Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A51 – Dedicado ao sucesso
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79.8 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
79.8 % v7 (old) | 04/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A50 Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3 | 166 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
81.6 % v7 (old) | 07/2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
80.2 % v7 (old) | 05/2019 | Google Pixel 3a SD 670, Adreno 616 | 147 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.60" | 2220x1080 | |
84.2 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | Huawei Nova 5T Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10 | 174 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.26" | 2340x1080 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 |
|
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 589 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.22 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.111
Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Google Pixel 3a P-OLED, 2220x1080, 5.6" | Huawei Nova 5T LTPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -2% | 11% | -33% | -88% | |
Brightness middle | 589 | 644 9% | 589 0% | 403 -32% | 524 -11% |
Brightness | 589 | 628 7% | 589 0% | 411 -30% | 510 -13% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 91 -3% | 96 2% | 96 2% | 86 -9% |
Black Level * | 0.39 | ||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.22 | 2.64 -19% | 2.5 -13% | 5.1 -130% | 6.6 -197% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.24 | 9.23 -12% | 4.9 41% | 11 -33% | 12.2 -48% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.6 | 2.5 4% | 1.6 38% | 2 23% | 9.1 -250% |
Gamma | 2.111 104% | 2.024 109% | 2.24 98% | 2.22 99% | 2.34 94% |
CCT | 6508 100% | 6649 98% | 6544 99% | 6589 99% | 8987 72% |
Contrast | 1344 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 242.7 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 242.7 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 242.7 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise | |
↘ 3 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 50 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise | |
↘ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 32 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5777 - 6697, n=7) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5080 - 5925, n=7) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (15 - 24, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (17 - 26, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=173, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (8.9 - 14, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei Nova 5T | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (10 - 16, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=173, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy A51 | Samsung Galaxy A50 | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Google Pixel 3a | Huawei Nova 5T | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -14% | 4% | -12% | 63% | 3% | 333% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 496.1 | 507 2% | 492.7 -1% | 302 -39% | 904 82% | 530 ? 7% | 1894 ? 282% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 184.9 | 192.1 4% | 179.2 -3% | 253.9 37% | 186.4 1% | 212 ? 15% | 1476 ? 698% |
Random Read 4KB | 110.8 | 98.9 -11% | 128.6 16% | 63.6 -43% | 146.2 32% | 130.6 ? 18% | 278 ? 151% |
Random Write 4KB | 104.4 | 18.2 -83% | 107.8 3% | 99.9 -4% | 247.1 137% | 101.2 ? -3% | 312 ? 199% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 73 ? | 73.9 ? 1% | 68.3 ? -6% | ||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 60.1 ? | 60.7 ? 1% | 53.2 ? -11% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.3 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.4 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A51 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (123.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 91% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
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%
desligado | 0.1 / 0.4 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.9 / 1.7 / 1.8 Watt |
Carga |
5.2 / 6.6 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | Huawei Nova 5T 3750 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -2% | 38% | 27% | -12% | -31% | -10% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.8 11% | 0.54 40% | 0.61 32% | 0.87 3% | 1.173 ? -30% | 0.883 ? 2% |
Idle Average * | 1.7 | 1.5 12% | 0.95 44% | 1.56 8% | 2.34 -38% | 2.28 ? -34% | 1.467 ? 14% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.8 | 1.7 6% | 1.08 40% | 1.6 11% | 2.4 -33% | 2.86 ? -59% | 1.621 ? 10% |
Load Average * | 5.2 | 5.9 -13% | 2.7 48% | 2.67 49% | 4.56 12% | 5.97 ? -15% | 6.58 ? -27% |
Load Maximum * | 6.6 | 8.3 -26% | 5.4 18% | 4.33 34% | 6.97 -6% | 7.83 ? -19% | 9.91 ? -50% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | Huawei Nova 5T 3750 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -2% | 25% | -12% | 11% | |
Reader / Idle | 1689 | 1587 -6% | 2138 27% | ||
H.264 | 846 | 869 3% | 1208 43% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 698 | 701 0% | 991 42% | 612 -12% | 776 11% |
Load | 289 | 275 -5% | 258 -11% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – boa gama média
O Galaxy A51 da Samsung é outro dispositivo intermediário que praticamente não apresenta fraquezas reais. Suas câmeras são um dos destaques - embora ainda seja perceptível a lacuna em relação aos gama alta, por exemplo, quando se trata de desempenho com pouca luz ou zoom. No entanto, o Galaxy A51 pode tirar algumas fotos muito legais. A tela AMOLED brilhante é outro prazer - ficamos particularmente impressionados com a boa tela colorida.
O telefone suporta uma quantidade significativamente maior de frequências LTE do que seu antecessor, mas o Wi-Fi continua lento.
A Samsung poderia ter trabalhado um pouco mais em termos de desempenho e a duração da bateria não consegue acompanhar a de outros dispositivos. Esses são aspectos particularmente perceptíveis em uma comparação direta. Ainda assim, o Galaxy A51 é um telefone confiável de gama média.
O Galaxy A51 é um smartphone de gama média que faz um bom trabalho em todas as áreas e tira boas fotos.
Como a Samsung realmente não cometeu nenhum erro, podemos definitivamente recomendar o smartphone Galaxy A51.
Samsung Galaxy A51
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt