Polished looks, powerhouse battery, a few trade-offs – Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G review – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

Polished looks, powerhouse battery, a few trade-offs – Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G review – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

The Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G proves to be a well-built upper mid-range smartphone with clear strengths in build quality, features and battery life. Its compact chassis, high-contrast AMOLED display with a peak brightness of nearly 2,000 cd/m², and a six-year update commitment make it a reliable companion for everyday use.

The strong camera performance, particularly from the 200 MP main sensor and the optical zoom, rounds off the overall package nicely. In terms of performance, the MediaTek Dimensity 8450 delivers solid results. The generous 6,500 mAh battery impresses with excellent runtimes and fast charging speeds, while the lack of wireless charging and the inclusion of USB 2.0 remain clear shortcomings. Overall, the Reno15 Pro offers a compelling mix of everyday usability, design and technology. However, at a price of €799, it also faces strong competition from rivals such as the Poco F8 Ultra and the Galaxy S26.

Pros

+ accurate display

+ very long battery life and fast charging

+ good main and zoom cameras

+ eSIM support

+ long update support

Cons

no wireless charging

only USB 2.0

PWM flickering

The Reno15 Pro is available directly from Oppo’s online store, but is also offered by retailers such as Amazon.

The Reno15 Pro represents the top model in Oppo’s upper mid-range lineup and aims to impress with its large battery and high-quality camera setup. The naming is somewhat confusing, as the model tested here is marketed as the Oppo Reno15 Pro Mini in other regions.

With an RRP of €799, it not only has to compete with the comparison devices selected here, but also, at least on paper, with models such as the Xiaomi 17 and the Samsung Galaxy S26, which offer a similar form factor.

Processor

MediaTek Dimensity 8450 8c/8t, 1 x 3.3 GHz ARM Cortex-A725, 3 x 3.0 GHz ARM Cortex-A725, 4 x 2.1 GHz ARM Cortex-A725, Cortex-A725

Display

6.32 inch 19.54:9, 2640 x 1216 pixel 460 PPI, Capacitive, AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 7i, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz

Storage

512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 512 GB 

, 481 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 Infrared, Audio Connections: USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, OTG, IR-Blaster

Networking

Wi-Fi 6E (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.4, 2G (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 19), LTE (Band (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 66, 71), 5G-Sub6 (Band 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 48, 66, 71, 77, 78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 8.13 x 151.21 x 72.42 ( = 0.32 x 5.95 x 2.85 in)

Battery

24.3 Wh, 6500 mAh Lithium-Ion, Battery Cycles: 1500, 3.92 V, USB PD: 10 – 55 W

Charging

fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 16

Camera

Primary Camera: 200 MPix (f/1.8, 6P, 24 mm, OIS) + 50 MPix (3.5x optical zoom, f/2.8, 4P, 85 mm, OIS) + 50 MPix (f/2.0, 6P, 16 mm)
Secondary Camera: 50 MPix (f/2.0, 5P, 18 mm, AF)

Additional features

Speakers: Dual, Keyboard: OnScreen, SIM-Tool, USB-Cabel, ColorOS 16, 24 Months Warranty, Bluetooth Audio Codecs: SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, aptX TWS+, LDAC, LHDC 5.0 | GNSS: GPS (L1), Glonass (L1), BeiDou (B1I, B1C), Galileo (E1), QZSS (L1), SBAS | HDR: HLG, HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision | DRM Widevine L1 | eSIM | IP68 | Body-SAR: 1.188 W/kg, Head-SAR: 0.955 W/kg | max. charging speed: 80 W (wired), fanless, waterproof

Weight

188 g ( = 6.63 oz / 0.41 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

The Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G is a relatively compact smartphone and, in terms of its rear design, bears some resemblance to the iPhone 16 Pro. However, Oppo takes a different approach when it comes to colours, offering two distinctive options in Dusk Black (which appears more brown in practice) and Aurora Blue (our test unit).

The matte aluminium frame is resistant to fingerprints, while the display is protected by Gorilla Glass 7i. Although the rear panel is made of plastic, it is well executed and visually appealing. Overall, the build quality is convincing, and the smartphone is IP68-certified, making it both dust- and water-resistant.

In terms of features, there are no major omissions. However, compromises include the relatively slow USB 2.0 standard, as well as the lack of UWB and wireless charging.

{element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_357551’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_353666’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_353666’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_358646’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_358646’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_353479’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_353479’).checked = false;document.querySelectorAll(‘#showDeviceSize_a6’).forEach(element => {element.classList.add(‘hideEl’)});document.getElementById(‘showDeviceSizelabel_a6’).checked = false;return false;” title=”hide all”>❌

163.33 mm / 6.43 in 77.82 mm / 3.06 in 8.3 mm / 0.3268 in 220 g0.485 lbs161.3 mm / 6.35 in 76.6 mm / 3.02 in 7.4 mm / 0.2913 in 190 g0.4189 lbs151.21 mm / 5.95 in 72.42 mm / 2.85 in 8.13 mm / 0.3201 in 188 g0.4145 lbs150.57 mm / 5.93 in 71.92 mm / 2.83 in 7.95 mm / 0.313 in 190 g0.4189 lbs148 mm / 5.83 in 105 mm / 4.13 in 1 mm / 0.03937 in 1.5 g0.00331 lbs

As its name suggests, the Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G supports the current 5G mobile standard, although its frequency band coverage is somewhat more limited than that of pricier devices. In practice, however, this is only likely to make a difference when travelling to more distant countries.

Call quality is clear and natural when holding the Reno15 Pro to the ear. Background noise suppression also works well in most cases, although the phone does reach its limits in very loud surroundings.

When it comes to Wi-Fi, the Reno15 Pro delivers a pleasant surprise: according to the spec sheet, it only supports Wi-Fi 6, but it can also use the 6 GHz spectrum, meaning Wi-Fi 6E. Transfer rates are correspondingly high and also remain stable.

Networking
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Wi-Fi 6E
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz





1449 (min: 1308) MBit/s ∼79%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz





1547 (min: 1261) MBit/s ∼86%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Wi-Fi 6E
iperf3 transmit AXE11000





949 (min: 474) MBit/s ∼96%

iperf3 receive AXE11000





1006 (min: 504) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz





1589 (min: 808) MBit/s ∼86%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz





1188 (min: 1151) MBit/s ∼66%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
802.11 a/​b/​g/​n/​ac/​ax/​be
iperf3 transmit AXE11000





989 (min: 488) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 receive AXE11000





946 (min: 814) MBit/s ∼94%

Vivo X300
802.11 a/​b/​g/​n/​ac/​ax/​be
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz





1843 (min: 1759) MBit/s ∼100%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz





1802 (min: 1718) MBit/s ∼100%

Average Wi-Fi 6E
 
iperf3 transmit AXE11000






954 (min: 227) MBit/s ∼96%

iperf3 receive AXE11000






940 (min: 442) MBit/s ∼93%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz






1372 (min: 229) MBit/s ∼74%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz






1334 (min: 598) MBit/s ∼74%

Average of class Smartphone
 
iperf3 transmit AXE11000






665 (min: 49.8) MBit/s ∼67%

iperf3 receive AXE11000






714 (min: 52) MBit/s ∼71%

iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz






1256 (min: 508) MBit/s ∼68%

iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz






1386 (min: 451) MBit/s ∼77%

050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900950100010501100115012001250130013501400145015001550160016501700Tooltip

The Reno15 Pro ships with Google Android 16 and ColorOS 16 already installed, and Oppo promises five major Android updates. In addition, the smartphone will receive security patches for six years.

