OPPO Pad 5 评测
如果OPPO在欧洲直接推出与中国版完全相同的Pad 5，它本可以成为一款真正的中端爆款。然而，如今的全球版与中国版几乎已无共同之处。
OPPO几乎在每个重要领域都进行了削减，可能唯一的例外是机身。由于全球版的显示屏、芯片组、存储、电池和功能均被降级，因此Pad 5的中国版和欧洲版本质上是两款不同的平板电脑。
在日常使用中，影响处理器和集成显卡的降成本措施尤为明显。Pad 5在日常操作中响应速度并不特别快，运行也不够流畅。此外，其性能也不足以在12.1英寸高分辨率屏幕上以高帧率运行当前的游戏。
总体而言，与中端市场低价位段的竞品相比，Pad 5 表现更佳，尽管这些竞品的价格要低得多。例如小米红米 Pad 2 Pro 和联想 Tab K12。
在这个较低的价格区间内，OPPO平板电脑凭借其亮度较高的LCD显示屏，确实在竞争中占据了一些优势。对于同时考虑购买11英寸平板电脑的用户来说，小米Pad 8无疑是一个更优的选择，目前其售价也低得多。
Pros
Cons
OPPO Pad 5 的价格与供货情况
- $10.19Ibywind for Oppo Find X5 5G Screen Protector,2-Pack,Hydrogel Film with Camera Lens Protector,Easy Installation Tool,Bubble-Free,Fingerprint Unlock Compatible,Anti-Shatter,Anti-Scratch
- $20.97Case for Oppo Pad 5, KONXISA Case with Multi-fold Stand Protective, Premium PU Leather and Magnetic Adsorption Shell, Scratch Resistant & Shockproof Cover, Grey
- $29.95BoxWave Keyboard Compatible with Oppo Pad 5 - SlimKeys Bluetooth Keyboard, Portable Thin with Chiclet-Style Keys - Jet Black
Table of Contents
- OPPO Pad 5 评测
- OPPO Pad 5 规格参数
- 机身：一款屏幕边框相对较窄的安卓平板电脑
- 特点：价格实惠的iPad Air替代品，但USB传输速度较慢且支持microSD卡扩展
- 软件：配备长期安全更新的安卓平板电脑
- 通信与GNSS：支持5G和GPS的经济实惠的高端中端平板电脑
- 摄像头：OPPO Pad 5，配备1300万像素摄像头，适用于教室
- 配件与保修：支持触控笔的中端平板电脑
- 输入设备与操作：OPPO取消了指纹传感器
- 显示屏：高亮度的安卓平板电脑，但非OLED屏
- 性能：OPPO的中端平板电脑在游戏方面的表现远不如iPad
- 发热量：一款发热量极低且降频情况极少的安卓平板电脑
- 电池续航：OPPO Pad 5 功耗低
- Notebookcheck 综合评分
- 替代方案一览比较
OPPO Pad 5 规格参数
机身：一款屏幕边框相对较窄的安卓平板电脑
与Pro机型直接对比，Pad 5明显给人一种中端机的感觉。机身不仅看起来更厚，而且由于采用了塑料边框和后盖，手感也显得不够高端。不过，其做工质量依然不错。
对于一款中端平板电脑而言，相对纤薄的屏幕边框赋予了设备迷人的外观，并实现了略低于87%的出色屏占比。制造商未提供有关所用屏幕保护玻璃类型的任何信息。
我们评测的机型为镜面版，不过Pad 5还提供哑光屏版本。
特点：价格实惠的iPad Air替代品，但USB传输速度较慢且支持microSD卡扩展
Pad 5 仅配备一个 USB 2.0 接口，这意味着连接速度不仅相当慢，而且无法将视频信号输出到外部显示器。不过，后者似乎只是个小问题，因为 OPPO 并未提供类似三星 DeX 的桌面模式。
作为替代，这款中端平板支持最大 2 TB 的 microSD 卡。当搭配我们的基准测试卡 Angelbird V60 使用时，Pad 5 展现出了非常令人满意的读写速度。得益于 USB-OTG 功能，U 盘也能轻松连接。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Lenovo ThinkTab X11 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Average of class Tablet (10.2 - 79.2, n=42, last 2 years) | |
跨平台磁盘测试（CPDT）
软件：配备长期安全更新的安卓平板电脑
Pad 5 预装了 Android 16 系统和 OPPO 自家的 ColorOS 16 界面，其中包含 OPPO AI 功能。这款中端平板电脑将获得安全更新，直至 2032 年 5 月。不过，制造商尚未说明这些更新的推送频率。未来 Android 版本更新的次数同样未作说明。
可持续发展
我们未能找到关于OPPO平板电脑所用材料或再生材料比例的任何确切信息。虽然包装用塑料薄膜密封，但包装本身似乎不含塑料。
Pad 5在EPREL数据库中的可维修性等级为B级。
通信与GNSS：支持5G和GPS的经济实惠的高端中端平板电脑
至少在欧洲，OPPO这款中端平板仅支持Wi-Fi 6，无法使用用于无线数据传输的高速6 GHz频段。然而，即使在5 GHz Wi-Fi频段下，当与我们的华硕参考路由器配对时，测试中的传输速度也非常低。 我们测得的峰值仅约400 Mbit/s，尽管如此，这对于大多数日常使用场景来说应该还是足够的。
我们评测的机型是5G版本，配备了GNSS模块和A-GPS。然而，可选的Wi-Fi版本则必须依赖无线网络才能提供定位服务。
| Networking | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Lenovo ThinkTab X11 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Average of class Tablet | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
尽管 Pad 5 体积较大，但我们仍将其与 Garmin Venu 2 配合使用，共同记录了一条路线以供对比。令人欣喜的是，这款平板电脑能够快速且准确地建立卫星连接。即使在室内，它也能非常迅速地确定自身位置。
任何一直想要一款巨型导航设备用于自驾旅行的人，都可以放心将Pad 5用于此目的，因为实践证明其定位精度非常高。
摄像头：OPPO Pad 5，配备1300万像素摄像头，适用于教室
在日光下，Pad 5 的后置 1300 万像素摄像头能拍出可用的照片，尽管其清晰度并不特别高。 该摄像头支持自动对焦，色彩还原效果令人满意。
然而，在我们于受控人工照明环境下进行的色彩分析中，Pad 5 显示出一些显著的偏差，特别是在偏蓝的色调上（DeltaE > 15）。尽管如此，这款 OPPO 平板电脑非常适合拍摄文档或课堂笔记。
配件与保修：支持触控笔的中端平板电脑
我们收到的评测样机未附带电源适配器。包装盒内仅包含一条 USB 数据线和说明文档。可选配件 Oppo Pencil 2R（建议零售价 39 欧元）需另行购买。在我们的测试中，Pencil 2 Pro无法与 Pad 5 配合使用。
在德国，OPPO 为 Pad 5 提供 24 个月的保修服务。其他国家的保修条款可能有所不同。
输入设备与操作：OPPO取消了指纹传感器
这块大尺寸LCD屏幕响应精准且运行顺畅。不过，120 Hz的刷新率本应带来更流畅的显示体验，但实际使用中却并非如此。在日常使用中，天玑7300处理器常常显得力不从心。动画效果可能显得卡顿，浏览器滚动时有时也会出现跳帧现象。
Pad 5 还缺少用于通过键盘保护套扩展输入选项的弹簧针。振动马达和指纹传感器同样缺失。至少，这款平板电脑支持通过前置摄像头进行安全性较低的 2D 面部识别，在白天光线充足的情况下，能够可靠且快速地解锁设备。
显示屏：高亮度的安卓平板电脑，但非OLED屏
