Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Samsung Galaxy A20s - Med en Snapdragon SoC, är den bättre än Galaxy A21s?
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75.4 % | 11/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A20s SD 450, Adreno 506 | 183 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1560x720 | |
| 79.9 % | 09/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
| 76.4 % | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A21s Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 78.2 % | 06/2020 | Realme 6i Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 74.5 % | 10/2020 | Nokia 2.4 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 195 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 76 % | 11/2020 | Wiko View5 Helio A25, PowerVR GE8320 | 201 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.55" | 1600x720 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Nokia 2.4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Nokia 2.4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Realme 6i | |
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.
Main cameraLow LightMain cameraWide angle
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 87 %
Mitt på batteriet: 384 cd/m²
Kontrast: 914:1 (Svärta: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.43 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.9 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
94.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.308
| Samsung Galaxy A20s IPS, 1560x720, 6.50 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53 | Samsung Galaxy A21s PLS, 1600x720, 6.50 | Realme 6i IPS, 1600x720, 6.50 | Nokia 2.4 IPS, 1600x720, 6.50 | Wiko View5 LCD IPS, 1600x720, 6.55 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 77% | 3% | 12% | 17% | 38% | |
| Brightness middle | 384 | 553 44% | 540 41% | 518 35% | 445 16% | 495 29% |
| Brightness | 367 | 527 44% | 509 39% | 484 32% | 405 10% | 461 26% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 89 2% | 91 5% | 89 2% | 85 -2% | 88 1% |
| Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.12 71% | 0.36 14% | 0.26 38% | 0.26 38% | 0.14 67% |
| Contrast | 914 | 4608 404% | 1500 64% | 1992 118% | 1712 87% | 3536 287% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.43 | 3.8 14% | 6.58 -49% | 5.8 -31% | 4.73 -7% | 6.5 -47% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.34 | 8.7 -19% | 11.55 -57% | 11 -50% | 8.83 -20% | 10 -36% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.9 | 2.2 55% | 6.4 -31% | 7.3 -49% | 4.2 14% | 6.2 -27% |
| Gamma | 2.308 95% | 2.3 96% | 2.206 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.292 96% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 7671 85% | 6727 97% | 8482 77% | 8037 81% | 7378 88% | 8157 80% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 67 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 23 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 70 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (8.7 - 18, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (9.2 - 9.4, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (5.7 - 13, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (6 - 6.9, n=13) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Wiko View5 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (89022 - 97624, n=3) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s (Chrome86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (14.6 - 16.5, n=4) | |
| Wiko View5 (Chrome 86) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s (Chrome86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (22 - 22.7, n=13) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (12.4 - 14.6, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (28 - 34, n=8) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s (Chrome86) | |
| Wiko View5 (Chrome 86) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s (Chrome86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (3470 - 4115, n=14) | |
| Wiko View5 (Chrome 86) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Wiko View5 (Chrome 86) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s (Chrome86) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 (11012 - 11863, n=14) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A20s | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | Samsung Galaxy A21s | Realme 6i | Nokia 2.4 | Wiko View5 | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 200% | 102% | 208% | 8% | 21% | -2% | 941% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 298.2 | 306.6 3% | 307 3% | 309.5 4% | 245.7 -18% | 268.4 -10% | 242 ? -19% | 1508 ? 406% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 90.6 | 248.1 174% | 104.3 15% | 256.4 183% | 119.5 32% | 223.4 147% | 100.5 ? 11% | 1118 ? 1134% |
| Random Read 4KB | 75.9 | 65.1 -14% | 77.2 2% | 73.5 -3% | 46 -39% | 49.56 -35% | 43.2 ? -43% | 247 ? 225% |
| Random Write 4KB | 12.95 | 146.9 1034% | 89.5 591% | 150.9 1065% | 22.5 74% | 16.29 26% | 22.4 ? 73% | 272 ? 2000% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 82.6 ? | 84.4 ? 2% | 80 ? -3% | 84.6 ? 2% | 82.6 ? 0% | 82 ? -1% | 71.8 ? -13% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 65.1 ? | 63.5 ? -2% | 66.4 ? 2% | 64.5 ? -1% | 63 ? -3% | 62.7 ? -4% | 52.9 ? -19% |
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.7 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.8 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A20s audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 4% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.2% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.9 / 1.8 / 2.7 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
5.2 / 7.1 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy A20s 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | Realme 6i 5000 mAh | Wiko View5 5000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 10% | -14% | 31% | 28% | 8% | 7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.74 18% | 1.5 -67% | 0.37 59% | 0.68 24% | 0.794 ? 12% | 0.897 ? -0% |
| Idle Average * | 1.8 | 2.17 -21% | 2.1 -17% | 1.62 10% | 1.94 -8% | 2.27 ? -26% | 1.452 ? 19% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.7 | 2.2 19% | 2.9 -7% | 1.69 37% | 1.96 27% | 2.48 ? 8% | 1.629 ? 40% |
| Load Average * | 5.2 | 4.17 20% | 4.6 12% | 3.61 31% | 2.62 50% | 3.95 ? 24% | 5.55 ? -7% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.1 | 6.11 14% | 6.6 7% | 5.9 17% | 3.81 46% | 5.38 ? 24% | 8.31 ? -17% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A20s 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | Realme 6i 5000 mAh | Nokia 2.4 4500 mAh | Wiko View5 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 11% | 7% | 62% | 2% | 39% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2145 | 2294 7% | 2009 -6% | |||
| H.264 | 954 | 1116 17% | 1087 14% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 812 | 867 7% | 943 16% | 1318 62% | 826 2% | 1132 39% |
| Load | 278 | 314 13% | 287 3% |
För
Emot
Omdöme för Samsung Galaxy A20s - Rejäl. Försynt. Onödig?
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
När Galaxy A20s släpptes skapade Samsung en egen konkurrent till Galaxy A21s, men egentligen är den ingen konkurrent alls. A20s visade sig vara för svag och för diskret för det - något färgen på plasten också symboliserar.
Vi får erkänna att vi hade svårt att hitta några egentliga styrkor med A20s. Samsungs smartphone är välkonstruerad och den ordentliga positioneringen talar för sig själv, även om vår testenhet led av några mindre brister. Vidare var batteritiden okej, men det beror främst på den svaga hårdvaran, vilket är typiskt för det här segmentet.
Det som oftast brukar vara en av Samsungs styrkor, skärmen (åtminstone när det gäller AMOLED-paneler), är tyvärr en svaghet i just Galaxy A-serien. Galaxy A20s har en mörk skärm och IPS-panelen skulle dessutom behöva högre kontrast - till och med för det här prisskiktet. Dessutom är prestandan från dess Snapdragon 450, en SoC från 2017, helt enkelt förkastlig trots att det rör sig om en billig telefon.
Snälla fall inte tillbaka i gamla spår Samsung. Ni kunde åtminstone ha räddat en av enheterna från trion A20e, A20s och A21s.
Som en instegstelefon är Samsung Galaxy A20s helt okej. Men det är få saker som talar för A20s vid jämförelse med A21s, som också går att köpa för ca 1.400 - 1.500 kronor. Den sistnämnda har en mer kraftfull SoC och en snabbare WLAN-modul.
Totalt sett är Redmi Note 9 betydligt starkare än Galaxy A20s. Den kostar för tillfället runt 1.500 kronor och är därför ett riktigt bra alternativ till Samsungs telefon.
Samsung Galaxy A20s
-
11/14/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich
Pricecompare
