Used to success. The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G builds on a best-selling series with a whole new SoC and a more powerful battery. However, nothing has changed in other areas, such as the camera. Our review will reveal whether the Galaxy A53 can still get a recommendation from us.
Every year, one of the most popular Samsung Galaxy phones stems from the A5x series. So it’s not surprising for Samsung to only evolve the series through cautious modifications to each new model in order to avoid putting off fans. Once again this year, the Galaxy A53 5G is a phone that doesn’t present any major changes. Maybe apart from the fact that there’s no longer a 4G model this year.
But can the manufacturer keep up with the competition? By now, rivals also offer high-end processors in the upper mid-range price segment, such as in the Motorola Moto G200 5G, or fast Wi-Fi 6, like in the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE.
Display
6.50 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 405 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: audio via USB-C, Card Reader: microSD up to 1 TB, shared, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n=Wi-Fi 4/ac=Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.1, 2G (850/900/1800/1900), 3G (B1/B2/B4/B5/B8), 4G (B1/B2/B3/B4/B5/B7/B8/B12/B17/B20/B26/B28/B32/B38/B40/B41/B66), 5G (n1/n3/n7/n8/n20/n28/n38/n40/n41/n78) , Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.1 x 159.6 x 74.8 (=0.32 x 6.28 x 2.94 in)
Battery
5000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 12
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix f/1.8, phase-comparison AF, OIS, LED flash, videos @2160p/30fps (camera 1); 12.0 MP, f/2.2, wide-angle lens (camera 2); 5.0 MP, f/2.4, macro lens (camera 3); 5.0 MP, f/2.4, depth of field (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.2, videos @1080p/30fps
Additional features
Speakers: stereo speakers, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, USB cable, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.885 W/kg (head), 1.597 W/kg (body) , fanless, waterproof
Weight
189 g (= 6.67 oz / 0.42 pounds) (= 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
83.2 %06/2022
Samsung Galaxy A53
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50″2400×108084.9 %09/2021
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50″2400×108086.3 %12/2021
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L158 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.55″2400×108085.3 %02/2022
Motorola Moto G200 5G
SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660202 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80″2460×108083.2 %07/2021
Sony Xperia 10 III
SD 690 5G, Adreno 619L169 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.00″2520×1080
Galaxy A53 5G color optionsThe case is already very reminiscent of the predecessors, the Samsung Galaxy A52 and Galaxy A52s: A plastic chassis with a prominent camera module, in which the lenses are arranged in the same way as in the previous generation.
While the back is still matte, the four color options are now white, black, light blue, and a bright peach orange, which is also the color of our review sample. The glossy frame has been extended a bit further over the edges of the front and back, creating a somewhat more uniform and high-quality impression in terms of looks.
Furthermore, the front is protected by Gorilla Glass 5, and the device’s stability hardly leaves anything to be desired. The smartphone features an IP67 certification, which means that the device is well protected against dust and water penetration.
Motorola Moto G200 5G Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Samsung Galaxy A53 Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Sony Xperia 10 III ❌
168.1 mm / 6.62 inch
75.5 mm / 2.97 inch
8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch
202 g0.4453 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch
75.1 mm / 2.96 inch
8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch
189 g0.4167 lbs159.6 mm / 6.28 inch
74.8 mm / 2.94 inch
8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch
189 g0.4167 lbs160.53 mm / 6.32 inch
75.73 mm / 2.98 inch
6.81 mm / 0.2681 inch
158 g0.3483 lbs154 mm / 6.06 inch
68 mm / 2.68 inch
8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch
169 g0.3726 lbs
Compared to the predecessor, nothing has changed in terms of the smartphone’s storage variants and prices:
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G – 128 GB storage / 6 GB RAM: 449 Euros (~$478)Samsung Galaxy A53 5G – 256 GB storage / 8 GB RAM: 509 Euros (~$542)Users of traditional wired headphones will probably complain about the removal of the 3.5 mm audio jack: You can only use the USB-C port of the Galaxy A53 as a headphone connection, if necessary with an adapter. With Bluetooth 5.1, you now get a slightly more up-to-date version of the wireless communication standard, and NFC is once again on board.