得益于1,980p的分辨率和283 ppi的像素密度，这款12.1英寸LCD面板在中端平板电脑中呈现了清晰的图像。由于Pad 5未采用OLED屏幕，因此无需依赖PWM来控制亮度。 这使得屏幕对视力敏感的用户更为友好，即使长时间使用也不易造成眼部疲劳。
我们在APL18测试中测得的亮度水平约为900 cd/m²，表现非常令人满意，这款OPPO平板在显示HDR内容时还留有稍大的余量。不过，尽管支持杜比视界（Dolby Vision），但我们测得的926 cd/m²亮度对于最佳呈现HDR效果而言仍略显不足。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 892 cd/m²
Contrast: 1115:1 (Black: 0.8 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.17 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.71}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 2.3 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.96}
97% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.415
CCT: 6856 K
| Oppo Pad 5 LCD, 2800x1980, 12.1" | Xiaomi Pad 8 IPS, 3200x2136, 11.2" | Honor MagicPad 4 OLED, 3000x1920, 12.3" | Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 LCD, 2800x1840, 12" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 196% | 5% | ||
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 903 | 2337 159% | 959 6% | |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 926 | 3084 233% | 965 4% | |
| Response Times | -56% | 64% | -20% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 25.1 ? | 33.6 ? -34% | 16.6 ? 34% | 29.44 ? -17% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 13.1 ? | 23.2 ? -77% | 0.91 ? 93% | 16.13 ? -23% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 60 | |||
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 16.05 | |||
| Screen | 18% | 19% | -56% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 892 | 627 -30% | 829 -7% | 970 9% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 862 | 613 -29% | 827 -4% | 906 5% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 93 | 96 3% | 90 -3% | 90 -3% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | 0.8 | 0.3 63% | 0.87 -9% | |
| Contrast (:1) | 1115 | 2090 87% | 1115 0% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.17 | 1.25 -7% | 0.9 23% | 3.6 -208% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.67 | 2.95 37% | 1.7 64% | 8.2 -76% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.3 | 1.8 22% | 1.3 43% | 6.1 -165% |
| Gamma | 2.415 91% | 2.183 101% | 2.25 98% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 6856 95% | 6898 94% | 6601 98% | 7149 91% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -19% /
4% | 93% /
64% | -24% /
-40% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7747 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
约1,100:1的对比度对于HDR爱好者来说也略显不足。由于黑电平为0.8 cd/m²，Pad 5上的黑色调显得有些发灰且缺乏层次感。不过，其色彩准确度非常出色，与sRGB色域的偏差仅为微小。 我们使用 Calman 分析软件和分光光度计对色彩校准进行了检测。
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 13.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3.7 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 34 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 25.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.1 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (30.9 ms). | ||
性能：OPPO的中端平板电脑在游戏方面的表现远不如iPad
| PCMark for Android - Work 3.x | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (11724 - 15834, n=14) | |
| Average of class Tablet (7084 - 27428, n=59, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| CrossMark - Overall | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Average of class Tablet (319 - 2375, n=47, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (390 - 791, n=10) | |
| UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (8087 - 29436, n=10) | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Average of class Tablet (3564 - 76852, n=52, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| AI Benchmark - Score V6 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Average of class Tablet (70.4 - 22476, n=36, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (232 - 581, n=8) | |
