Notebookcheck Logo

三星Galaxy A53 5G智能手机评测:Galaxy 手机,采用明亮的AMOLED显示屏

习惯于成功。 三星Galaxy A53 5G建立在一个最畅销的系列上,采用了全新的SoC和更强大的电池。然而,在其他方面没有任何变化,例如相机。我们的审查将揭示Galaxy A53是否还能得到我们的推荐。
Android ARM Smartphone
三星Galaxy A53 5G

每年,最受欢迎的三星Galaxy 手机之一都源于A5x系列。因此,三星只通过对每个新机型进行谨慎的修改来发展该系列,以避免让粉丝失望,这并不奇怪。今年,Galaxy A53 5G再次是一款没有呈现任何重大变化的手机。也许除了今年不再有4G机型这一事实之外。

但制造商能跟上竞争的步伐吗?到现在,竞争对手也在中档以上的价格段提供高端处理器,比如在 摩托罗拉Moto G200 5G,或快速Wi-Fi 6,如在 小米11 Lite 5G NE.

Samsung Galaxy A53 (Galaxy A Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 1280 8 x 2 - 2.4 GHz
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
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
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
Price
449 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

潜在的竞争对手比较

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
83.2 %
06/2022
Samsung Galaxy A53
Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4
189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50"2400x1080
84.9 %
10/2021
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L
189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50"2400x1080
86.3 %
12/2021
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L
158 g128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash6.55"2400x1080
85.3 %
02/2022
Motorola Moto G200 5G
SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660
202 g128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.80"2460x1080
83.2 %
06/2021
Sony Xperia 10 III
SD 690 5G, Adreno 619L
169 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.00"2520x1080
Galaxy A53 5G颜色选择
Galaxy A53 5G颜色选择

这款箱子已经很容易让人联想到前辈们,即 三星Galaxy A52Galaxy A52s:一个塑料机箱,有一个突出的相机模块,其中的镜头排列方式与前一代相同。

虽然背面仍然是哑光的,但现在有四种颜色可供选择,分别是白色、黑色、浅蓝色和明亮的桃红色,这也是我们评测样品的颜色。光滑的边框已经在正面和背面的边缘延伸了一些,在外观上创造了一个更加统一和高质量的印象。

此外,正面有大猩猩5号玻璃保护,该设备的稳定性几乎没有任何瑕疵。这款智能手机具有IP67认证,这意味着该设备可以很好地防止灰尘和水的渗透。

三星Galaxy A53 5G
三星Galaxy A53 5G
三星Galaxy A53 5G
三星Galaxy A53 5G
三星Galaxy A53 5G

尺寸比较

168.1 mm 75.5 mm 8.9 mm 202 g159.9 mm 75.1 mm 8.4 mm 189 g159.6 mm 74.8 mm 8.1 mm 189 g160.53 mm 75.73 mm 6.81 mm 158 g154 mm 68 mm 8.3 mm 169 g

连接性 - 不再有3.5毫米的音频插孔

与上一代相比,这款智能手机的存储变体和价格没有任何变化。

  • 三星Galaxy A53 5G - 128 GB存储/6 GB内存:449欧元(约478美元)。
  • 三星Galaxy A53 5G - 256 GB存储/8 GB内存:509欧元(约合542美元)。

传统有线耳机的用户可能会抱怨取消了3.5毫米的音频插孔:你只能使用Galaxy A53的USB-C端口作为耳机连接,如果有必要的话,可以使用一个适配器。有了蓝牙5.1,你现在可以得到一个略微更新的无线通信标准版本,而且NFC也再次加入。

左边:没有端口
左边:没有端口
右边。音量摇杆,待机按钮
右边。音量摇杆,待机按钮
底部。扬声器、USB-C端口、麦克风、SIM卡插槽
底部。扬声器、USB-C端口、麦克风、SIM卡插槽
首页: 麦克风
首页: 麦克风

微型SD卡读卡器

我们用我们的参考microSD卡Angelbird V60测量读卡器提供的数据吞吐量:三星Galaxy A53在这里写速度时只能打分。读取数据时,传输率波动很大,在我们的复制测试中只能达到较低的速度。

有点恼人的是,你只能同时使用两张SIM卡或一张microSD卡和一张SIM卡,就像上一代产品一样。

SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Angelbird V60)
52.4 MB/s ∼100% +381%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
33.73 MB/s ∼64% +209%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
14.81 MB/s ∼28% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Angelbird V60)
10.9 MB/s ∼21%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