The smartphone comes in slim packaging that avoids the use of obvious plastic. There is very little information on sustainability, with only a few figures on metal content listed in the specifications. The device is not intended to be repaired by the user.

full resolution]”>Selfie with the Reno15 Pro 5G
Selfie with the Reno15 Pro 5G

The front camera benefits from its integrated autofocus, uses pixel binning and delivers appealing results. It can even record videos in Ultra HD at up to 60 fps.

The rear triple-camera setup uses a 200 MP main sensor with optical image stabilisation (OIS). It takes decent photos, although lens flares can occur in difficult lighting conditions. The setup is complemented by an ultra-wide-angle camera and 3x optical zoom, while digital zoom goes up to 120x. The ultra-wide-angle camera shows aberrations towards the edges and does not offer outstanding depth of field, whereas the zoom camera delivers fairly good results, including in the digital range.

The main camera can also record in 4K at 60 fps and additionally benefits from very good image stabilisation.

Image comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

HauptkameraHauptkameraUltraweitwinkel5-facher ZoomLow-Light

orginal image

click to load images

ColorChecker

3.5 ∆E

2.7 ∆E

3.5 ∆E

5.2 ∆E

2.8 ∆E

2.9 ∆E

3.6 ∆E

4.4 ∆E

6.4 ∆E

3 ∆E

2.3 ∆E

2.8 ∆E

7.2 ∆E

3.2 ∆E

4.6 ∆E

4.8 ∆E

3.9 ∆E

5.5 ∆E

7.4 ∆E

3.5 ∆E

3.2 ∆E

2.7 ∆E

2 ∆E

2.8 ∆E

ColorChecker Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G: 3.91 ∆E min: 1.95 – max: 7.41 ∆E
ColorChecker

18.5 ∆E

19.2 ∆E

16.4 ∆E

21.8 ∆E

18 ∆E

19.8 ∆E

18.3 ∆E

10.2 ∆E

10.9 ∆E

16 ∆E

14.5 ∆E

21.5 ∆E

11.6 ∆E

20.3 ∆E

5.9 ∆E

11.9 ∆E

13.4 ∆E

23.5 ∆E

14.3 ∆E

13 ∆E

17.5 ∆E

25.9 ∆E

20.1 ∆E

12.9 ∆E

ColorChecker Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G: 16.48 ∆E min: 5.93 – max: 25.94 ∆E
Subpixel structure
Subpixel structure

The 6.3-inch (16 cm) AMOLED display of the Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G supports refresh rates from 60 to 120 Hz and all common HDR standards.

Brightness distribution is very even. On a pure white screen, however, brightness always remains just below 1,300 cd/m² and hardly increases even when the white area is reduced. The display only gets brighter during HDR playback, reaching up to 1,967 cd/m². Outdoors, the smartphone remains easy to read in most situations.

The panel shows the OLED-typical flickering at a comparatively low base frequency, meaning sensitive users may still experience discomfort despite Oppo also using high-frequency PWM dimming at 2,160 Hz.

1286
cd/m²
1285
cd/m²
1289
cd/m²
1282
cd/m²
1281
cd/m²
1284
cd/m²
1272
cd/m²
1279
cd/m²
1259
cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 3

Maximum: 1289 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 1279.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 1281 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.75}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 1.3 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5}
99.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
CCT: 6330 K

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
AMOLED, 2640×1216, 6.3″
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
AMOLED, 2340×1080, 6.7″
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
AMOLED, 2608×1200, 6.9″
Vivo X300
AMOLED, 2640×1216, 6.3″
Screen

-75%

-2%

-9%

Brightness middle (cd/m²)

1281

1136

-11%

1771

38%

1537

20%

Brightness (cd/m²)

1280

1132

-12%

1773

39%

1523

19%

Brightness Distribution (%)

98

98

0%

99

1%

96

-2%

Black Level * (cd/m²)
Colorchecker dE 2000 *

1

3.5

-250%

1.3

-30%

1.4

-40%

Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *

2.9

5.5

-90%

2.8

3%

2.6

10%

Greyscale dE 2000 *

1.3

2.4

-85%

2.1

-62%

2.1

-62%

Gamma

2.25 98%

2.02 109%

2.25 98%

2.28 96%

CCT

6330 103%

6322 103%

6452 101%

6754 96%

* … smaller is better

Display / APL18 Peak Brightness
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash
Vivo X300
Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
Display / HDR Peak Brightness
Vivo X300
Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Adreno 840, SD 8 Elite Gen 5, 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession – a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.