We measure the data throughput that the card reader offers with our reference microSD card, the Angelbird V60: The Samsung Galaxy A53 can only score points when it comes to write speeds here. Transfer rates fluctuate considerably when reading data, and only low speeds are achieved in our copy test.
It’s a bit annoying that you can only use either two SIM cards at the same time or one microSD card and one SIM card, just like with the predecessor.
0102030405060708090100TooltipSamsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential write: Ø46.2 (35.3-62.3)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential write; Angelbird V60: Ø25.9 (16.8-37.8)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential write; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø36.4 (26-46.9)
Sony Xperia 10 III Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential write; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø37.1 (31.1-48.6)
Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential read: Ø83.9 (56.1-108.6)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential read; Angelbird V60: Ø71.8 (50.1-75.6)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Sequential read; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø73.3 (16.9-80.9)
Sony Xperia 10 III Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Sequential read; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø85.7 (39.6-101)
Android 12 is now preinstalled out of the box, namely Samsung’s One UI 4.1, which is based on it. Samsung’s software interface is in fact a pretty comprehensive customization compared to vanilla Android, but users of other phones will still be able to adjust well after a short familiarization period. That’s also due to the fact that you have many options to customize the interface and the operation.
We received an update to the latest security patches from May 2022 during our review, which are completely up to date at the time of writing.
Praiseworthy: Although for a long time Samsung was reluctant to make any concrete statements about how long the phones would receive updates for, there have been good news since the Galaxy S22’s Unpacked event. Select phones, including the Galaxy A53 5G, will receive four major updates and five years of software support. Now it’s Samsung the one that has set a standard for other providers.
The Galaxy A53 is only available as a 5G version. The number of 5G and 4G frequencies is solid, but particularly in the LTE range, there might be too few frequencies available to use the local network when traveling abroad. In other words, the Galaxy phone isn’t really a world phone.
We repeatedly checked the phone’s reception in random samples during our test period. We observed that the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G performed a bit worse than some high-end phones: Although the 4G network reception was usually sufficient, it was always a bit weaker than that of other phones, both indoors and outdoors.
In terms of Wi-Fi, the manufacturer has equipped the smartphone with Wi-Fi 5 as the fastest standard. With the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE and the Motorola Moto G200 5G you can definitely find smartphones in this price range that already support Wi-Fi 6, allowing them to achieve much higher speeds than our review sample. The other Wi-Fi 5 phones in the comparison field also provide faster Wi-Fi than the Galaxy A53.
Average of class Smartphone
(72.5 – 1736, n=41, last 2 years)
660 MBit/s ∼100% +91%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
345 (328min – 351max) MBit/s ∼52%
Average of class Smartphone
(78.3 – 1710, n=41, last 2 years)
681 MBit/s ∼100% +153%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
269 (255min – 281max) MBit/s ∼40%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (759min – 906max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
845 (779min – 895max) MBit/s ∼98%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
504 (479min – 524max) MBit/s ∼58%
Average of class Smartphone
(5.59 – 1395, n=217, last 2 years)
481 MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
461 (433min – 470max) MBit/s ∼53%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
836 (809min – 863max) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
766 (339min – 805max) MBit/s ∼92%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
554 (513min – 573max) MBit/s ∼66%
Average of class Smartphone
(15.5 – 1348, n=217, last 2 years)
469 MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
425 (413min – 432max) MBit/s ∼51%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340Tooltip; iperf3 Client (receive) 1 m 4M x10 GT-AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø345 (328-351)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) 1 m 4M x10 GT-AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø269 (255-281)
Outdoors, a short moment is needed, but then our location is determined with an accuracy of a good four meters. Numerous satellite networks are used for positioning, including GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo.
In order to be able to give a realistic assessment of the phone’s tracking accuracy, we go for a bike ride with the Galaxy A53 and the Garmin Venu 2 as a comparison device. Our review sample is actually a bit more accurate than the Garmin smartwatch in some places, so you can confidently use the phone for navigation purposes.
Samsung’s phone app is a bit different from the Google version found on many other phones. Nonetheless, it’s similar in terms of the basic layout and features: A keypad for dialing, a list of recent calls, and an overview of contacts.