0102030405060708090100Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB: Ø46.2 (35.3-62.3)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø25.9 (16.8-37.8)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Angelbird AV Pro V60: Ø36.4 (26-46.9)
Sony Xperia 10 III Adreno 619L, SD 690 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Write 0.5 GB; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø37.1 (31.1-48.6)
Samsung Galaxy A53 Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB: Ø83.9 (56.1-108.6)
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Angelbird V60: Ø71.8 (50.1-75.6)
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; 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; SDCard Sequential Read 0.5 GB; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø85.7 (39.6-101)

软件 -Galaxy 电话,长期更新

Android 12现在已经开箱预装了,即三星的One UI 4.1,它是基于此的。与vanilla 相比,三星的软件界面实际上是一个相当全面的定制,但其他手机的用户在短暂的熟悉期后仍能很好地适应。这也是由于你有很多选项来定制界面和操作。

我们在审查期间收到了2022年5月的最新安全补丁的更新,在写这篇文章的时候,这些补丁是完全最新的。

值得称赞的是。虽然在很长一段时间内,三星不愿意对手机会收到多久的更新做出任何具体声明,但自从AndroidGalaxy S22的开箱活动以来,一直有好消息。.部分手机,包括Galaxy A53 5G,将获得四个主要更新和五年的软件支持。现在是三星这个为其他供应商设定了一个标准。

三星Galaxy A53 软件
三星Galaxy A53 软件
三星Galaxy A53 软件

通信和GNSS - 速度适中的Wi-Fi

Galaxy A53只提供5G版本。5G和4G频率的数量是稳固的,但特别是在LTE范围内,在国外旅行时,可用的频率可能太少,无法使用当地网络。换句话说,Galaxy ,这款手机并不是真正的世界手机。

在测试期间,我们反复检查了该手机的随机样本接收情况。我们观察到,三星Galaxy A53 5G的表现比一些高端手机差一些。虽然4G网络接收通常是足够的,但无论是在室内还是室外,它总是比其他手机的接收要弱一些。

在Wi-Fi方面,制造商为该智能手机配备了Wi-Fi 5作为最快的标准。随着小米11 Lite 5G NE摩托罗拉Moto G200 5G你绝对可以在这个价格范围内找到已经支持Wi-Fi 6的智能手机,使它们能够达到比我们的评测样本高得多的速度。对比领域的其他Wi-Fi 5手机也提供比Galaxy A53更快的Wi-Fi。

Networking
iperf3 receive AXE11000
Average of class Smartphone
  (72.5 - 1736, n=53, last 2 years)
632 MBit/s ∼100% +83%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
345 (328min - 351max) MBit/s ∼55%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
Average of class Smartphone
  (78.3 - 1710, n=53, last 2 years)
649 MBit/s ∼100% +141%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Mali-G68 MP4, Exynos 1280, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
269 (255min - 281max) MBit/s ∼41%
iperf3 transmit AX12
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=206, last 2 years)
487 MBit/s ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
461 (433min - 470max) MBit/s ∼53%
iperf3 receive AX12
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=206, last 2 years)
475 MBit/s ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
Adreno 642L, SD 778G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
425 (413min - 432max) MBit/s ∼51%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340Tooltip
; iperf3 receive AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø345 (328-351)
; iperf3 transmit AXE11000; iperf 3.1.3: Ø269 (255-281)
室外的GPS测试
室外的GPS测试
可用的卫星网络
可用的卫星网络

在户外,需要一个短暂的时刻,但随后我们的位置就会被确定,精确度达到四米。众多的卫星网络被用于定位,包括GPS、GLONASS和Galileo。

为了能够对手机的跟踪精度做出真实的评估,我们用Galaxy A53和Garmin Venu 2作为对比设备去骑自行车。我们的评测样本实际上在某些地方比佳明智能手表更准确一些,所以你可以自信地使用这款手机进行导航。

三星Galaxy A53定位 - 概述
三星Galaxy A53定位 - 概述
三星Galaxy A53定位--转折点
三星Galaxy A53定位--转折点
三星Galaxy A53定位 - 桥梁
三星Galaxy A53定位 - 桥梁
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 概述
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 概述
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 转折点
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 转折点
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 桥梁
Garmin Venu 2定位 - 桥梁

电话和通话质量 - 请大点声!

