points ∼99% +84%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
10434 Points ∼60% +12%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
9345 Points ∼54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (6133 - 9671, n=9)
8901 Points ∼52% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=795)
7967 Points ∼46% -15%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=821)
9705 ms * ∼100% -116%
Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83)
4786.2 ms * ∼49% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 (4434 - 6719, n=9)
4783 ms * ∼49% -7%
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83)
4487.2 ms * ∼46%
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83)
3033.1 ms * ∼31% +32%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99)
2850.1 ms * ∼29% +36%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Oppo A72Samsung Galaxy M31Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Prorealme 6 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
30%
19%
40%
37%
-10%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
31.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
95%
54.94 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
76%
63.43 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
103%
59 (8.4 - 72.4, n=34)
89%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=536)
64%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
37.76 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
97%
76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
103%
86.38 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
129%
74.4 (13.4 - 88.3, n=34)
97%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=536)
83%
Random Write 4KB
152.9
152.4
0%
112.93
-26%
154
1%
111 (18.2 - 290, n=62)
-27%
36.9 (0.14 - 319, n=893)
-76%
Random Read 4KB
135.91
128.9
-5%
122.58
-10%
158.66
17%
144 (96.8 - 239, n=62)
6%
60.1 (1.59 - 324, n=893)
-56%
Sequential Write 256KB
234.61
221.7
-6%
171.09
-27%
203.28
-13%
244 (182 - 511, n=62)
4%
131 (2.99 - 911, n=893)
-44%
Sequential Read 256KB
504.32
489.5
-3%
498.15
-1%
512.61
2%
773 (427 - 999, n=62)
53%
347 (12.1 - 1802, n=893)
-31%
 36.3 °C36 °C32.9 °C 
 36.1 °C35.9 °C32.7 °C 
 35.5 °C35.1 °C32.7 °C 
Maximum: 36.3 °C
Moyenne: 34.8 °C
30.1 °C32.8 °C33.8 °C
28.8 °C32.8 °C33.2 °C
30.2 °C32.6 °C32.9 °C
Maximum: 33.8 °C
Moyenne: 31.9 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  23 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 20.8 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.8 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.8 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.8 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.732.42528.7313130.626.64023.725.25030.733.46323.829.38024.222.710024.624.412520.52216018.335.120018.740.725016.650.53151758.440014.7625001468.763015.269.680014.272.1100014.674.6125013.876160014.174.5200014.875.8250014.576.931501576.6400014.874.3500014.875.6630014.970.6800015.166.91000015.262.81250015.455.41600015.345.5SPL26.986.2N0.964.4median 15median 68.7Delta1.313.534.832.919.625.523.920.424.323.130.533.518.724.420.420.418.620.917.526.719.544.519.244.316.450.215.255.614.259.714.765.813.872.114.675.214.175.813.574.414.474.913.976.113.878.713.879.414.771.214.271.114.470.814.9741575.615.166.415.356.126.587.10.869.6median 14.7median 71.10.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo A72Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo A72 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 47% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.02 / 0.24 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.7 / 1.97 / 1.98 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 3.83 / 6.2 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oppo A72
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M31
6000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
5020 mAh
realme 6 Pro
4300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-72%
-6%
-16%
-16%
-5%
Idle Minimum *
0.7
1.6
-129%
0.75
-7%
0.92
-31%
1.036 (0.62 - 1.7, n=10)
-48%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
-27%
Idle Average *
1.97
2.3
-17%
2.19
-11%
1.79
9%
1.942 (1.3 - 2.3, n=10)
1%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
11%
Idle Maximum *
1.98
3.7
-87%
2.24
-13%
1.88
5%
2.43 (1.6 - 3.5, n=10)
-23%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
-3%
Load Average *
3.83
6.7
-75%
3.88
-1%
5.41
-41%
3.88 (3.2 - 4.7, n=10)
-1%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
-8%
Load Maximum *
6.2
9.4
-52%
5.97
4%
7.59
-22%
6.82 (6.09 - 7.7, n=10)
-10%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
1%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Autonomie
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
16h 58min
Oppo A72
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M31
6000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
5020 mAh
realme 6 Pro
4300 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
WiFi v1.3
1018
1324
30%
1175
15%
1031
1%

Points positifs

+ appareil photo principal
+ NFC
+ nombre de bandes LTE
+ autonomie
+ haut-parleurs stéréos
+ chauffe

Points négatifs

- contraste de l'écran LCD
- SoC
- châssis
- patchs de sécurité
- appareils photo avant et ultra grand-angle

Verdict

En test : l'Oppo A72. Modèle de test fourni par Oppo Allemagne.
En test : l'Oppo A72. Modèle de test fourni par Oppo Allemagne.

Oppo fait bien les choses avec son smartphone abordable du milieu de gamme, mais pas tout. Malgré son prix contenu, son design est réussi quoique les bordures d'écran soient peu larges. L'appareil est complet, avec  une très bonne autonomie et un bon appareil photo principal, étonnamment bon en faible luminosité.

Le fabricant chinois a cependant fait des impasses dans certains domaines, non négligeables au quotidien. Les performances du Snapdragon 665, en retrait par rapport à la concurrence, peuvent suffirent pour les non joueurs, tant qu'ils ne sont pas trop exigeants. L'écran IPS, avec ses défauts (clouding, ombres) n'est pas tout à fait convaincant pour cette gamme de prix, le Samsung Galaxy M31 et le Redmi Note 9 Pro étant plus lumineux et plus contrastés. Et l'Oppo A72 paraît vraiment de qualité réduite avec son dos fin en plastique.

Mais pour ceux qui mettront une coque à leur smartphone ne seront pas concernés par notre principale critique.

L’intégralité de cette critique est disponible en anglais en suivant ce lien.

Oppo A72 - 07/21/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Châssis
76%
Clavier
65 / 75 → 87%
Dispositif de pointage
87%
Connectivité
48 / 70 → 69%
Poids
89%
Autonomie
91%
Écran
82%
Performances en jeu
13 / 64 → 20%
Performances dans les applications
62 / 86 → 72%
Chauffe
92%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
75 / 90 → 83%
Appareil photo
59%
Moyenne
72%
77%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Test de l'Oppo A72 : le smartphone abordable d'Oppo est un champion de l'autonomie
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-09- 7 (Update: 2020-09- 7)