Call quality is acceptable, and the internal earpiece can get quite loud, but this causes a lot of the conversation to become audible to the surroundings. In addition, sound distorts at high volumes, and there’s a noticeable droning. Our voice doesn’t reach the person on the other end very clearly, especially when we speak more quietly. You can also communicate well via the speaker and the hands-free microphone. Quality isn’t perfect here either, and quiet voices in particular get lost quickly.
Front-facing camera sampleCompared to the Samsung Galaxy A52s, there are no differences in terms of the camera setup on paper: Four camera lenses continue to be built-in at the back, three of which can actually take photos.
The main camera is optically stabilized and typically uses its 64-pixel resolution to combine every four pixels into one light-sensitive, large pixel, resulting in 16-megapixel photos.
In our opinion, the image quality remains unchanged compared to the predecessor: The camera is good at HDR shots, but details quickly become washed out, and colors are very vivid in some cases. When looking at the sky in the surroundings picture, it’s noticeable that areas aren’t as pixelated in detail as in cheaper phones. The smartphone is quite good at taking low-light pictures; only in very dark areas could one wish for a bit more brightening.
The ultra wide-angle camera keeps distorting quite badly at the corners, and you should avoid enlarging the pictures too much, but it’s still suitable for snapshots. Unfortunately, you still can’t zoom between the main camera and the ultra wide-angle lens, since you can only toggle between them.
The video options also remain limited to a maximum of 30 fps at 4K and up to 60 frames per second at Full HD. When it comes to shooting videos, the smooth autofocus and the fast brightness adjustment continue to be highlights worth mentioning.
The front-facing camera also uses pixel-binning to increase light sensitivity, so it only takes pictures of 32 megapixels in a special mode. In most cases, 8-megapixel pictures are taken. The quality is sufficient for social media or mobile phone use, but you can’t enlarge the images too much, since details are only displayed in a blurry way.
In the lab under good lighting conditions, the phone’s camera only shows a slight loss of sharpness towards the edges. However, text isn’t displayed with absolutely sharp edges, while color transitions are quite smooth and hardly have any artifacts on the other hand.
The camera still does a decent job at an illumination of only 1 lux. The image content is still recognizable, and text is still easy to read as long as there’s enough contrast against the background color.
23.2 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
16.2 ∆E
25.6 ∆E
15 ∆E
8 ∆E
16.7 ∆E
13.1 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
15.9 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
14.5 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
15.4 ∆E
17 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
14.9 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
16.7 ∆E
17.4 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A53: 13.69 ∆E min: 3.74 – max: 25.57 ∆E25.1 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
31.1 ∆E
29 ∆E
34.2 ∆E
46.8 ∆E
35 ∆E
26.7 ∆E
26.3 ∆E
24.3 ∆E
42.5 ∆E
44.1 ∆E
22.9 ∆E
34.9 ∆E
20.8 ∆E
44.4 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
42.4 ∆E
44.1 ∆E
40.6 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
22.7 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A53: 32.85 ∆E min: 13.55 – max: 46.81 ∆E
Users who buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G will get a very small box without an included charger. This is a trend since many consumers already have a USB charger at home anyway; plus, it saves transportation and manufacturing costs while also protecting the environment. Therefore, only a USB cable and a SIM tool are found in the package.
Samsung charges almost $35 for a suitable charger, which is surprising in view of the relatively low 25-watt charging capacity. However, our third-party chargers also work seamlessly with the phone.
Samsung offers a 24-month warranty for its smartphones. Even afterwards, you can get clear information for many repairs in advance thanks to their fixed prices.
Thanks to the 120 Hz display, the device feels very smooth to use. The touchscreen also allows fingers to glide well. However, you’ll have to live with occasional stutters in the system software, especially when more complex processes are running in the background.
The fingerprint sensor is located under the screen. It recognizes the finger placed quite reliably, but it takes a bit for the screen to actually unlock. Face recognition is also available for the unlocking process, but it’s not that secure due to the lack of an infrared sensor.
Subpixel gridThe AMOLED display has been a highlight of Samsung’s higher-end devices for a long time now, and the A53 also features a self-illuminating display with a refresh rate of 120 Hz. The Full HD resolution is absolutely standard for the class, and it’s usually completely sufficient to display a sharp image.