三星的手机应用程序与许多其他手机上的谷歌版本有些不同。尽管如此,它在基本布局和功能方面是相似的。一个用于拨号的小键盘,一个最近通话的列表,以及一个联系人的概述。

通话质量是可以接受的,内部听筒可以变得相当响亮,但这导致很多对话被周围的人听到。此外,声音在高音量下会失真,而且有明显的杂音。我们的声音不能很清楚地传到另一端的人那里,特别是当我们说话比较小声的时候。你也可以通过扬声器和免提麦克风进行良好的沟通。这里的质量也不完美,尤其是安静的声音很快就会消失。

照相机 - 和以前一样

前置摄像头样本
前置摄像头样本

相较于 三星Galaxy A52s,在纸面上的相机设置方面没有区别。背部继续内置四个相机镜头,其中三个可以实际拍摄照片。

主摄像头是光学稳定的,通常使用其64像素的分辨率,将每四个像素组合成一个感光的大像素,从而得到1600万像素的照片。

在我们看来,与前代产品相比,图像质量仍然没有变化。该相机擅长HDR拍摄,但细节很快就会被冲淡,而且在某些情况下颜色非常鲜艳。当看周围图片中的天空时,可以注意到区域的细节不像便宜的手机那样有像素化。这款智能手机在拍摄弱光照片方面相当出色;只有在非常黑暗的地区,人们才希望能有更多的亮度。

超广角相机在角落里一直变形得很厉害,你应该避免把照片放大太多,但它仍然适合快照。不幸的是,你仍然不能在主摄像头和超广角镜头之间放大,因为你只能在它们之间切换。

视频选项也仍然限制在4K时最多30帧,全高清时最多60帧/秒。说到拍摄视频,流畅的自动对焦和快速的亮度调节仍然是值得一提的亮点。

前置摄像头也使用像素分层来提高感光度,所以它只在特殊模式下拍摄3200万像素的照片。在大多数情况下,拍摄的是800万像素的照片。其质量足以满足社交媒体或手机使用,但你不能过多地放大图片,因为细节只能以模糊的方式显示。

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 camera

在实验室里,在良好的照明条件下,手机的摄像头只显示出对边缘的轻微清晰度损失。然而,文字并不是以绝对锋利的边缘显示的,而另一方面,色彩过渡相当平滑,几乎没有任何人工痕迹。

在照明度只有1勒克斯的情况下,该相机仍然做得很好。图像内容仍然是可识别的,只要与背景颜色有足够的对比,文字仍然容易阅读。

ColorChecker
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 ∆E
ColorChecker
25.1 ∆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

配件和保修 - 充电器是过去的事了

购买三星Galaxy A53 5G的用户将得到一个非常小的盒子,没有附带充电器。这是一种趋势,因为许多消费者反正家里已经有了一个USB充电器;此外,它还可以节省运输和制造成本,同时也保护环境。因此,包装中只有一条USB线和一个SIM卡工具。

三星对一个合适的充电器收费近35美元。,考虑到相对较低的25瓦的充电能力,这令人惊讶。然而,我们的第三方充电器也能与手机无缝连接。

三星提供24个月的 保修为其智能手机提供24个月的保修。即使在之后,由于他们的固定价格,你可以提前得到许多维修的明确信息。

输入设备和处理--120赫兹的平稳导航

由于采用了120赫兹的显示屏,该设备使用起来感觉非常流畅。触摸屏也能让手指很好地滑行。然而,你必须忍受系统软件偶尔的停顿,特别是当更复杂的进程在后台运行时。

指纹传感器位于屏幕下方。它能相当可靠地识别放置的手指,但要花点时间才能真正解锁屏幕。面部识别也可用于解锁过程,但由于缺乏红外传感器,它并不那么安全。

纵向模式下的键盘
纵向模式下的键盘
横向模式下的键盘
横向模式下的键盘

显示屏 -Galaxy A53的显示屏更亮

子像素网格
子像素网格

长期以来,AMOLED显示屏一直是三星高端设备的一个亮点,A53也采用了自发光显示屏,刷新率为120赫兹。全高清分辨率是该级别的绝对标准,它通常完全足以显示清晰的图像。

