Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G - Den nya versionen är mer kraftfull (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.1 % | 10/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83 % | 04/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.1 % | 08/2021 | OnePlus Nord 2 5G Dimensity 1200, Mali-G77 MP9 | 189 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.43" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.4 % | 05/2021 | Motorola Moto G100 SD 870, Adreno 650 | 207 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 | |
| 85.9 % | 05/2021 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G SD 780G 5G, Adreno 642 | 159 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 |
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
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 camera - FlowersMain camera - SurroundingsMain camera - Low lightWide-angle lens
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 736 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.18 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
138.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | OnePlus Nord 2 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.43 | Motorola Moto G100 IPS/LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.70 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -4% | -28% | -71% | -16% | |
| Brightness middle | 736 | 744 1% | 594 -19% | 562 -24% | 863 17% |
| Brightness | 751 | 749 0% | 594 -21% | 535 -29% | 860 15% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 98 2% | 99 3% | 90 -6% | 93 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.57 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.18 | 2.2 -1% | 2.74 -26% | 3.99 -83% | 3.2 -47% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.69 | 7 -23% | 6 -5% | 9.74 -71% | 5.2 9% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 2.1 -0% | 4.2 -100% | 6.5 -210% | 3.9 -86% |
| Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.06 107% | 2.278 97% | 2.174 101% | 2.33 94% |
| CCT | 6563 99% | 6516 100% | 7322 89% | 6882 94% | 7299 89% |
| Contrast | 986 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 231.5 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 231.5 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 231.5 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17853 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (422597 - 452805, n=5) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=172, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (58.8 - 86.8, n=11) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chrome 92) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (102.6 - 155.3, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chrome 92) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=156, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (52.5 - 61.5, n=9) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chome 93) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chome 92) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=120, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (93 - 131, n=10) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chrome 92) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=215, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (23915 - 31915, n=11) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chrome 92) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G (Chrome 92) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G (1323 - 1893, n=11) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=172, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | OnePlus Nord 2 5G | Motorola Moto G100 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 77% | 53% | 19% | -25% | 70% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 951 | 927 -3% | 1827 92% | 1730 82% | 949 0% | 760 ? -20% | 1513 ? 59% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 486.5 | 484.6 0% | 1256 158% | 717 47% | 710 46% | 297 ? -39% | 1121 ? 130% |
| Random Read 4KB | 168.2 | 176.1 5% | 223.7 33% | 253.6 51% | 207.9 24% | 152.9 ? -9% | 248 ? 47% |
| Random Write 4KB | 192.5 | 179.2 -7% | 239 24% | 252.9 31% | 206.9 7% | 131.6 ? -32% | 273 ? 42% |
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| OnePlus Nord 2 5G | |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 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 45.2 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.7 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 74% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0 / 0.2 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  1.2 / 1.4 / 1.7 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
3.6 / 6.9 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | OnePlus Nord 2 5G 4500 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -1% | -13% | -23% | -11% | -21% | -10% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.2 | 0.92 23% | 0.8 33% | 0.9 25% | 0.83 31% | 1.106 ? 8% | 0.897 ? 25% |
| Idle Average * | 1.4 | 1.78 -27% | 1.2 14% | 1.5 -7% | 1.92 -37% | 2.07 ? -48% | 1.453 ? -4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.7 | 1.81 -6% | 1.6 6% | 2.1 -24% | 1.97 -16% | 2.32 ? -36% | 1.626 ? 4% |
| Load Average * | 3.6 | 3.86 -7% | 5.7 -58% | 6.7 -86% | 3.84 -7% | 4.17 ? -16% | 5.56 ? -54% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.9 | 6.14 11% | 10.9 -58% | 8.5 -23% | 8.6 -25% | 7.81 ? -13% | 8.35 ? -21% |
* ... smaller is better
Energiförbrukning: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Energiförbrukning: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | OnePlus Nord 2 5G 4500 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -0% | 6% | 27% | -8% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1897 | 1917 1% | 1926 2% | 2846 50% | 1509 -20% |
| H.264 | 1109 | 1052 -5% | 1126 2% | 1285 16% | 1248 13% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 721 | 710 -2% | 958 33% | 1049 45% | 734 2% |
| Load | 309 | 324 5% | 272 -12% | 302 -2% | 223 -28% |
För
Emot
Omdöme – Snabbare och dyrare
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Vid en första anblick verkar Samsung Galaxy A52 5G och Galaxy A52s 5G vara identiska: höljet, kamerans prestanda, skärmen, högtalarna och batteritiden är väldigt lika.
Men en närmare titt avslöjar några skillnader: En ny SoC innebär mycket mer kraft, särskilt när det kommer till grafikprestanda och flerkärniga processor-scenarier. Den har dessutom snabbare WiFi.
Men man får stå ut med mycket högre temperaturer vid belastning. Kylsystemet verkar vara optimerat för det lite svagare chippet i Galaxy A52 5G. Priset på den nya modellen har också ökat lite med ca 200 kronor.
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G är en lite dyrare revidering som kommer med en skaplig prestandaökning.
Då den tidigare modellen redan är slutsåld på Samsungs hemsida är det fullt möjligt att Samsung helt enkelt inte lyckades få tag på tillräckligt med chips för Galaxy A52 5G, med tanke på rådande chip-brist, och bestämde sig därför för att göra en revidering lite tidigare.
Oavsett så är ökningen i prestanda trevlig och online märks det högre priset knappt alls, beroende på återförsäljare. Den irriterande svaga nätadaptern och den mindre flexibla kamerauppsättningen är dock fortfarande svagheter som även nya Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G lider av.
Däremot är den ljusstarka skärmen och IP-certifieringen fördelar som gör Samsungs smartphone till ett intressant val.
Det går att spara några kronor genom att välja OnePlus Nord 2 5G, som också har hög styrka och ännu snabbare laddning. Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G är också en aning dyrare än Samsungs mittenskiktare och den är ett bra val för användare som letar efter en tunn och lätt mittenskiktsenhet.
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
-
08/31/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