The screen can get quite bright at up to 761 cd/m² when the brightness sensor is fully illuminated, but the average brightness is still slightly lower than that of the Samsung Galaxy A52s predecessor’s display. The display can fully deactivate individual pixels, which theoretically results in a color that is completely black; this in turn leads to vibrant colors and deep blacks.
We detect PWM at 250 Hz, and we couldn’t find a DC dimming mode that is easy on the eyes in the settings.
707
cd/m²717
cd/m²766
cd/m²705
cd/m²718
cd/m²747
cd/m²720
cd/m²725
cd/m²761
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 766 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 729.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 718 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.62 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.4
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.6
97.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.156
Samsung Galaxy A53
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.50Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.50Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
AMOLED, 2400×1080, 6.55Motorola Moto G200 5G
IPS LCD, 2460×1080, 6.80Sony Xperia 10 III
OLED, 2520×1080, 6.00Brightness middle718
736
3%
797
11%
512
-29%
536
-25%
Brightness730
751
3%
800
10%
488
-33%
540
-26%
Brightness Distribution92
96
4%
97
5%
87
-5%
97
5%
Black Level *0.36
Colorchecker dE 2000 *1.62
2.18
-35%
0.9
44%
3.42
-111%
1.1
32%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *4.21
5.69
-35%
2
52%
5.9
-40%
1.9
55%
Greyscale dE 2000 *2
2.1
-5%
1.1
45%
3.7
-85%
1.3
35%
Gamma2.156 102%
2.27 97%
2.26 97%
7154 0%
2.27 97%
CCT6545 99%
6563 99%
6397 102%
1.944 334362%
6494 100%
Contrast1422
* … smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)ℹ
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 250 HzThe display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .
The frequency of 250 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 21889 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.
Series of measurements with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings
Color accuracy is very good, especially when you select the “Natural” preset for color reproduction. In this case, only red tones are slightly exaggerated, but even here, the color deviation should hardly be noticeable to the naked eye.
We detected a very subtle shift towards green when looking at the grayscale, but the reproduction is overall very accurate here as well.
Display Response Timesℹ
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.
Thanks to the AMOLED display, the screen content is very easy to recognize from all viewing angles, and it barely becomes distorted.
The smartphone can be used outdoors without any issues; the high display brightness is helpful here. In direct sunlight, however, you should preferably move to a place in the shade because of the reflections on the screen.
Samsung’s in-house Exynos 1280 SoC powers the Galaxy A53. It uses 2 fast and 6 power-saving cores, but its performance isn’t entirely compelling in comparison with similarly priced smartphones: It’s at the lower end of the comparison field in almost every performance benchmark, and it only achieves a very low score in the AImark test for AI processing.
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1076 Points ∼100% +45%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
787 Points ∼73% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
771 Points ∼72% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
740 Points ∼69%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
740 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
(58 – 1755, n=252, last 2 years)
657 Points ∼61% -11%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
590 Points ∼55% -20%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
3286 Points ∼100% +75%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
2962 Points ∼90% +58%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
2808 Points ∼85% +50%
Average of class Smartphone
(248 – 4914, n=252, last 2 years)
2158 Points ∼66% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1878 Points ∼57%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
1878 Points ∼57% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
1716 Points ∼52% -9%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
794271 Points ∼100% +94%
Average of class Smartphone
(111952 – 1041980, n=104, last 2 years)
548161 Points ∼69% +34%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
509185 Points ∼64% +24%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
438254 Points ∼55% +7%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
409976 Points ∼52%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
409976 Points ∼52% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
344070 Points ∼43% -16%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
18567 Points ∼100% +62%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
12625 Points ∼68% +10%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
11470 Points ∼62%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
11470 Points ∼62% 0%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
10755 Points ∼58% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
(4436 – 18567, n=138, last 2 years)
10093 Points ∼54% -12%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
8273 Points ∼45% -28%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5711 Points ∼100% +58%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
4809 Points ∼84% +33%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
4349 Points ∼76% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
(895 – 8124, n=168, last 2 years)
4182 Points ∼73% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3626 Points ∼63%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
3626 Points ∼63% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3092 Points ∼54% -15%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
10455 Points ∼100% +46%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
9089 Points ∼87% +27%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
8546 Points ∼82% +19%
Average of class Smartphone
(1542 – 19657, n=168, last 2 years)
7414 Points ∼71% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
7157 Points ∼68%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
7157 Points ∼68% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
6586 Points ∼63% -8%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
5648 Points ∼100% +47%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
4957 Points ∼88% +29%
Average of class Smartphone
(1012 – 9044, n=168, last 2 years)
4800 Points ∼85% +25%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
4269 Points ∼76% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3855 Points ∼68%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
3855 Points ∼68% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3176 Points ∼56% -18%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