当亮度传感器完全被照亮时,屏幕可以变得相当明亮,高达761 cd/m²,但平均亮度仍略低于三星Galaxy A52s前辈的显示屏。该显示器可以完全停用个别像素,理论上会产生完全黑色的颜色;这反过来又导致了鲜艳的色彩和深邃的黑色。

我们检测到250赫兹的PWM,我们在设置中找不到容易让人眼花缭乱的直流调光模式。

707
cd/m²
717
cd/m²
766
cd/m²
705
cd/m²
718
cd/m²
747
cd/m²
720
cd/m²
725
cd/m²
761
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, 2400x1080, 6.50
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55
Motorola Moto G200 5G
IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.80
Sony Xperia 10 III
OLED, 2520x1080, 6.00
Screen
-11%
28%
-51%
13%
Brightness middle
718
736
3%
797
11%
512
-29%
536
-25%
Brightness
730
751
3%
800
10%
488
-33%
540
-26%
Brightness Distribution
92
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%
Gamma
2.156 102%
2.27 97%
2.26 97%
7154 0%
2.27 97%
CCT
6545 99%
6563 99%
6397 102%
1.944 334362%
6494 100%
Contrast
1422

* ... 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 250 Hz

The 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 21751 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

PWM频率
PWM频率
0%的亮度
0%的亮度
25%的亮度
25%的亮度
50%的亮度
50%的亮度
75%的亮度
75%的亮度
100%的亮度
100%的亮度

用固定的变焦水平和不同的亮度设置进行一系列的测量

色彩的准确性非常好,特别是当你选择 "自然 "预设进行色彩再现时。在这种情况下,只有红色调略微夸张,但即使在这里,肉眼也很难察觉到颜色的偏差。

在看灰度时,我们检测到一个非常微妙的向绿色的转变,但在这里的再现总体上也是非常准确的。

CalMAN颜色精度
CalMAN颜色精度
卡尔曼灰阶
卡尔曼灰阶
卡尔曼sRGB色彩空间
卡尔曼sRGB色彩空间
CalMAN AdobeRGB色彩空间
CalMAN AdobeRGB色彩空间
CalMAN DCI P3色彩空间
CalMAN DCI P3色彩空间
卡尔曼饱和度
卡尔曼饱和度

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. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 5 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 0.692 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (36.7 ms).

由于采用了AMOLED显示屏,屏幕内容从所有视角都很容易识别,而且几乎没有变形。

这款智能手机可以在户外使用,没有任何问题;高显示亮度在这里很有帮助。然而,在阳光直射下,你最好移到阴凉处,因为屏幕上会有反光。

视角
视角
户外使用
户外使用

性能--再次使用Exynos

三星的内部芯片SoC为Galaxy A53提供动力。它使用了2个快速和6个省电核心,但与同等价位的智能手机相比,其性能并不完全令人信服。在几乎所有的性能基准测试中,它都处于比较领域的低端,在人工智能处理的AImark测试中,它只取得了很低的分数。

Geekbench 5.4
Single-Core
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
  (737 - 740, n=2)
739 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1755, n=258, last 2 years)
681 Points ∼63% -8%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
590 Points ∼55% -20%
Multi-Core
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=258, last 2 years)
2225 Points ∼68% +18%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (1878 - 1905, n=2)
1892 Points ∼58% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
1878 Points ∼57%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
1716 Points ∼52% -9%
Antutu v9 - Total Score
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
794271 Points ∼100% +94%
Average of class Smartphone
  (111952 - 1041980, n=112, last 2 years)
552824 Points ∼70% +35%
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
  (398969 - 409976, n=2)
404473 Points ∼51% -1%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
344070 Points ∼43% -16%
PCMark for Android - Work 3.0
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
  (11077 - 11470, n=2)
11274 Points ∼61% -2%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
10755 Points ∼58% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4436 - 18567, n=149, last 2 years)
10191 Points ∼55% -11%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
8273 Points ∼45% -28%
CrossMark - Overall
Average of class Smartphone
  (226 - 1169, n=52, last 2 years)
735 Points ∼100% +27%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
678 Points ∼92% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
579 Points ∼79%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
 