| Antutu v11 - Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Average of class Tablet (522205 - 4184631, n=10, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (n=1) | |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7: T-Rex Onscreen | 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
GFXBench 3.0: on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
GFXBench 3.1: on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
GFXBench: on screen Car Chase Onscreen | 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | 3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| 3DMark / Solar Bay Unlimited Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Unlimited Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| 3DMark / Steel Nomad Light Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Jetstream 2 - 2.2 Total | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 (Chrome 148) | |
| Average of class Tablet (61.3 - 579, n=41, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 (Chrome 14ß) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (116.9 - 149.6, n=5) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 (Chrome 148) | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 (Chrome 142) | |
| Average of class Tablet (1633 - 138481, n=71, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 (Chrome 14ß) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (22739 - 42038, n=14) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average of class Tablet (243 - 16233, n=65, last 2 years) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (1028 - 2154, n=11) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 (Chrome 14ß) | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 (Chrome 142) | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 (Chrome 148) | |
| WebXPRT 5 - Overall | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 (Chrome 148) | |
| Average of class Tablet (37 - 102, n=5, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Pad 5 (Chrome 14ß) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 (n=1) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Oppo Pad 5 | Xiaomi Pad 8 | Honor MagicPad 4 | Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Tablet | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 73% | 68% | 140% | -15% | 16% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 1922.71 | 3899.2 103% | 1978.75 3% | 3939.89 105% | 1586 ? -18% | 2073 ? 8% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1674.97 | 3391.2 102% | 1752.63 5% | 2609.8 56% | 807 ? -52% | 1667 ? 0% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 208.83 | 325.1 56% | 513.85 146% | 473.25 127% | 246 ? 18% | 275 ? 32% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 266.49 | 348.2 31% | 574.85 116% | 988.72 271% | 250 ? -6% | 324 ? 22% |
发热量：一款发热量极低且降频情况极少的安卓平板电脑
温度
在我们的测量中，表面温度始终保持在极低水平。即使是平板电脑典型的局部热点，在Pad 5上温度也未超过40 °C。在压力测试期间，性能也几乎没有变化，尽管其水平极低。
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.8 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
3DMark 压力测试
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Honor MagicPad 4 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 | |
| Oppo Pad 5 | |
| Xiaomi Pad 8 | |
发言人
OPPO平板电脑配备了四个扬声器，可提供出色的音效体验。然而，对于这样一款机身内部空间充裕的大尺寸平板电脑，我们原本期待其音场能更具深度。 我们的粉红噪声测试还显示，超高频段的响应有所衰减。
在外部音频输出方面，用户可通过USB端口连接有线设备，或使用蓝牙5.4进行无线连接。后者支持多种编解码格式，包括SBC、AAC、aptX、aptX HD和LDAC。
