Notebookcheck

Oppo Find X智能手机评测

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Zewei Shen), 11/25/2018
Touchscreen Android Smartphone

手机界的又一次创新。 Oppo用他们最新的Find X探索出了一条与众不同的全面屏道路,不过,尽管有着极具吸引力的外观,并不是每个闪光点都有他的意义。我们的评测展示了这台手机的一些缺点以及其与Vivo NEX的比较。

Oppo Find X (Find Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
Graphics adapter
Qualcomm Adreno 630
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.42 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 401 PPI, 多点触控电容屏, AMOLED, 三星;康宁大猩猩第五代玻, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: USB Type-C, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Face ID, acceleration sensor, digital compass (magnetometer), gyroscope, proximity sensor, USB-C, OTG, Miracast
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM:850/900/1800/1900, WCDMA:B1/2/4/5/6/8/19, LTE FDD:B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/18/19/20/25/26/28/29/32/66 TD-LTE:B34/38/39/40/41(2496-2690MHz), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.4 x 156.7 x 74.2
Battery
3730 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix Dual camera: 16 MP (f/2.0) + 20 MP (f/2.0)
Secondary Camera: 25 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker, Keyboard: Virtual, Quick guide, case, 3.5-mm-to-USB-Type-C adapter, earphones, ColorOS 5.1, 24 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
186 g, Power Supply: 74 g
Price
1000 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼100% +23%
Huawei P20 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
635 MBit/s ∼97% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼94% +16%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
530 (min: 467, max: 568) MBit/s ∼81%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼80% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=302)
210 MBit/s ∼32% -60%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼100% +37%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼85% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼84% +15%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
450 (min: 167, max: 526) MBit/s ∼73%
Huawei P20 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
437 MBit/s ∼71% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=302)
205 MBit/s ∼33% -54%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570Tooltip
Oppo Find X Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø526 (467-568)
Oppo Find X Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø444 (167-526)
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Garmin Edge 520
GPS Oppo Find X
GPS Oppo Find X
 
 
Normal mode
Normal mode
HDR recording
HDR recording
2-times zoom
2-times zoom
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software
Oppo Find X software

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X
Oppo Find X
421
cd/m²
437
cd/m²
465
cd/m²
415
cd/m²
427
cd/m²
450
cd/m²
405
cd/m²
419
cd/m²
452
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 465 cd/m² Average: 432.3 cd/m² Minimum: 2.05 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 427 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
146.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.243
Oppo Find X
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.42
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Huawei P20 Pro
OLED, 2240x1080, 6.1
Screen
-28%
14%
37%
47%
Brightness middle
427
356
-17%
429
0%
565
32%
569
33%
Brightness
432
352
-19%
432
0%
571
32%
578
34%
Brightness Distribution
87
95
9%
88
1%
96
10%
95
9%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.37
7.08
-32%
3.39
37%
2.3
57%
1.3
76%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.51
14.1
-88%
5.25
30%
4.8
36%
2.1
72%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4
4.7
-18%
3.3
17%
1.9
52%
1.6
60%
Gamma
2.243 98%
2.096 105%
2.238 98%
2.16 102%
2.31 95%
CCT
6851 95%
7297 89%
7135 91%
6332 103%
6401 102%

* ... smaller is better

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 227 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 227 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 227 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8964 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Color Accuracy (Adobe sRGB Target Color Space)
Color Accuracy (Adobe sRGB Target Color Space)

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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 0.8 (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 (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (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 (41 ms).
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
13817 Points ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼96% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
14299 Points ∼100% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -55%
Huawei P20 Pro
8025 Points ∼56% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=196)
4525 Points ∼32% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
7983 Points ∼87%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8548 Points ∼94% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼98% +12%
Huawei P20 Pro
6756 Points ∼74% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼95% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=246)
4306 Points ∼47% -46%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
2330 Points ∼62%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼65% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2441 Points ∼65% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +62%
Huawei P20 Pro
1922 Points ∼51% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=247)
1269 Points ∼34% -46%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
9868 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼77% -23%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7360 Points ∼75% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼54% -46%
Huawei P20 Pro
6982 Points ∼71% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼81% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=254)
4550 Points ∼46% -54%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
13211 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼61% -39%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8967 Points ∼68% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼44% -56%
Huawei P20 Pro
8115 Points ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=422)
4954 Points ∼37% -63%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3089 Points ∼99%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2577 Points ∼83% -17%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2227 Points ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2546 Points ∼82% -18%
Huawei P20 Pro
2942 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2386 - 4439, n=276)
1707 Points ∼55% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
5678 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5689 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4209 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3792 Points ∼67% -33%
Huawei P20 Pro
3109 Points ∼55% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=276)
1467 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
4765 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4485 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3512 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3420 Points ∼72% -28%
Huawei P20 Pro
3070 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1012 - 5189, n=279)
1361 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3024 Points ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2110 Points ∼68% -30%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2145 Points ∼70% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2561 Points ∼83% -15%
Huawei P20 Pro
2940 Points ∼95% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=291)
1687 Points ∼55% -44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
8357 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7823 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
5922 Points ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4797 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro
3503 Points ∼42% -58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=291)
2071 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
6005 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4884 Points ∼81% -19%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4232 Points ∼70% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4018 Points ∼67% -33%
Huawei P20 Pro
3360 Points ∼56% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=292)
1734 Points ∼29% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3132 Points ∼96%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2118 Points ∼65% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼75% -21%
Huawei P20 Pro
2926 Points ∼89% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=351)
1640 Points ∼50% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
5169 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3742 Points ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -31%
Huawei P20 Pro
3017 Points ∼58% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=351)
1187 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
4516 Points ∼99%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3197 Points ∼70% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼71% -28%
Huawei P20 Pro
2996 Points ∼65% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=359)
1134 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
3197 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼88% -12%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2176 Points ∼68% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼78% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro
2885 Points ∼90% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=383)
1538 Points ∼48% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
8193 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6554 Points ∼80% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro
3335 Points ∼41% -59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=383)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
6087 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4529 Points ∼74% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼64% -36%
Huawei P20 Pro
3223 Points ∼53% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=391)
1387 Points ∼23% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
35009 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼99% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
30765 Points ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼75% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro
22441 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=538)
12873 Points ∼37% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
83168 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼96% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
77003 Points ∼93% -7%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼56% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro
33472 Points ∼40% -60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=538)
17989 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
63695 Points ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼98% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
57711 Points ∼91% -9%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼62% -38%
Huawei P20 Pro
30176 Points ∼47% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=539)
15106 Points ∼24% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
146 fps ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
102 fps ∼68% -30%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% +1%
Huawei P20 Pro
121 fps ∼80% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=563)
31.3 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
60 fps ∼96%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Huawei P20 Pro
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=566)
24.9 fps ∼40% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
79 fps ∼95%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
54 fps ∼65% -32%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼89% -6%
Huawei P20 Pro
61 fps ∼73% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼88% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=485)
16.8 fps ∼20% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
51 fps ∼86% -12%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro
54 fps ∼92% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=488)
16 fps ∼27% -72%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼97%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
32 fps ∼53% -45%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -19%
Huawei P20 Pro
39 fps ∼65% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=348)
14.4 fps ∼24% -75%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
59 fps ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
29 fps ∼49% -51%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼41% -59%
Huawei P20 Pro
36 fps ∼61% -39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% -21%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=351)
13.9 fps ∼24% -76%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
14 fps ∼71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=61)
10.3 fps ∼52%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
8.6 fps ∼56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=61)
6.56 fps ∼43%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼81%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=61)
14.5 fps ∼51%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=60)
15.9 fps ∼45%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
35 fps ∼100%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=279)
9.88 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
29 fps ∼88%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
24 fps ∼73% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼42% -52%
Huawei P20 Pro
22 fps ∼67% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=282)
8.89 fps ∼27% -69%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Oppo Find X
283346 Points ∼98%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼99% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
288062 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼87% -12%
Huawei P20 Pro
207959 Points ∼72% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=169)
118333 Points ∼41% -58%

Legend

 
Oppo Find X Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei P20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼95% +19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼86% +7%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
64.809 Points ∼80%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
58.255 Points ∼72% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=421)
36.7 Points ∼45% -43%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼28% -65%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼100% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼96% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼95% +10%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
13276 Points ∼86%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
11584 Points ∼75% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=556)
5550 Points ∼36% -58%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼26% -70%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=577)
11486 ms * ∼100% -265%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼98% -256%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
3852.2 ms * ∼34% -22%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
3147 ms * ∼27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼20% +26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼18% +35%

* ... smaller is better

Oppo Find XVivo Nex UltimateXiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusHuawei P20 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-8%
-5%
125%
59%
-61%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65.5 (51.3 - 72.4, n=5)
45.4 (3.4 - 87.1, n=316)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
80 (75.4 - 83.2, n=5)
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=316)
Random Write 4KB
26.98
22.1
-18%
22.65
-16%
22.74
-16%
160.49
495%
92.1 (19.5 - 164, n=17)
241%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=606)
-40%
Random Read 4KB
145.87
126.7
-13%
135.21
-7%
129.68
-11%
144.33
-1%
141 (132 - 158, n=17)
-3%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=606)
-74%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.87
228.4
10%
205.23
-1%
204.94
-1%
196.69
-5%
202 (192 - 212, n=17)
-2%
79.7 (2.99 - 246, n=606)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
760.99
687.2
-10%
691.65
-9%
818.69
8%
831.82
9%
767 (675 - 853, n=17)
1%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=606)
-70%
Max. Load
 41.6 °C39.1 °C35.7 °C 
 41.3 °C40.1 °C36.2 °C 
 40.7 °C39.4 °C35.5 °C 
Maximum: 41.6 °C
Average: 38.8 °C
34.6 °C36.8 °C36.2 °C
33.6 °C36.2 °C36.6 °C
33.2 °C35.6 °C35.4 °C
Maximum: 36.8 °C
Average: 35.4 °C
Power Supply (max.)  42 °C | Room Temperature 21.6 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.8 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.6 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.435.62535.235.83137.738.8403635.45037.738.36323.327.58021.922.910020.121.712518.427.31601935.720016.747.425015.550.831519.754.440014.358.850013.860.763012.661.280012.761.6100012.363.8125011.564.716001168.520001172.2250010.874.5315010.774400010.670.8500010.766.6630010.763.4800010.963.11000010.9531250010.937.51600010.832.6SPL68.724.181.5N20.60.645.1median 11.5median 61.2Delta2.28.725.625.727.128.125.428.825.225.331.733.722.823.42122.919.524.517.729.616.842.216.751.815.252.414.253.513.660.113.457.712.762.712.364.511.866.511.963.111.368.711.374.211.376.411.275.111.465.311.162.211.363.511.468.711.466.511.448.611.536.268.759.950.12482.520.312.96.60.548.5median 11.8median 62.71.68.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseOppo Find XVivo Nex Ultimate
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Oppo Find X audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.2 / 0.4 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.9 / 3.2 Watt
Load midlight 7.1 / 10.7 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei P20 Pro
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
30%
-27%
45%
44%
20%
28%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.9
-0%
1.8
-100%
0.68
24%
0.84
7%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
11%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=634)
2%
Idle Average *
1.9
1.5
21%
2.9
-53%
0.95
50%
1.54
19%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
9%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=633)
9%
Idle Maximum *
3.2
1.7
47%
3.5
-9%
1.09
66%
1.57
51%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
34%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=634)
38%
Load Average *
7.1
3.7
48%
4.8
32%
4.58
35%
2.47
65%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
33%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=628)
43%
Load Maximum *
10.7
7.2
33%
11.2
-5%
5.16
52%
2.49
77%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
14%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=628)
46%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
9h 56min
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei P20 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3
596
1026
72%
694
16%
521
-13%
744
25%

Pros

+ 耐看的外形设计
+ 手感一流
+ 性能强大
+ 可靠性强
+ 视觉效果优秀的OLED屏幕

Cons

- ColorOS问题颇多
- 没有NFC
- 缺少提示灯,指纹识别和无线充电
- 外放效果一般

总结-Oppo Find X拥有性能强劲的硬件,但软件需要一定的适应时间:

Testing the Oppo Find X, test unit provided by tradingshenzhen
Testing the Oppo Find X, test unit provided by tradingshenzhen

Oppo Find X是今年最漂亮的智能手机之一。滑盖技术将相机模块和传感器很好地隐藏了起来,使得机身变得干净整洁,同时拥有优秀的做工和手感。出色的摄像头,电池,和高通骁龙845的性能,让我们挑不出任何缺点。对于其5000-6000元的售价来说,硬件方面很少有令人不满的地方,唯一的遗憾就是NFC的缺失。

“虽然未来并不太可能属于电动滑盖,但它仍然很好地解决了刘海屏带来的困扰。”

Find X最大的问题在于它的软件。内置的ColorOS有着诸多限制,这在日常使用中很成问题。例如,在测试过程中我们总是不能及时收到通知和消息,而且,即使有着8 GB的内存,系统却最多只允许5个活跃的后台软件。

这些软件上的问题使得我们扣掉了一分整体分。

Oppo Find X - 10/22/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
49 / 60 → 81%
Weight
89%
Battery
92%
Display
85%
Games Performance
69 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
78 / 70 → 100%
Temperature
91%
Noise
100%
Audio
70 / 91 → 77%
Camera
82%
Add Points
-1%
Average
75%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > Oppo Find X智能手机评测
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-11-25 (Update: 2018-11-25)