13865 Points ∼100% +168%
Average of class Smartphone
(478 – 25642, n=168, last 2 years)
7179 Points ∼52% +39%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
6783 Points ∼49% +31%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
6729 Points ∼49% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
5178 Points ∼37%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
5178 Points ∼37% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3334 Points ∼24% -36%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
1665 Points ∼100% +38%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
1534 Points ∼92% +27%
Average of class Smartphone
(718 – 2392, n=168, last 2 years)
1381 Points ∼83% +14%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
1359 Points ∼82% +12%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
1311 Points ∼79% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1210 Points ∼73%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
1210 Points ∼73% 0%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
286905 Points ∼100% +5986%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 6144
139024 Points ∼48% +2849%
Average of class Smartphone
(4293 – 286905, n=123, last 2 years)
62888 Points ∼22% +1234%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
40708 Points ∼14% +764%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
4714 Points ∼2%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
4714 Points ∼2% 0%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%
The Mali G68 MP4 serves as the GPU, which is also rather unimpressive in a smartphone of this price range.
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1453 Points ∼100% +134%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
688 Points ∼47% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
687 Points ∼47% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
621 Points ∼43%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
247 Points ∼17% -60%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
1564 Points ∼100% +146%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
695 Points ∼44% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
690 Points ∼44% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
636 Points ∼41%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
252 Points ∼16% -60%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5711 Points ∼100% +151%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2500 Points ∼44% +10%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2485 Points ∼44% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2275 Points ∼40%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
826 Points ∼14% -64%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
5765 Points ∼100% +151%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2505 Points ∼43% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2490 Points ∼43% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2293 Points ∼40%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
826 Points ∼14% -64%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2775 Points ∼100% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2689 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
2557 Points ∼92% -5%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2539 Points ∼91% -6%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5338 Points ∼100% +37%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5263 Points ∼99% +35%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3902 Points ∼73%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
1878 Points ∼35% -52%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4299 Points ∼100% +21%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4250 Points ∼99% +20%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3546 Points ∼82%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2023 Points ∼47% -43%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
4864 Points ∼100% +57%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4664 Points ∼96% +51%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4166 Points ∼86% +35%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3344 Points ∼69% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3097 Points ∼64%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
10875 Points ∼100% +173%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5651 Points ∼52% +42%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5591 Points ∼51% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3982 Points ∼37%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2120 Points ∼19% -47%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
8234 Points ∼100% +120%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5355 Points ∼65% +43%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5236 Points ∼64% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3746 Points ∼45%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2308 Points ∼28% -38%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4529 Points ∼100% +100%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4442 Points ∼98% +96%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3254 Points ∼72% +44%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2261 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
7241 Points ∼100% +40%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
7238 Points ∼100% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5172 Points ∼71%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3204 Points ∼44% -38%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
6389 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
6352 Points ∼99% +58%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4021 Points ∼63%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3215 Points ∼50% -20%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5036 Points ∼100% +39%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4967 Points ∼99% +37%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3621 Points ∼72%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2178 Points ∼43% -40%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
5213 Points ∼100% +32%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5140 Points ∼99% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3939 Points ∼76%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
1992 Points ∼38% -49%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4501 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4444 Points ∼99% +57%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3236 Points ∼72% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2823 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
6559 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
6458 Points ∼98% +39%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4645 Points ∼71%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3122 Points ∼48% -33%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