Oppo Pad 5 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 20%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Pad 8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (11.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 20%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 9% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 134%
电池续航：OPPO Pad 5 功耗低
功耗
这款10,050 mAh的电池最大充电功率仅为33瓦。不过，对于一款12.1英寸的平板电脑而言，其功耗表现非常出色且效率极高。我们在待机状态下测得的功耗约为2瓦，这是一个非常好的结果。
| Off / Standby |   0.1 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  1.8 / 1.9 / 2.1 Watt |
| Load |
6.7 / 9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Pad 5 10420 mAh | Xiaomi Pad 8 9200 mAh | Honor MagicPad 4 10100 mAh | Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 10100 mAh | Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 | Average of class Tablet | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -7% | -95% | -132% | 22% | -67% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 1.8 | 1.3 28% | 3.53 -96% | 1.49 17% | 1.112 ? 38% | 2.21 ? -23% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 1.9 | 2 -5% | 4.77 -151% | 6.09 -221% | 1.605 ? 16% | 4.01 ? -111% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 2.1 | 2.3 -10% | 4.86 -131% | 6.16 -193% | 1.892 ? 10% | 4.4 ? -110% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 6.7 | 6.6 1% | 11.21 -67% | 4.4 ? 34% | 8.92 ? -33% | |
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 9 | 13.3 -48% | 11.67 -30% | 7.95 ? 12% | 14.4 ? -60% |
* ... smaller is better
功耗：Geekbench（150 cd/m²）
功耗：GFXBench（150 cd/m²）
电池续航时间
在将屏幕亮度调整至150 cd/m²的情况下，Pad 5在我们的电池测试中表现同样出色。尽管其续航时间未能达到Pro机型的水平，但这款OPPO平板电脑仍能提供长达19小时的电池续航时间。
| Oppo Pad 5 10420 mAh | Xiaomi Pad 8 9200 mAh | Honor MagicPad 4 10100 mAh | Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 10100 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | ||||
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 19.1 | 20.7 8% | 13.1 -31% | 14.3 -25% |
Notebookcheck 综合评分
任何正在寻找支持5G和触控笔的平板电脑的用户，都会发现OPPO Pad 5是iPad Air 13或Galaxy Tab S11 Ultra之外一款价格实惠的替代选择。然而，作为一款中端平板电脑，其性能表现却极其低下。
Oppo Pad 5
- 07/16/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich
Total Sustainability Score: 替代方案一览比较
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 80.9%  | Oppo Pad 5 MediaTek Dimensity 7300 ⎘ ARM Mali-G615 MP2 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 128 GB UFS 3.1 | List Price: 459€ | 577 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 12.10" 2800x1980 283 PPI LCD |
2. 87.1%  | Xiaomi Pad 8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 SM8735 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 825 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: 1. $375.00 XIAOMI Pad 8 Ai WiFi Version... 2. $389.50 XIAOMI Pad 8 Ai WiFi Version... 3. $349.50 XIAOMI Pad 8 Ai WiFi Version... List Price: 437€ | 485 g | 256 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 11.20" 3200x2136 344 PPI IPS |
3. 89.6%  | Honor MagicPad 4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 829 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: 1. $299.99 HONOR Pad 10 (12.1 inch, Wi-... 2. $282.91 Samsung Galaxy Tab A11+ 8GB ... 3. $709.00 Honor MagicPad3 Wi-Fi Tablet... List Price: 600€ | 450 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 12.30" 3000x1920 290 PPI OLED |
4. 83.2%  | Huawei MatePad 12 X 2025 HiSilicon Kirin T92 ⎘ HiSilicon Maleoon 920 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 649€ | 555 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 12.00" 2800x1840 279 PPI LCD |
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.
Add as a preferred source on Google
