Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A90 5G - Recortando esquinas pelo 5G
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84.2 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G SD 855, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.5 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
| 87.2 % v6 (old) | 07/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A80 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 220 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.9 % v7 (old) | 11/2019 | OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 3120x1440 | |
| 85.7 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Google Pixel 4 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 162 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.70" | 2280x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 581 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.44 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
117.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.118
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy A80 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Google Pixel 4 OLED, 2280x1080, 5.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 45% | 12% | 26% | 39% | |
| Brightness middle | 581 | 679 17% | 478 -18% | 606 4% | 554 -5% |
| Brightness | 581 | 671 15% | 486 -16% | 611 5% | 550 -5% |
| Brightness Distribution | 94 | 93 -1% | 96 2% | 95 1% | 94 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.68 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.44 | 0.8 85% | 2.97 45% | 3.46 36% | 0.8 85% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 13.05 | 2.4 82% | 10.18 22% | 5.64 57% | 1.4 89% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4 | 1.1 72% | 2.5 37% | 2 50% | 1.3 67% |
| Gamma | 2.118 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.031 108% | 2.258 97% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 5882 111% | 6610 98% | 6533 99% | 6779 96% | 6213 105% |
| Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 223 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 223 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 223 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 8705 (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. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 20 % 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 A90 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | Samsung Galaxy A80 | OnePlus 7T Pro | Google Pixel 4 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -64% | -28% | -39% | 3% | 86% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1418 | 502 -65% | 1489 5% | 655 -54% | 1520 ? 7% | 1882 ? 33% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 522 | 190.4 -64% | 405 -22% | 247.7 -53% | 546 ? 5% | 1467 ? 181% |
| Random Read 4KB | 190.5 | 117.5 -38% | 169 -11% | 122.4 -36% | 206 ? 8% | 278 ? 46% |
| Random Write 4KB | 168.5 | 21.6 -87% | 26 -85% | 146.6 -13% | 193.9 ? 15% | 310 ? 84% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 75.1 ? | 67.3 ? -10% | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 55.7 ? -6% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 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 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (122.9% 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 A80 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 4% 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 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.6 / 0.9 / 1.4 Watt |
| Carga |
4.5 / 9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -59% | -5% | -129% | -34% | -31% | -36% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.6 | 0.56 7% | 0.6 -0% | 2.1 -250% | 1.01 -68% | 0.939 ? -57% | 0.882 ? -47% |
| Idle Average * | 0.9 | 2.99 -232% | 1.2 -33% | 3 -233% | 1.63 -81% | 1.506 ? -67% | 1.448 ? -61% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.4 | 3.02 -116% | 1.4 -0% | 3.5 -150% | 1.69 -21% | 1.799 ? -29% | 1.603 ? -15% |
| Load Average * | 4.5 | 4.17 7% | 5 -11% | 5.3 -18% | 4.67 -4% | 4.61 ? -2% | 6.57 ? -46% |
| Load Maximum * | 9 | 5.44 40% | 7.1 21% | 8.3 8% | 8.78 2% | 9.04 ? -0% | 9.92 ? -10% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 7% | -21% | -5% | -45% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2156 | 2765 28% | 1796 -17% | 2015 -7% | 1007 -53% |
| H.264 | 987 | 1147 16% | 902 -9% | 957 -3% | 617 -37% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 946 | 866 -8% | 713 -25% | 912 -4% | 460 -51% |
| Load | 298 | 267 -10% | 200 -33% | 283 -5% | 185 -38% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Bom Smartphone para fanáticos do 5G
Atualmente, os usuários que desejam 5G a um bom preço precisam abrir mão de certos recursos. Este parece ser o principal insight da nossa análise do Samsung Galaxy A90 5G . Por outro lado, o dispositivo também oferece algumas vantagens em relação a outros smartphones de última geração, como uma duração de bateria particularmente longa, embora ainda não tenhamos sido capazes de determinar o impacto do módulo 5G a esse respeito e um leitor de cartão microSD.
Assim, o valor do Samsung A90 5G depende fortemente das preferências gerais de um usuário: A câmera, o alto-falante, a configuração da memória e o desempenho são medíocres para essa faixa de preço e detalhes ausentes como HDR, certificação IP ou carregamento sem fio, também podem deixar alguns usuários insatisfeitos.
O Samsung Galaxy A90 5G é um smartphone 5G sólido com um conjunto de recursos ligeiramente reduzido.
No entanto, o Galaxy A90 5G é uma das maneiras mais baratas de aproveitar as redes 5G, além de usar as importações chinesas. Como o smartphone causa uma boa impressão geral e até oferece algumas vantagens exclusivas, podemos recomendá-lo aos fanáticos do 5G preocupados com o preço.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
- 09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