7608 Points ∼100% +38%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
7496 Points ∼99% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5510 Points ∼72%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
3315 Points ∼44% -40%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
4563 Points ∼100% +52%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
4224 Points ∼93% +41%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2997 Points ∼66%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
2593 Points ∼57% -13%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
121 fps ∼100% +49%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
108 fps ∼89% +33%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
89 fps ∼74% +10%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
81 fps ∼67%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
54 fps ∼45% -33%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
161 fps ∼100% +75%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
133 fps ∼83% +45%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
132 fps ∼82% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
92 fps ∼57%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
72 fps ∼45% -22%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
81 fps ∼100% +45%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
69 fps ∼85% +23%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
69 fps ∼85% +23%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
56 fps ∼69%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
30 fps ∼37% -46%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
92 fps ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
79 fps ∼86% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
77 fps ∼84% +26%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
61 fps ∼66%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
36 fps ∼39% -41%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
54 fps ∼100% +54%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
51 fps ∼94% +46%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
49 fps ∼91% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
35 fps ∼65%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
21 fps ∼39% -40%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
62 fps ∼100% +63%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
57 fps ∼92% +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
56 fps ∼90% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
38 fps ∼61%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
26 fps ∼42% -32%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
35 fps ∼100% +75%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
29 fps ∼83% +45%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
28 fps ∼80% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
20 fps ∼57%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
12 fps ∼34% -40%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼100% +83%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
33 fps ∼79% +43%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
33 fps ∼79% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
23 fps ∼55%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
15 fps ∼36% -35%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
33 fps ∼100% +120%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
20 fps ∼61% +33%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
19 fps ∼58% +27%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
15 fps ∼45%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
8 fps ∼24% -47%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
19 fps ∼100% +90%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
14 fps ∼74% +40%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
13 fps ∼68% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
10 fps ∼53%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
5.8 fps ∼31% -42%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
42 fps ∼100% +83%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
33 fps ∼79% +43%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
30 fps ∼71% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
23 fps ∼55%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
13 fps ∼31% -43%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
39 fps ∼100% +50%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
39 fps ∼100% +50%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
34 fps ∼87% +31%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
26 fps ∼67%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
16 fps ∼41% -38%
Users shouldn’t look forward to a completely smooth experience when surfing the web, either. Long loading times, especially for pictures, are a daily occurrence. Although the Galaxy A53 5G will be sufficient for everyday use, there are phones in this price range with significantly faster browsing speeds.
The Galaxy A53’s UFS storage can barely keep up with that in comparable devices in terms of speed. The storage solution proves to be quite sluggish when reading data in particular, so you have to deal with longer loading times and occasional delays.
Samsung Galaxy A53Samsung Galaxy A52s 5GXiaomi 11 Lite 5G NEMotorola Moto G200 5GSony Xperia 10 IIIAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone Sequential Read 256KB510.1
951
86%
944
85%
1898
272%
840
65%
774 ?(427 – 1011, n=98)
52%
904 ?(45.6 – 2037, n=247, last 2 years)
77%
Sequential Write 256KB486.7
486.5
0%
679
40%
712
46%
400.8
-18%
282 ?(13.6 – 719, n=98)
-42%
444 ?(11.9 – 1465, n=247, last 2 years)
-9%
Random Read 4KB229.9
168.2
-27%
208.7
-9%
155.9
-32%
172.3
-25%
149.6 ?(92.6 – 239, n=98)
-35%
161.5 ?(13.5 – 325, n=247, last 2 years)
-30%
Random Write 4KB210.8
192.5
-9%
178.8
-15%
322.5
53%
210.7
0%
127.6 ?(18.2 – 290, n=98)
-39%
153.3 ?(56.5 – 449, n=248, last 2 years)
-27%
The Galaxy A53 can definitely exploit its strengths, namely the fast display, when playing simpler games like Armajet: Over 100 fps is possible here for a short time, but about 90 frames per second is the stable rate, which is still absolutely sufficient for smooth gaming. We use the software from GameBench to measure frame rates.
However, as soon as the games become a bit more demanding, such as in the PUBG Mobile battle royale game, the potential frame rates drop drastically, and even 30 fps can only be achieved somewhat reliably at very low details. Nevertheless, the controls using the position sensor and touchscreen work reliably at all times.
The handset is sufficient for users who only want to play simple games. On the other hand, gamers with higher ambitions will have to look elsewhere.
0102030405060708090100110Tooltip; Armajet; 1.61.6: Ø94.9 (78-117)
; PUBG Mobile; Smooth; 2.0.0: Ø29.4 (24-31)
; PUBG Mobile; HD; 2.0.0: Ø27 (16-32)
The smartphone can certainly heat up significantly under load: We measure up to 44.2 °C (~112 °F) at the front as well as the back. This is noticeable, but not problematic. But you might have issues if you use your smartphone frequently in very warm environments.