Screen flickering / PWM detected 90 Hz
Amplitude: 17.24 %
Secondary Frequency: 2000 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 90 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 90 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7962 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Measurement series with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings (The amplitude curve at minimum brightness looks flat, but this is due to the scaling. The info box shows the enlarged version of the amplitude at minimum brightness)

Outdoors
Viewing angle stability

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.

       Response Time Black to White
1 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined ↗ 0.4905 ms rise
↘ 0.5105 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
1.05 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined ↗ 0.4535 ms rise
↘ 0.5935 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31.3 ms).

The Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G is powered by a MediaTek Dimensity 8450 paired with 12 GB of LPDDR5x RAM. The SoC is positioned in the mid-range, but it delivers good everyday performance and also offers enough power for gaming. It is a pity, however, that Oppo is still using older UFS 3.1 storage here.

Surface temperatures rise noticeably under load, but remain within a safe range. However, throttling in the 3DMark stress test is quite pronounced.

The speakers deliver decent sound quality, although lower frequencies are somewhat muffled and weak. Auracast is not supported at present.

At 6,500 mAh, the Reno15 Pro 5G’s battery is not only large but also delivers very good runtimes. With a suitable charger, the phone can be charged at up to 80 watts. In that case, a full charge takes just 51 minutes (50%: 22 min, 80%: 37 min).

Geekbench 6.5
Single-Core
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


3676 Points +135%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


3397 Points +117%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


2118 Points +35%

Average of class Smartphone
  (196 – 3883, n=195, last 2 years)





1734 Points +11%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


1566 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





1566 Points 0%

Multi-Core
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


11004 Points +79%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


9998 Points +63%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


6839 Points +11%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


6137 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





6137 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (830 – 11634, n=195, last 2 years)





5123 Points -17%

3DMark
Wild Life Unlimited Score
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


30621 Points +133%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


26476 Points +101%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


15464 Points +18%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


13159 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





13159 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (271 – 30624, n=178, last 2 years)





11124 Points -15%

Wild Life Extreme
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


7089 Points +75%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


7021 Points +74%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


4421 Points +9%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


4044 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





4044 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (61 – 8140, n=179, last 2 years)





2913 Points -28%

Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


7101 Points +77%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


6959 Points +73%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


4142 Points +3%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


4014 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





4014 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (62 – 8102, n=178, last 2 years)





2901 Points -28%

GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


120 fps +97%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


120 fps +97%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


119 fps +95%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


61 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





61 fps 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (6.2 – 166, n=191, last 2 years)





57.8 fps -5%

1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


361 fps +117%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


296 fps +78%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


166 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





166 fps 0%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


156 fps -6%

Average of class Smartphone
  (3.4 – 374, n=191, last 2 years)





117.6 fps -29%

on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


120 fps +97%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


120 fps +97%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


108 fps +77%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


61 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





61 fps 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (0.85 – 144, n=192, last 2 years)





46.3 fps -24%

2560×1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


146 fps +125%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


114 fps +75%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


84 fps +29%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


65 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





65 fps 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 – 151, n=191, last 2 years)





45 fps -31%

3840×2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


61 fps +110%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


50 fps +72%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


34 fps +17%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


29 fps

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





29 fps 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (0.54 – 62, n=192, last 2 years)





20.7 fps -29%

Geekbench AI
Single Precision NPU 1.7
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


