Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A50
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 644 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.64 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
141.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.024
| Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6" | Motorola Moto G7 Plus IPS, 2270x1080, 6.2" | Nokia 7.1 IPS, 2280x1080, 5.8" | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 23% | -62% | -96% | 29% | |
| Brightness middle | 644 | 570 -11% | 537 -17% | 577 -10% | 593 -8% |
| Brightness | 628 | 565 -10% | 525 -16% | 550 -12% | 587 -7% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 93 2% | 85 -7% | 91 0% | 94 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.58 | 0.36 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.64 | 1.5 43% | 6.41 -143% | 7.4 -180% | 0.9 66% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.23 | 3.6 61% | 10.86 -18% | 15 -63% | 2 78% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 1.2 52% | 6.7 -168% | 10.2 -308% | 1.5 40% |
| Gamma | 2.024 109% | 2.07 106% | 2.099 105% | 2.29 96% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 6649 98% | 6504 100% | 8310 78% | 9657 67% | 6548 99% |
| Contrast | 926 | 1603 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 119 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 119 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 119 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (23 - 165, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12 - 482, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Nokia 7.1 (Chrome 70) | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Nokia 7.1 (Chrome 70) | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
| Nokia 7.1 (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9610 () | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A50 | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | Motorola Moto G7 Plus | Nokia 7.1 | Xiaomi Mi 9 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -18% | 43% | -27% | 248% | 131% | 672% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 507 | 295.8 -42% | 283.6 -44% | 250.9 -51% | 666 31% | 760 ? 50% | 1834 ? 262% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 192.1 | 104.9 -45% | 208.7 9% | 126 -34% | 388.3 102% | 297 ? 55% | 1426 ? 642% |
| Random Read 4KB | 98.9 | 84 -15% | 76.6 -23% | 44.9 -55% | 149.4 51% | 152.9 ? 55% | 278 ? 181% |
| Random Write 4KB | 18.2 | 15.45 -15% | 73.1 302% | 11.93 -34% | 165.3 808% | 131.6 ? 623% | 310 ? 1603% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 73.9 ? | 78.2 ? 6% | 82.8 ? 12% | 83.5 ? 13% | 76 ? 3% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 60.7 ? | 64.4 ? 6% | 62.1 ? 2% | 61.2 ? 1% | 59.6 ? -2% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.2 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A50 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 73.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 73.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 73.9% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, 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%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.8 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt |
| Carga |
5.9 / 8.3 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Nokia 7.1 3060 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9610 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 10% | -11% | -7% | 16% | 0% | -6% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.8 | 0.71 11% | 1.1 -38% | 1.01 -26% | 0.67 16% | 0.8 ? -0% | 0.895 ? -12% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 1.36 9% | 1.7 -13% | 2.2 -47% | 1.26 16% | 1.5 ? -0% | 1.447 ? 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.7 | 1.47 14% | 2.1 -24% | 2.25 -32% | 1.29 24% | 1.7 ? -0% | 1.608 ? 5% |
| Load Average * | 5.9 | 5.13 13% | 5.1 14% | 3.76 36% | 3.71 37% | 5.9 ? -0% | 6.41 ? -9% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.3 | 7.89 5% | 7.9 5% | 5.56 33% | 9.3 -12% | 8.3 ? -0% | 9.61 ? -16% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Nokia 7.1 3060 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -7% | -11% | -44% | -8% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1587 | 1467 -8% | 983 -38% | 1650 4% | |
| H.264 | 869 | 836 -4% | 809 -7% | 507 -42% | 1008 16% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 701 | 605 -14% | 715 2% | 346 -51% | 546 -22% |
| Load | 275 | 273 -1% | 196 -29% | 156 -43% | 194 -29% |
Pro
Contra
The Samsung Galaxy A50 is an excellent midrange smartphone. It draws on the successes of its predecessor, like with its triple rear-facing cameras, but it blends these with a more modern design and an improved SoC.
The A50 has few shortcomings, although its fingerprint sensor takes longer to recognise fingers and has a lower detection rate than conventional sensors do. Moreover, its GPS module is oddly inaccurate and its Wi-Fi performance on occasion was worse than its predecessor.
Great screen, long battery life, decent cameras. The Samsung Galaxy A50 delivers in all key areas and is a triumph of a midrange smartphone.
Samsung has also compromised on some areas like limiting LTE performance below what the SoC can achieve, which seems arbitrary. The inclusion of a fixed focus front-facing sensor makes little sense too.
With that said, the A50 makes real strides in other areas compared to the Galaxy A7 (2018). The Exynos 9610 is a big leap from the Exynos 7885, and it even edges out comparable Snapdragon chips. Samsung has included an approximately 20% larger battery too, which helps the A50 deliver better runtimes than its predecessor.
Overall, the Galaxy A50 would be an excellent choice for anyone looking for a smartphone that costs around 350 Euros (~$392). However, last year’s Galaxy A7 (2018) offers almost the same experience in an older design at a fraction of the cost.
Samsung Galaxy A50
-
08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
