FR- Home page
-
Smartphone - Comparison
Oppo Reno 5G vs Sharp Aquos R3
Comparison of the technical features between smartphones, with the Oppo Reno 5G on one side and the Sharp Aquos R3 on the other. The first has a processor with 8 cores, 8 threads, a maximale frequency of 2.8GHz. The second chips has a total of 8 cores, 8 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 2.8GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the amount of RAM memory, the date of first broadcast, the values obtained in Geekbench 4.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Smartphone | Oppo Reno 5G | Sharp Aquos R3 | ||||||
| Model version(s) | CPH1921 |
808SH, SH-04L, SHV44 |
||||||
| Release date | Q2 2019 | Q2 2019 | ||||||
| Network | 5G, CDMA, EVDO, GSM, HSPA, LTE | GSM, HSPA, LTE | ||||||
| Dimensions | 6,38 x 3,04 x 0,37 in | 6,14 x 2,91 x 0,35 in | ||||||
| Weight | 7.58 oz | 6.53 oz | ||||||
| Body | Front and back glass, aluminum frame |
Front glass, plastic body |
||||||
| Screen size, colours | 6.6 inches, 16M colours | 6.2 inches, 16M colours | ||||||
| Screen type | AMOLED | Pro IGZO IPS LCD | ||||||
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels | 1440 x 3120 pixels | ||||||
| Screen ratio | 19.5:9 | 19.5:9 | ||||||
| Density | 387 ppi | 554 ppi | ||||||
| Operating system | Android 9; ColorOS 6 | Android 9 Pie | ||||||
| Processor | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855 | Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855 | ||||||
| Lithography | 7 nm N7 | 7 nm N7 | ||||||
| Cores | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Threads | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Energy cores | 4x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Silver @ 1.8 GHz |
4x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Silver @ 1.8 GHz |
||||||
| High performance cores | 1x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold Prime @ 2.84 GHz 3x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold @ 2.42 GHz |
1x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold Prime @ 2.84 GHz 3x Qualcomm Kryo 485 Gold @ 2.42 GHz |
||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Qualcomm Adreno 640 | Qualcomm Adreno 640 | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 384 | 384 | ||||||
| GPU clock | 585 MHz | 585 MHz | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 954.7 GFLOPS | 954.7 GFLOPS | ||||||
| Memory | 8 GB RAM | 6 GB RAM | ||||||
| Storage | 256 GB | 128 GB | ||||||
| Memory card | Up to 256 GB | Up to 512 GB | ||||||
| Photo | 48 MP, f/1,7, 26mm, 13 MP, f/3,0, 130mm, 8 MP, f/2,2, 16mm |
20 MP, 12 MP |
||||||
| Video | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps |
4K@30fps |
||||||
| Front photo | 16 MP, f/2,0, 26mm |
16,3 MP, f/2,0 |
||||||
| Front video | 1080p@30fps |
1080p@30fps |
||||||
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac | ||||||
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, AD2P, LE | ||||||
| USB | USB Type-C | USB Type-C 3.1 | ||||||
| Battery capacity | 4,065 mAh | 3,200 mAh | ||||||
| Battery type | Non removable Li-Po | Non removable Li-Po | ||||||
| Battery life (versatile use) | ~ 12 hours and 10 minutes | ~ 9 hours | ||||||
| Head SAR | - | - | ||||||
| Body SAR | - | - | ||||||
| AnTuTu | 369,243 | 433,954 | ||||||
| Android PassMark Rating | 9,124 | 8,432 | ||||||
| (Android 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core | 3,369 | 3,426 | ||||||
| (Android 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core | 10,021 | 10,036 | ||||||
| (Android) Geekbench 5 single core | 727 | 728 | ||||||
| (Android) Geekbench 5 multi-core | 2,603 | 2,394 | ||||||
| Amazon |  |
|
||||||
| eBay |  |
|
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can easily compare the technical characteristics between these two smartphones. Both phones have an equivalent number of cores, they have an identical turbo frequency. They were produced the same year.
Autonomy: the autonomy given is the one for a versatile use with video playback, web browsing, various applications, games, photos, etc ...
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two smartphones, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark softwares such as Geekbench 4.
| AnTuTu - Total score | |
|---|---|
Sharp Aquos R3 |
433,954 |
| Oppo Reno 5G |
369,243 |
The difference is 18%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
AnTuTu is one of the most popular apps in the world to evaluate and compare the power of a mobile device with the competition. It tests above all the power of calculation, the display of Web pages, the modeling of decorations in 3D, the management of the memory, the transfer of data.
| Android PassMark Rating | |
|---|---|
| Oppo Reno 5G |
9,124 |
| Sharp Aquos R3 |
8,432 |
The difference in performance is 8%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Android 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & single core score - Android 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| Sharp Aquos R3 |
3,426 10,036 |
| Oppo Reno 5G |
3,369 10,021 |
In single core, the difference is 2%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 0%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
On Android:
| Geekbench 5 - Multi-core & single core score - Android | |
|---|---|
| Oppo Reno 5G |
727 2,603 |
| Sharp Aquos R3 |
728 2,394 |
In single core, the difference is -0%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 9%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these smartphones, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
See also:
Sharp Aquos R2Sharp Aquos R2 CompactSharp Aquos R5GSharp Aquos R6Disclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer's website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.