1044 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





1044 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (80 – 5210, n=85, last 2 years)





725 Points -31%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


612 Points -41%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


559 Points -46%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


324 Points -69%

Half Precision NPU 1.7
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


7804 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





7804 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (80 – 36297, n=85, last 2 years)





3032 Points -61%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


621 Points -92%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


561 Points -93%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


342 Points -96%

Quantized NPU 1.7
Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


10198 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





10198 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (133 – 49889, n=85, last 2 years)





4443 Points -56%

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500, Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, 12288


1409 Points -86%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


1285 Points -87%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


1096 Points -89%

CrossMark
Overall
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


2598 Points +223%

Average of class Smartphone
  (187 – 2856, n=105, last 2 years)





1125 Points +40%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


805 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





805 Points 0%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


Points -100%

Productivity
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


2260 Points +279%

Average of class Smartphone
  (198 – 2366, n=105, last 2 years)





1041 Points +75%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


596 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





596 Points 0%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


Points -100%

Creativity
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


1829 Points +182%

Average of class Smartphone
  (163 – 2123, n=105, last 2 years)





937 Points +45%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


648 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





648 Points 0%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


Points -100%

Responsiveness
Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


11299 Points +196%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


3811 Points

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





3811 Points 0%

Average of class Smartphone
  (239 – 13042, n=105, last 2 years)





3200 Points -16%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


Points -100%

Jetstream 2 – 2.0 Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400, Xclipse 940, 8192


210.247 Points +64%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, Adreno 840, 16384


165.891 Points +29%

Average of class Smartphone
  (23.8 – 358, n=126, last 2 years)





149.4 Points +17%

Average MediaTek Dimensity 8450
  (n=1)





128.2 Points 0%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450, Mali-G720 MP7, 12288


128.186 Points

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra Vivo X300 Average 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5

89%

240%

187%

82%

90%

Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s)

1748.66

3756.44

115%

4064.33

132%

2056.87

18%

1876 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(1023 – 2110, n=38)

7%

2098 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(270 – 4370, n=181, last 2 years)

20%

Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s)

1701.38

2450.19

44%

3987.65

134%

1997.76

17%

1366 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(575 – 2053, n=38)

-20%

1797 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(103.2 – 4113, n=181, last 2 years)

6%

Random Read 4KB (MB/s)

237.39

382.44

61%

575.86

143%

332.61

40%

289 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(208 – 386, n=38)

22%

293 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(47.6 – 614, n=181, last 2 years)

23%

Random Write 4KB (MB/s)

84.58

198.68

135%

551.82

552%

654.09

673%

354 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(64.8 – 745, n=38)

319%

347 {el.classList.toggle(‘hideEl’);});return false;”>?(9.4 – 1071, n=181, last 2 years)

310%

  44.9 °C
113 F
45 °C
113 F
43.8 °C
111 F
 
  44.7 °C
112 F
44.1 °C
111 F
43.1 °C
110 F
 
  43.6 °C
110 F
45.1 °C
113 F
42.3 °C
108 F
 
Maximum: 45.1 °C = 113 F
Average: 44.1 °C = 111 F
42.9 °C
109 F
43.3 °C
110 F
43.5 °C
110 F
41.3 °C
106 F
42.7 °C
109 F
44.5 °C
112 F
41.4 °C
107 F
43 °C
109 F
42.9 °C
109 F
Maximum: 44.5 °C = 112 F
Average: 42.8 °C = 109 F

Room Temperature 20.9 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 44.1 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.1 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.5 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Vivo X300
Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash


58.9 % +33%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


53.4 % +21%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


44.3 %

Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


53.8 % +42%

Vivo X300
Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash


46.7 % +23%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


38 %

Solar Bay Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


55.8 % +60%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


34.8 %

Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability
Vivo X300
Mali-G1 Ultra MC12, Dimensity 9500, 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash


60.9 % +45%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash


59.7 % +42%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash


41.9 %

051015202530354045505560657075808590Tooltip

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.14.3: Ø13 (8.52-22.4)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.1.14.1: Ø16.4 (13.9-25.8)

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø53.6 (28.9-65.4)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø57.8 (47.6-89.1)

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability: Ø56.7 (28.8-79)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Wild Life Unlimited Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø68.2 (53-90.1)

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Solar Bay Unlimited Stress Test Stability; 1.0.17.4: Ø17.4 (8.93-22.6)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Solar Bay Unlimited Stress Test Stability; 1.0.17.2: Ø19.6 (16.4-29.1)

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Solar Bay Stress Test Stability; 1.0.17.4: Ø14.7 (7.72-22.2)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Solar Bay Stress Test Stability; 1.0.17.2: Ø18.5 (15.8-28.3)

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G Mali-G720 MP7, Dimensity 8450, 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability; 1.0.6.2: Ø8.18 (4.37-10.4)

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE Xclipse 940, Exynos 2400, 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash; Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability; 1.0.6.1: Ø9.81 (8.65-14.5)

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.334.62530.325312720.74039.843.55042.341.6632424.68023.62410021.231.512520.442.716022.654.220019.855.425017.858.331514.959.740016.258.150014.56463012.967.180012.871.1100011.271.4125012.178.1160011.978.2200011.478.925001280315012.176.6400013.371.6500013.171.4630012.971.780001376.41000012.875.11250012.866.71600014.247.7SPL25.387.8N0.770.2median 13median 71.1Delta1.9939.839.129.624.219.319.425.326.733.336.620.735.323.843.718.448.815.255.511.964.91564.211.763.211.765.910.164.49.867.310.869.911.374.711.377.812.378.411.774.211.377.21279.612.281.312.879.813.177.813.37713.374.713.475.213.372.412.962.324.489.60.582.7median 12.2median 74.71.36.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise

Battery Runtime

WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 146) 23h 28min

The Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G impresses with its strong display, long battery life, capable cameras and generous update policy, but falls short in terms of performance, storage and features.

Review: Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G. Test device provided by Oppo.

ⓘ Daniel Schmidt

Review: Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G. Test device provided by Oppo.

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
– 03/23/2026 v8

Daniel Schmidt

Connectivity

52 / 69 → 75%

Games Performance

27 / 55 → 49%

Application Performance

69 / 85 → 81%

Smartphone – Weighted Average

CO2 Emissions
No Data

Materials
25%

Packaging
90%

Power Use
91.7%

Repairability
40%

Software Updates
94.5%

Recycle Logo Total Sustainability Score: 56.9%

Image

Model / Review

Price

Weight

Drive

Display

1.

82.6%

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G

Oppo Reno15 Pro 5G
MediaTek Dimensity 8450 ⎘
ARM Mali-G720 MP7 ⎘
12 GB Memory, 512 GB 
List Price: 799€ 188 g 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash 6.32″
2640×1216
460 PPI
AMOLED

2.

85.6%

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE

Samsung Galaxy S25 FE
Samsung Exynos 2400 ⎘
Samsung Xclipse 940 ⎘
8 GB Memory, 256 GB 
List Price: 809€ 190 g 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash 6.70″
2340×1080
382 PPI
AMOLED

3.

88.2%

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra

Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘
Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘
16 GB Memory, 512 GB 
List Price: 900€ 220 g 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash 6.90″
2608×1200
416 PPI
AMOLED

4.

88%

Vivo X300

Vivo X300
MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘
Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘
12 GB Memory, 256 GB 
List Price: 1049€ 190 g 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash 6.31″
2640×1216
461 PPI
AMOLED

Transparency

The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.

This is how Notebookcheck is testing

Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.

Daniel Schmidt, 2026-03-27 (Update: 2026-03-27)

Read More

Prev post
Next post

Leave A Reply

en_USEnglish