Test: Samsung Galaxy A12 - Billig smartphone från Samsung med NFC och rejäl batteritid (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75.2 % v7 (old) | 03/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A12 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 205 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 81.8 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC SD 732G, Adreno 618 | 215 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 76.4 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A21s Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP1 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 79.9 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
| 77.2 % v7 (old) | 02/2021 | OnePlus Nord N100 SD 460, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.52" | 1600x720 | |
| 76.7 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Alcatel 3X 2020 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 186 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.52" | 1600x720 |
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 cameraMain cameraLow-lightWide-angle camera
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 85 %
Mitt på batteriet: 458 cd/m²
Kontrast: 864:1 (Svärta: 0.53 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.04 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.293
| Samsung Galaxy A12 PLS-LCD, 1600x720, 6.5" | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A21s PLS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.5" | OnePlus Nord N100 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Alcatel 3X 2020 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 29% | -2% | 74% | 28% | 63% | |
| Brightness middle | 458 | 623 36% | 540 18% | 553 21% | 474 3% | 510 11% |
| Brightness | 427 | 600 41% | 509 19% | 527 23% | 456 7% | 491 15% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 93 9% | 91 7% | 89 5% | 86 1% | 92 8% |
| Black Level * | 0.53 | 0.54 -2% | 0.36 32% | 0.12 77% | 0.35 34% | 0.09 83% |
| Contrast | 864 | 1154 34% | 1500 74% | 4608 433% | 1354 57% | 5667 556% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.04 | 1.8 55% | 6.58 -63% | 3.8 6% | 2.7 33% | 6 -49% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.84 | 4.7 31% | 11.55 -69% | 8.7 -27% | 4.89 29% | 11.9 -74% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.8 | 3.3 31% | 6.4 -33% | 2.2 54% | 1.9 60% | 6.9 -44% |
| Gamma | 2.293 96% | 2.26 97% | 2.206 100% | 2.3 96% | 2.31 95% | 2.31 95% |
| CCT | 7535 86% | 6712 97% | 8482 77% | 6727 97% | 6430 101% | 7971 82% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 337.8 Hz | ≤ 20 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 337.8 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 337.8 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 97 % 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 | ||
| 64 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 31 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 33 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (6 - 14, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (5.8 - 8.1, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (101535 - 109518, n=4) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chrome 87) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (13.6 - 17.3, n=4) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chrome 87) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (23.8 - 31.3, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chome 87) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (13.7 - 16, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chrome 87) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (29 - 36, n=4) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chrome 87) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (4347 - 5543, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 (Chrome 88) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (9756 - 11323, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| OnePlus Nord N100 (Chrome 87) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A12 | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | Samsung Galaxy A21s | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | OnePlus Nord N100 | Alcatel 3X 2020 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 56% | 20% | 53% | 63% | -11% | -8% | 552% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 269.7 | 506 88% | 307 14% | 306.6 14% | 504 87% | 288.9 7% | 274 ? 2% | 1882 ? 598% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 211.6 | 173.1 -18% | 104.3 -51% | 248.1 17% | 219 3% | 185.7 -12% | 176.6 ? -17% | 1467 ? 593% |
| Random Read 4KB | 65.4 | 123.4 89% | 77.2 18% | 65.1 0% | 106.1 62% | 65.7 0% | 59.4 ? -9% | 278 ? 325% |
| Random Write 4KB | 39.1 | 112.6 188% | 89.5 129% | 146.9 276% | 120.8 209% | 11.49 -71% | 32.2 ? -18% | 310 ? 693% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 77.4 ? | 75.2 ? -3% | 80 ? 3% | 84.4 ? 9% | 85.2 ? 10% | 82.8 ? 7% | 77.4 ? 0% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 61.6 ? | 55.6 ? -10% | 66.4 ? 8% | 63.5 ? 3% | 64.3 ? 4% | 63.3 ? 3% | 58.3 ? -5% |
PUBG Mobile and Asphalt 9 Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.7 °C / 103 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 43.2 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.6 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A12 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 63% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 63% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 63% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% 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%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  1.1 / 1.6 / 2.6 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
4.5 / 6.4 Watt |
    
| |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A12 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC 5160 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | OnePlus Nord N100 5000 mAh | Alcatel 3X 2020 5000 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -14% | -17% | 5% | 15% | 37% | 11% | -7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.1 | 0.93 15% | 1.5 -36% | 0.74 33% | 0.56 49% | 0.55 50% | 0.932 ? 15% | 0.882 ? 20% |
| Idle Average * | 1.6 | 2.47 -54% | 2.1 -31% | 2.17 -36% | 1.8 -13% | 1.47 8% | 1.892 ? -18% | 1.448 ? 9% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.6 | 2.51 3% | 2.9 -12% | 2.2 15% | 2.3 12% | 1.64 37% | 2.23 ? 14% | 1.603 ? 38% |
| Load Average * | 4.5 | 5.62 -25% | 4.6 -2% | 4.17 7% | 3.9 13% | 2.32 48% | 3.3 ? 27% | 6.57 ? -46% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.4 | 6.93 -8% | 6.6 -3% | 6.11 5% | 5.6 12% | 3.7 42% | 5.2 ? 19% | 9.92 ? -55% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A12 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC 5160 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | OnePlus Nord N100 5000 mAh | Alcatel 3X 2020 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -8% | -16% | -13% | -7% | 10% | |
| Reader / Idle | 3743 | 2427 -35% | 2009 -46% | 2294 -39% | 2513 -33% | |
| H.264 | 887 | 1188 34% | 1087 23% | 1116 26% | 1206 36% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1288 | 1116 -13% | 943 -27% | 867 -33% | 1149 -11% | 1417 10% |
| Load | 336 | 280 -17% | 287 -15% | 314 -7% | 267 -21% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Samsung Galaxy A12: Vi hade gärna sett några ändringar till
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Med Galaxy A12 har Samsung lyckats skapa en gedigen smartphone i det lägre prisskiktet. Mittenskiktaren, som var ganska blygsam i vårt test, tog skapliga bilder med sin huvudkamera, var välbyggd och hade dessutom en texturerad baksida som vi gillade. Riktigt lång batteritid och trevliga funktioner som One UI och Samsung Knox är också till fördel för Galaxy A12.
Men Samsungs telefon delar dessa egenskaper med Galaxy A21s, som vi redan recenserat. Vi kan knappt se någon nämnvärd utveckling mellan 2021- och 2020 års modell. Till viss del gäller till och med det motsatta, för den sistnämnda har betydligt snabbare WLAN och en aningen snabbare SoC. Dessutom ska även A21s får One UI 3-gränssnittet.
Galaxy A12 kändes lite tråkig i vårt test. Vi kan bara hoppas att Samsung i framtiden även kommer att använda AMOLED:s i de billigare A-modellerna.
Om de begränsningar Galaxy A12 har inte är avgörande bör du överväga Samsungs billiga smartphone. Men det finns andra telefoner i det här prisskiktet, exempelvis Redmi Note 9, som visar att det går att uppnå ännu lite mer trots en såpass låg budget.
Samsung Galaxy A12
- 02/15/2021 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
