Test: Samsung Galaxy A51 – Dedikerad åt framgång (Sammanfattning)
Jämförelseenheter
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) | 05/2019 | 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) | 07/2019 | 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 |
Topp 10...
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara allround/multimediadatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara speldatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara budget/kontorsdatorer
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara kontors/premiumdatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara arbetsstationer
» Topp 10: De bästa små/kompakta bärbara datorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa ultrabooks
» Topp 10: Bästa hybriddatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa surfplattorna
» Topp 10: Marknadens bästa smartphones
Storleksjämförelse
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 |
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 94 %
Mitt på batteriet: 589 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 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%
Av/Standby | 0.1 / 0.4 Watt |
Låg belastning | 0.9 / 1.7 / 1.8 Watt |
Hög belastning |
5.2 / 6.6 Watt |
Förklaring:
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% |
För
Emot
Omdöme – Bra mittenskiktare
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Samsungs Galaxy A51 är ytterligare en mittenskiktsenhet som egentligen inte har några riktiga svagheter. Kamerorna är en av dess höjdpunkter - även om det fortfarande går att märka skillnaden jämfört med toppskiktet, exempelvis när det kommer till lågljusfotografering eller zoom. Men trots det kan Galaxy A51 ta en del riktigt tjusiga bilder. Den ljusstarka AMOLED-skärmen är också trevlig - vi imponerades särskilt av färgåtergivningen.
Telefonen har nu stöd för en betydligt större mängd LTE-frekvenser än sin föregångare, men den har fortfarande ganska långsamt WiFi.
Samsung kunde arbetat lite mer på prestandan och batteritiden håller heller inte riktigt jämna steg med andra enheter, saker som märks extra tydligt vid en direkt jämförelse. Galaxy A51 är dock ändå en pålitlig mittenskiktstelefon.
Galaxy A51 är en mittenskiktstelefon som gör ett bra jobb på alla områden och som tar bra foton.
Då Samsung inte egentligen gjort några fel kan vi definitivt rekommendera Galaxy A51.
Samsung Galaxy A51
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt