OPPO Reno16 Pro 评测总结
OPPO Reno 16 Pro 提供了令人愉悦的日常使用体验，这主要得益于其出色的触感、非常优秀的超声波指纹传感器以及持久的电池续航。拍照效果不错，OLED 屏幕亮度也很高。 这款OPPO手机还采用了紧凑的机身设计，这对偏爱小屏智能手机的用户来说无疑是一大优势。但与此同时，相较于Reno 15 Pro，其进步有限。尤其是显示屏方面完全没有提升，而Galaxy S26和小米17的亮度水平则显著更高。
天玑8550效率高，日常使用性能稳定，且留有足够的余量以应对偶尔的游戏需求。尽管如此，这款新的联发科芯片组显然属于中端SoC，考虑到它只是天玑8500的轻微升级版，这一点并不令人意外。 搭载去年芯片组的Poco X8 Pro，尽管售价不到OPPO这款高端机型的半价，但有时甚至比它运行得更快。Reno 16 Pro在蓝牙5.4、Wi-Fi 6E和UFS 3.1等配置上也仅达到中端水平。 对于一款售价近900欧元的智能手机而言，更令人困扰的是其功能配置上的重大缺失：它既不支持带视频输出的USB 3.1接口，也不支持无线充电。
值得关注的一大亮点是全新的“快拍键”（Snap Key）——这是 Reno 系列中首次亮相的专用功能按键，进一步拓展了 OPPO 手机的功能。此外，官方承诺的五年主要操作系统更新和六年安全补丁支持也备受好评。 其他实用功能还包括 O+ Connect，它为在 Reno 16 Pro 与 iOS 或 macOS 设备之间传输文件提供了便捷的方式。
总体而言，Reno 16 Pro 是一款适合日常使用的强劲智能手机，但在硬件和技术特性方面，它显然落后于高端竞品。对于不看重紧凑机身设计的人来说，小米 17T Pro 可能是一个极具吸引力的替代选择，它拥有类似的优势，且缺点较少。
Pros
Cons
OPPO Reno16 Pro 的价格与供货情况
OPPO Reno 16 Pro 即将在欧洲上市，基础配置（8 GB 内存和 512 GB 存储空间）的建议零售价起价为 899 欧元。该机型可在亚马逊德国站、厂商官网及其他零售商处购买。
译者注： 在美国，该款智能手机在亚马逊上的售价约为 1,505 美元。
OPPO Reno16 Pro 规格参数
设计与功能——机身紧凑纤薄，具备IP68/IP69防护等级，但仅支持USB 2.0
OPPO这款高端智能手机重量仅为185克，并通过了IP68/IP69K认证。该机配备6.32英寸显示屏，屏占比高达近90%，机身相对紧凑。 白色款还提供“全息”背板版本，其独特外观源自玻璃盖板下方的微透镜。
鉴于其高昂的建议零售价，OPPO竟仅为其高端手机配备过时的USB 2.0接口，实在令人失望。
通信与操作——不支持WiFi 7但配备超声波指纹传感器的安卓手机
在我们的测试中，Reno 16 Pro 凭借 Wi-Fi 6E 实现了较高的 Wi-Fi 速度，尽管当前的 Wi-Fi 7 标准可提供显著更高的带宽。
在移动状态下，该手机支持 5G，且频段覆盖范围非常广泛。 对于经常使用智能手机进行导航的用户来说，仅支持单频段 GNSS 可能会让人略感失望。
在触觉反馈和指纹识别方面，这款 OPPO 手机给人的印象非常出色。X 轴线性马达提供了清晰的触觉反馈，而超声波指纹传感器则能快速且非常可靠地解锁手机。
| Networking | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average Wi-Fi 6E | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| 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 Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
相机——OPPO在其高端智能手机中采用了2亿像素传感器和光学防抖功能
与 Reno 15 Pro 相比，拍照质量方面变化不大。Reno 16 Pro 采用三星 ISOCELL HP5 作为主摄像头，这与 Find X9 Pro 长焦摄像头所用的传感器相同。
这款配备光学防抖（OIS）的2亿像素摄像头在光线充足时能呈现出色的锐度和丰富的细节。不过，在我们的测试照片中，其动态范围表现尚不理想。除蓝色调中出现一个异常值外，色彩还原效果非常出色。
我们同样欣赏这款紧凑型机型中的长焦镜头，它支持3.5倍光学变焦并具备光学防抖功能。在白天光线充足的情况下，得益于三星JN5传感器的裁切技术，即使在7倍变焦下也能获得不错的成像效果。
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.
显示屏 — 配备OLED屏幕和144 Hz刷新率的紧凑型智能手机
当前一代机型的显示屏很可能与 Reno 15 Pro 所用的相同。与典型的 OLED 面板一样，它采用 PWM 技术进行亮度控制，从而导致屏幕闪烁。 我们测得的基础频率较低，且在低亮度下960 Hz的高频PWM调光频率也并不算特别高。 因此，无法排除对PWM敏感的用户会感到不适。据OPPO称，高频PWM调光应运行在3,840 Hz。Reno 16 Pro在较高亮度下可能采用更高的PWM频率。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Center on Battery: 1210 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 1.6 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.7}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 2.5 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.95}
99.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
CCT: 6914 K
| Oppo Reno16 Pro AMOLED, 2640x1216, 6.3" | Xiaomi 17T Pro AMOLED, 2772x1280, 6.8" | Samsung Galaxy S26+ LTPO-AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra AMOLED, 2608x1200, 6.9" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 132% | 89% | 137% | |
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 1221 | 3507 187% | 2751 125% | 3519 188% |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 1873 | 3295 76% | 2875 53% | 3458 85% |
| Response Times | 5% | -92% | 20% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 0.96 ? | 1.13 ? -18% | 3.79 ? -295% | 0.86 ? 10% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 1.29 ? | 1.01 ? 22% | 1.18 ? 9% | 0.87 ? 33% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 90 | 120 | 240 | 120 |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 17.14 | 15.46 10% | 15.27 11% | 14.02 18% |
| Screen | 12% | -20% | 25% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 1210 | 1068 -12% | 1384 14% | 1771 46% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 1.3 19% | 2.8 -75% | 1.3 19% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.5 | 2.5 29% | 4.5 -29% | 2.8 20% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 2.2 12% | 2.2 12% | 2.1 16% |
| Gamma | 2.24 98% | 2.26 97% | 2.05 107% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 6914 94% | 6875 95% | 6514 100% | 6452 101% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1060 | 1379 | 1773 | |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 97 | 95 | 99 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 50% /
36% | -8% /
-19% | 61% /
48% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 90 Hz Amplitude: 17.14 % Secondary Frequency: 960 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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7680 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
在固定缩放级别下、亮度设置不同的系列测量数据（尽管在最低亮度下振幅曲线看似平坦，但这只是缩放比例造成的。信息框中显示的是最低亮度下振幅的放大图。）
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1.29 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.609 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.684 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. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 0.96 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.465 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.4975 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 0.13 (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 (30.8 ms). | ||
性能、排放和电池续航——搭载全新联发科芯片组的安卓手机
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | Xiaomi 17T Pro | Samsung Galaxy S26+ | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | Average 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 55% | 65% | 237% | 78% | 99% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 1709.54 | 3021.51 77% | 3574.74 109% | 4064.33 138% | 1874 ? 10% | 2253 ? 32% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 1699.21 | 2770.02 63% | 2543.31 50% | 3987.65 135% | 1386 ? -18% | 1945 ? 14% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 277.65 | 414.44 49% | 419.84 51% | 575.86 107% | 289 ? 4% | 314 ? 13% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 82.64 | 108.71 32% | 122.63 48% | 551.82 568% | 342 ? 314% | 361 ? 337% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
3DMark 压力测试
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Solar Bay Extreme Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
Oppo Reno16 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
Samsung Galaxy S26+ audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 136%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 136%
| Off / Standby |   0.07 / 0.25 Watt |
| Idle |  0.87 / 1.36 / 1.41 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro 6000 mAh | Xiaomi 17T Pro 7000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S26+ 4900 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra 6500 mAh | Average MediaTek Dimensity 8550 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -16% | 16% | 4% | 0% | -8% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 0.87 | 0.89 -2% | 0.56 36% | 0.87 -0% | 0.87 ? -0% | 0.876 ? -1% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 1.36 | 1.67 -23% | 1.28 6% | 1.29 5% | 1.36 ? -0% | 1.459 ? -7% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 1.41 | 1.73 -23% | 1.31 7% | 1.33 6% | 1.41 ? -0% | 1.648 ? -17% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 6.27 | 12.38 | 8.84 | 6.82 ? | ||
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 8.63 | 16.9 | 9.15 | 11.1 ? |
* ... smaller is better
| Battery runtime - WiFi v1.3 | |
| Oppo Reno16 Pro | |
| Xiaomi 17T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26+ | |
| Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra | |
| Samsung Galaxy S26 | |
| Xiaomi 17 | |
Notebookcheck 综合评分
OPPO 通过 Reno 16 Pro 瞄准了高端紧凑型手机市场，尽管与 Galaxy S26 和小米 17 相比，该机型在某些功能上存在明显缺失。不介意购买水货的用户不妨参考我们对其姊妹机型 Find X9s Pro 的评测。
Oppo Reno16 Pro
- 08/28/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich
Total Sustainability Score: 可能替代方案的比较
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 82.9%  | Oppo Reno16 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 8550 ⎘ ARM Mali-G720 MP8 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: List Price: 1099€ | 185 g | 512 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.32" 2640x1216 460 PPI AMOLED |
2. 85.7%  | Xiaomi 17T Pro MediaTek Dimensity 9500 ⎘ Arm Mali G1- Ultra MC12 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: $812.00 List Price: 1000€ | 219 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.83" 2772x1280 447 PPI AMOLED |
3. 89%  | Samsung Galaxy S26+ Samsung Exynos 2600 ⎘ Samsung Xclipse 960 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 1249€ | 190 g | 256 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.70" 3120x1440 513 PPI LTPO-AMOLED |
4. 88.2%  | Xiaomi Poco F8 Ultra Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 840 ⎘ 16 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: List Price: 900€ | 220 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.90" 2608x1200 416 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.
Add as a preferred source on Google