Our long-term benchmarks with 3DMark show no or only very minor performance losses after prolonged load.
42.7 °C
109 F36.5 °C
98 F33.1 °C
92 F 44.2 °C
112 F36.3 °C
97 F33.6 °C
92 F 44 °C
111 F36.5 °C
98 F33.7 °C
93 F
Maximum: 44.2 °C=112 F
Average: 37.8 °C=100 F
33.6 °C
92 F36.7 °C
98 F38.9 °C
102 F33.1 °C
92 F37.2 °C
99 F42.4 °C
108 F32.1 °C
90 F38 °C
100 F44.2 °C
112 F
Maximum: 44.2 °C=112 F
Average: 37.4 °C=99 F Power Supply (max.) 40.3 °C=105 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C=71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.8 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.1 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.6 (13.7min) % ∼100%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.4 (822min) % ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.2 (14.8min) % ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
98.9 (14.8min) % ∼99% -1%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
80.4 (27.4min) % ∼81% -19%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.6 (4.14min) % ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash
99.5 (4.14min) % ∼100% +2%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.2 (250min) % ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
97.8 (3.75min) % ∼98%
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
79 (7.1min) % ∼79% -19%
051015202530TooltipSamsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.9.1: Ø3.81 (3.75-3.84)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø4.14 (4.14-4.15)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.5.1: Ø4.15 (4.14-4.17)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Extreme Stress Test; 1.0.7.2: Ø7.57 (7.1-8.98)
Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø13.7 (13.7-13.7)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø14.8 (14.8-15)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability: Ø14.9 (14.8-15)
Motorola Moto G200 5G Adreno 660, SD 888+ 5G, 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash; Wild Life Stress Test Stability; 0.0.0.0: Ø28.8 (27.4-34.2)
The Samsung phone comes with good stereo speakers that don’t crackle or distort even at high volumes. Nevertheless, they can get quite loud overall, which means that you can still fill slightly larger rooms with sound.
Connecting headphones or speakers works via the USB-C port or Bluetooth 5.1. The latter is puzzling, since the SoC actually supports Bluetooth 5.2 as well. The small number of available audio codecs for wireless sound transmission is also a limitation: SBC, AAC, aptX, LDAC, and Samsung’s in-house Scalable Codec are on board, but no aptX HD or Adaptive.
dB(A)
0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs205338.62544.538.43133.728.84033.434.55035.837.66330.128.68021.323.51002121.512516.327.716014.738.220012.94525014.351.23151353.140010.857.150012.362.763013.566.580019.571.610001578.5125014.177.9160014.976200011.976.6250012.876315015.472.6400016.573.2500016.767.5630017.272.380001865.11000017.963.81250017.658.51600018.351.8SPL2886.1N0.962.1median 15median 65.1Delta2.111.341.739.231.828.726.531.123.626.438.541.63031.727.627.824.52814.827.218.337.715.939.616.644.815.352.514.257.215.16114.164.412.571.314.773.915.176.514.775.914.375.914.777.514.578.514.382.114.173.714.373.714.472.714.380.114.37813.157.126.788.70.873.5median 14.5median 72.70.712.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A53Sony Xperia 10 IIIFrequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A53 audio analysis(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 – 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass – on average 25.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 – 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids – on average 8.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 – 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs – on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Sony Xperia 10 III audio analysis(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.7 dB)
Bass 100 – 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass – on average 34.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 – 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids – on average 6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 – 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs – only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 – 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
The phone doesn’t require an excessive amount of energy, but Sony has a much better grip on energy management among the comparison devices. It should also be considered that the Galaxy A53 offers less processing power, so the ratio between performance and energy consumption is rather mediocre.