579 Points ∼79% 0%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
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=170, last 2 years)
4244 Points ∼74% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
3626 Points ∼63%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (3477 - 3626, n=2)
3552 Points ∼62% -2%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3092 Points ∼54% -15%
System
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=170, last 2 years)
7544 Points ∼72% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (7157 - 7184, n=2)
7171 Points ∼69% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
7157 Points ∼68%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
6586 Points ∼63% -8%
Memory
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=170, last 2 years)
4861 Points ∼86% +26%
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
  (3829 - 3855, n=2)
3842 Points ∼68% 0%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3176 Points ∼56% -18%
Graphics
Motorola Moto G200 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus 5G, Adreno 660, 8192
13865 Points ∼100% +168%
Average of class Smartphone
  (478 - 25642, n=170, last 2 years)
7362 Points ∼53% +42%
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
  (5104 - 5178, n=2)
5141 Points ∼37% -1%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
3334 Points ∼24% -36%
Web
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=170, last 2 years)
1384 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
  (1041 - 1210, n=2)
1126 Points ∼68% -7%
AImark - Score v2.x
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=132, last 2 years)
59389 Points ∼21% +1160%
Sony Xperia 10 III
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 5G, Adreno 619L, 6144
40708 Points ∼14% +764%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
  (4714 - 4926, n=2)
4820 Points ∼2% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A53
Samsung Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4, 6144
4714 Points ∼2%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G 5G, Adreno 642L, 8192
Points ∼0% -100%

ǞǞǞ芯片作为GPU,在这个价格范围内的智能手机中也是相当不引人注目的。

3DMark
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
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%
Wild Life Extreme
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%
Wild Life Unlimited Score
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%
Wild Life Score
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
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%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
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%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen
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%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
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%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
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%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
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%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
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%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
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%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen
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%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen
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%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen
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%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
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%
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen
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%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen
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%

用户也不应该期待在网上冲浪时有完全流畅的体验。漫长的加载时间,尤其是图片的加载时间,是每天都会发生的。尽管Galaxy A53 5G将足以满足日常使用,但在这个价格范围内,还有一些手机的浏览速度明显更快。

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96)
86.2 Points ∼100% +36%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
75.9 Points ∼88% +20%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
71.8 Points ∼83% +13%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (63.5 - 66, n=2)
64.8 Points ∼75% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)
63.5 Points ∼74%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 182.6, n=170, last 2 years)
62.3 Points ∼72% -2%
Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91)
45.36 Points ∼53% -29%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
79.8 runs/min ∼100% +56%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96)
61.5 runs/min ∼77% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 244, n=156, last 2 years)
61 runs/min ∼76% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chome 93)
53.2 runs/min ∼67% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chome 101)
51.24 runs/min ∼64%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (48 - 51.2, n=2)
49.6 runs/min ∼62% -3%
Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91)
41.2 runs/min ∼52% -20%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
147 Points ∼100% +113%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96)
113 Points ∼77% +64%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
107 Points ∼73% +55%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 265, n=178, last 2 years)
92.4 Points ∼63% +34%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (69 - 82, n=2)
75.5 Points ∼51% +9%
Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91)
74 Points ∼50% +7%
Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)
69 Points ∼47%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96)
31915 Points ∼100% +32%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
28695 Points ∼90% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
25119 Points ∼79% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (24159 - 24521, n=2)
24340 Points ∼76% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)
24159 Points ∼76%
Average of class Smartphone (3526 - 65969, n=184, last 2 years)
23519 Points ∼74% -3%
Sony Xperia 10 III
16866 Points ∼53% -30%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 15230, n=183, last 2 years)
3158 ms * ∼100% -64%
Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91)
2506 ms * ∼79% -31%
Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101)
1920.3 ms * ∼61%
Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (1857 - 1920, n=2)
1888 ms * ∼60% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93)
1802 ms * ∼57% +6%
Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97)
1358 ms * ∼43% +29%
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96)
1323 ms * ∼42% +31%

* ... smaller is better

Galaxy A53的UFS存储在速度方面只能勉强跟上同类设备的速度。特别是在读取数据时,该存储解决方案被证明是相当迟缓的,所以你必须处理较长的加载时间和偶尔的延迟。

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
AndroBench 3-5
13%
25%
85%
6%
-16%
7%
Sequential Read 256KB
510.1
951
86%
944
85%
1898
272%
840
65%
772 ?(427 - 1011, n=100)
51%
934 ?(45.6 - 2037, n=246, last 2 years)
83%
Sequential Write 256KB
486.7
486.5
0%
679
40%
712
46%
400.8
-18%
286 ?(13.6 - 719, n=100)
-41%
474 ?(11.9 - 1485, n=246, last 2 years)
-3%
Random Read 4KB
229.9
168.2
-27%
208.7
-9%
155.9
-32%
172.3
-25%
149.4 ?(92.6 - 239, n=100)
-35%
167.1 ?(13.5 - 345, n=246, last 2 years)
-27%
Random Write 4KB
210.8
192.5
-9%
178.8
-15%
322.5
53%
210.7
0%
128.4 ?(18.2 - 290, n=100)
-39%
160.5 ?(56.5 - 458, n=247, last 2 years)
-24%

游戏--有时甚至可以达到100 fps

Galaxy A53在玩Armajet等较简单的游戏时,绝对可以发挥其优势,即快速显示。在这里,短时间内超过100帧是可能的,但大约每秒90帧是稳定的速率,这对于流畅的游戏来说仍然是绝对足够的。我们使用GameBench的软件来测量帧率。

然而,只要游戏的要求变得更高一些,比如在PUBG移动战役游戏中,潜在的帧率就会急剧下降,甚至30帧也只能在非常低的细节下才能有些稳定地达到。尽管如此,使用位置传感器和触摸屏的控制在任何时候都能可靠地工作。

这款手机对于只想玩简单游戏的用户来说是足够的。另一方面,有更高野心的游戏者将不得不去寻找其他地方。

PUBG手机版
PUBG手机版
氩氦刀
氩氦刀
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)

排放 - 三星的良好立体声扬声器

温度

智能手机在负载下肯定会明显发热。我们在前面和后面测量到高达44.2°C(约112°F)。这是很明显的,但没有问题。但如果你经常在非常温暖的环境中使用你的智能手机,你可能会有问题。

我们用3DMark进行的长期基准测试显示,在长时间的负载后没有或只有非常小的性能损失。

Max. Load
 42.7 °C36.5 °C33.1 °C 
 44.2 °C36.3 °C33.6 °C 
 44 °C36.5 °C33.7 °C 
Maximum: 44.2 °C
Average: 37.8 °C
33.6 °C36.7 °C38.9 °C
33.1 °C37.2 °C42.4 °C
32.1 °C38 °C44.2 °C
Maximum: 44.2 °C
Average: 37.4 °C
Power Supply (max.)  40.3 °C | Room Temperature 21.5 °C | 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.

3DMark Wild Life stress test

3DMark
Wild Life Stress Test Stability
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%
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test
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%
051015202530Tooltip
Samsung 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)

发言人

三星手机配备了良好的立体声扬声器,即使在高音量下也不会发出噼啪声或失真。尽管如此,它们总体上可以变得相当响亮,这意味着你仍然可以用声音充满稍大的房间。

连接耳机或扬声器可以通过USB-C端口或蓝牙5.1。后者令人费解,因为该SoC实际上也支持蓝牙5.2。用于无线声音传输的可用音频编解码器数量少也是一个限制。SBC、AAC、aptX、LDAC和三星内部的可扩展编解码器都在船上,但没有aptX HD或自适应。

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 III
Frequency 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, 32% 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
» 46% 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
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

电池寿命 - 机上有更强大的电池

能源消耗

这款手机不需要过多的能量,但在比较设备中,索尼对能量管理的把握要好得多。还应该考虑到,Galaxy A53提供的处理能力较低,所以性能和能耗之间的比例相当平庸。

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.3 / 1.6 Watt
Load midlight 5.7 / 7.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Samsung Galaxy A53
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
4250 mAh
Motorola Moto G200 5G
5000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 III
4500 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 1280
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-1%
-3%
6%
46%
1%
-5%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
1.2
-33%
0.78
13%
0.6
33%
0.44
51%
0.89 ?(0.88 - 0.9, n=2)
1%
0.905 ?(0.12 - 2.5, n=194, last 2 years)
-1%
Idle Average *
1.3
1.4
-8%
1.97
-52%
0.9
31%
0.65
50%
1.385 ?(1.3 - 1.47, n=2)
-7%
1.663 ?(0.65 - 3.6, n=194, last 2 years)
-28%
Idle Maximum *
1.6
1.7
-6%
1.99
-24%
1.5
6%
0.69
57%
1.56 ?(1.52 - 1.6, n=2)
2%
1.886 ?(0.69 - 3.7, n=194, last 2 years)
-18%
Load Average *
5.7
3.6
37%
3.23
43%
7
-23%
2.99
48%
5.54 ?(5.38 - 5.7, n=2)
3%
4.48 ?(2.1 - 7.74, n=194, last 2 years)
21%
Load Maximum *
7.3
6.9
5%
7.08
3%
8.4
-15%
5.42
26%
6.96 ?(6.62 - 7.3, n=2)
5%
7.32 ?(3.56 - 11.9, n=194, last 2 years)
-0%