Samsung Galaxy A53
5000 mAhSamsung Galaxy A52s 5G
4500 mAhXiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
4250 mAhMotorola Moto G200 5G
5000 mAhSony Xperia 10 III
4500 mAhAverage Samsung Exynos 1280
Average of class Smartphone
Idle Minimum *0.9
1.2
-33%
0.78
13%
0.6
33%
0.44
51%
0.9
-0%
0.915 ?(0.12 – 2.5, n=193, last 2 years)
-2%
Idle Average *1.3
1.4
-8%
1.97
-52%
0.9
31%
0.65
50%
1.3
-0%
1.686 ?(0.65 – 3.6, n=193, last 2 years)
-30%
Idle Maximum *1.6
1.7
-6%
1.99
-24%
1.5
6%
0.69
57%
1.6
-0%
1.913 ?(0.69 – 3.7, n=193, last 2 years)
-20%
Load Average *5.7
3.6
37%
3.23
43%
7
-23%
2.99
48%
5.7
-0%
4.49 ?(2.1 – 7.74, n=193, last 2 years)
21%
Load Maximum *7.3
6.9
5%
7.08
3%
8.4
-15%
5.42
26%
7.3
-0%
7.35 ?(3.56 – 11.9, n=193, last 2 years)
-1%
* … smaller is better
0123456789Tooltip; 1920×1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø7.55 (7.22-9.66)
; Idle 1min: Ø1.129 (0.898-1.623)
The Galaxy A53’s 5,000 mAh battery makes battery runtimes much longer compared to the predecessor with a weaker battery: We register 14:46 hours in the Wi-Fi test. This is no record, but it’s still sufficient for 1-2 workdays, depending on the phone’s load.
The Samsung phone also cuts a fine figure overall; you have to deal with considerably less endurance with some of the comparison phones.
The charging technology of only 25 watts is a bit slow nowadays. Other phones in this price range charge in one hour, while it takes at least 1:30 hours with the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G.
Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
40h 31min
WiFi Websurfing
14h 46min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
19h 06min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 06min
Pros+ bright, color-accurate display
+ good stereo speakers
+ no throttling under load
+ decent camera setup
+ accurate positioning
+ promise of long-term updates
+ IP certification
Cons- slow Wi-Fi
– hardly any performance headroom
– slow storage
– moderate reception strength
Samsung has once again built a good mid-range phone that will certainly find its audience. But again, it’s also the case that the manufacturer isn’t doing itself any favors with its own SoCs: The performance of the Exynos 1280 is definitely too low for this price range, which is also reflected in the strong price drop shortly after its release. In addition, there’s the slow storage and the Wi-Fi module, which isn’t exactly fast.
At 120 Hz, the bright and very responsive AMOLED display is certainly one of the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s highlights. The camera is good at lighting dark environments, and the battery runtimes are good, but in view of the strong competition, Samsung should also consider a faster charging technology for lower-priced phones.
Samsung positions its Galaxy A53 5G well with its great AMOLED display, but the SoC’s low level of performance is bothersome.
Users who don’t care that much about system performance and who primarily want a great display will get a decent mid-range phone with the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G, especially at the already significantly reduced prices.
Users who want the best features for as little money as possible should rather take a look at the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE. Motorola also offers a great phone with an interesting desktop mode with the Moto G200 5G.
Samsung Galaxy A53
–
05/31/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 66%
Games Performance
40 / 64 → 62%
Application Performance
72 / 86 → 84%
Smartphone – Weighted Average
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt – Managing Editor Mobile – 926 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009
I initially wrote about gaming laptops when I joined Notebookcheck in 2009. I was then involved with the setup of the comparison portal Notebookinfo and worked with social media concepts for large companies like BMW and Adidas, while also returning to work for Notebookcheck in 2012. Nowadays, I focus on smartphones, tablets, and future technologies. Since 2018 I have been Managing Editor for mobile device reviews, working alongside my colleague Daniel Schmidt.
Translator: Stephanie Chamberlain – Translator – 518 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2020
I’ve been fascinated with technology ever since I got my very first Android smartphone, which was quite a while ago. The power packed into such a small footprint still amazes me. Learning to program made my understanding of technology deeper, and at the same time, it expanded my interest to the area of desktop computers and laptops. All this led me to enjoy reading and watching reviews of new devices, and that’s how I stumbled upon Notebookcheck. I immediately found their reviews to be very comprehensive, and luckily, I’ve even had the chance of translating them since 2019. When it comes to the huge field of technology, I’m currently also interested in specializing in Java programming.
Florian Schmitt, 2022-06- 5 (Update: 2022-06- 5)