* ... smaller is better

Energy consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)

012345678910Tooltip
: Ø7.03 (4.38-10.4)

Energy consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)

0123456789Tooltip
; 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Offscreen: Ø7.55 (7.22-9.66)
; Idle 1min: Ø1.129 (0.898-1.623)

电池寿命

Galaxy A53的5000毫安时电池与电池较弱的前代产品相比,使电池运行时间大大延长。我们在Wi-Fi测试中记录了14:46小时。这不是一个记录,但它仍然足以满足1-2个工作日,这取决于手机的负载。

三星手机在整体上也是一个很好的数字;你必须处理一些对比手机的相当少的耐力。

如今,只有25瓦的充电技术有点慢。这个价格区间的其他手机在一小时内完成充电,而三星Galaxy A53 5G至少需要1:30小时。

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
Samsung Galaxy A53
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
4500 mAh
Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE
4250 mAh
Motorola Moto G200 5G
5000 mAh
Sony Xperia 10 III
4500 mAh
Battery Runtime
-5%
-13%
9%
26%
Reader / Idle
2431
1897
-22%
1648
-32%
2695
11%
2272
-7%
H.264
1146
1109
-3%
1215
6%
1501
31%
1411
23%
WiFi v1.3
886
721
-19%
705
-20%
905
2%
809
-9%
Load
246
309
26%
233
-5%
229
-7%
479
95%

Pros

+ 明亮、色彩准确的显示屏
+ 良好的立体声扬声器
+ 负载下没有节流现象
+ 合适的摄像头设置
+ 准确的定位
+ 长期更新的承诺
+ IP认证

Cons

- 缓慢的Wi-Fi
- 几乎没有任何性能空间
- 存储速度慢
- 中等的接收强度

评语--并非一切都得到了改善

在审查中。三星Galaxy A53 5G。测试设备由:
在审查中。三星Galaxy A53 5G。测试设备由:
cyberport.de

三星再次打造了一款优秀的中档手机,肯定会找到它的受众。但同样的,也是该制造商没有用自己的SoC对自己有利的情况。芯片的性能Exynos 1280对于这个价格范围来说绝对是太低了,这也反映在其发布后不久价格的大幅下降。此外,还有缓慢的存储和Wi-Fi模块,它的速度并不快。

在120赫兹的情况下,明亮且反应非常灵敏的AMOLED显示屏无疑是三星Galaxy A53 5G的亮点之一。相机在照亮黑暗环境方面表现良好,电池运行时间也不错,但鉴于竞争激烈,三星还应该考虑为低价手机提供更快的充电技术。

三星对其Galaxy A53 5G的定位很好,它的AMOLED显示屏很棒,但SoC的低水平性能令人烦恼。

对系统性能不那么关心,主要想要一个好的显示屏的用户,将通过三星Galaxy A53 5G获得一个体面的中档手机,特别是在已经大幅降低的价格上。

想用尽可能少的钱获得最好的功能的用户,应该看一看 小米11 Lite 5G NE.摩托罗拉也提供了一款具有有趣的桌面模式的伟大手机,即 Moto G200 5G.

价格和可用性

在写这篇文章的时候,你可以 在亚马逊上找到三星Galaxy A53 5G有128GB的存储空间和6GB的内存,价格为449.99美元。它也可以在百思买的网上商店买到以同样的价格出售。

Samsung Galaxy A53 - 05/31/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
86%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 66%
Weight
89%
Battery
91%
Display
90%
Games Performance
40 / 64 → 62%
Application Performance
72 / 86 → 84%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
70 / 90 → 78%
Camera
66%
Average
77%
83%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > 三星Galaxy A53 5G智能手机评测:Galaxy 手机,采用明亮的AMOLED显示屏
Florian Schmitt, 2022-06- 6 (Update: 2022-06- 6)