Blackview A52 smartphone review - Inexpensive phone with bright screen, but...
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70.2 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2023 | Blackview A52 SC9863A, GE8322 / IMG8322 | 183.6 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 72.2 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2023 | Ulefone Note 14 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300 | 189 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.52" | 1600x720 | |
| 75.4 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2022 | Motorola Moto E22i Helio G37, PowerVR GE8320 | 169 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 75 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2022 | Realme C30 T7225 (T612), Mali-G52 MP1 | 182 g | 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 |
Case and features - Plastic housing in three colors
You have to pay just under three digits for the Blackview A52, which puts it in the lowest entry-level category of smartphones.
Accordingly, the chassis is only made of plastic, but it is available in three colors: light blue, light green, or black. The smartphone should not be subjected to excessive pressure, otherwise, it will also be visible in the screen's liquid crystal. Otherwise, the phone is neatly manufactured and does not make any noise when twisted.
The Blackview A52 is averagely heavy for its size, and the Motorola Moto E22i shows that you can definitely save a few grams here.
The Blackview A52 offers a meager 2 GB of RAM and 32 GB of mass storage; some similarly priced competitors offer twice as much. There are two SIM card slots, but one is shared with the microSD card, so you might have to decide what you want to use. Users also have to do without NFC, so mobile payment services aren't available.
The speed of the microSD reader is on the level of other inexpensive phones in the tests with our reference card Angelbird V60 but falls behind a bit in the copy test.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 58.9, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Ulefone Note 14 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Realme C30 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Motorola Moto E22i (Angelbird V60) | |
| Blackview A52 (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Communication, software and operation - Really slow WLAN
Here, too, the Blackview A52 2023 is no longer up-to-date: other inexpensive phones now offer WiFi 5, but Blackview's phone has to make do with WiFi 4 and only gets rates of around 40 MBit/s, which means the phone can only transfer about 5 MBytes of data per second via WLAN, which is not enough for HD streaming, for example. However, this is not possible in most major streaming apps anyway due to the lack of Widevine L1 certification.
The LTE frequencies are just sufficient to operate the phone in Central Europe, and you should be prepared that you will probably not be able to use the phone on the mobile Internet when traveling abroad.
The software is Android 12 Go, and Blackview puts its own UI called Doke OS 3.0 on top of it. We find some bugs here, for example, we cannot select whether we want to charge or transfer data when connecting to a PC via USB because the corresponding window does not pop up. The security patches are from September 2022 and are thus already hopelessly outdated at the time of testing.
The 60-Hz display and the slow SoC often make the handling feel sluggish. While menus can still be operated fairly smoothly, more complex apps or multitasking are often accompanied by severe stutters or hangs.
A fingerprint reader is integrated into the standby button on the casing's right. It works reliably and very quickly. You can also use face recognition to unlock the smartphone. However, this is not as secure due to the lack of additional hardware.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Blackview A52 | |
Cameras - Lowest quality level
The main camera at the back has a 13-megapixel sensor and takes too bright pictures in areas with a lot of light and hardly offers any details in dark ones. Furthermore, the pictures are not really sharp when looking closer. The autofocus struggles to bring enough sharpness in low light and high contrasts.
In the lab in good light, the test image appears relatively sharp in the center, but text contours are always unnaturally highlighted. Fine lines are also hardly legible. You can't recognize anything on the picture at an exposure of only 1 lux.
Videos can be recorded with the main camera at a maximum of 1080p and 30 fps. The autofocus reacts delayed and not always quite accurately, and the brightness adjustment takes a moment now and then. Overall, photos and videos can be used as snapshots, but they do not meet higher demands.
The front-facing camera offers 5 megapixels and takes selfies that quickly look coarse when zoomed in and can hardly offer details in dark areas.
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 cameraLowLight
Display - Bright and high-contrast
In fact, the Blackview A52 can convince with its screen in some areas for a low-priced smartphone: although the resolution of 1,600 x 720 pixels is only on class level, the IPS screen does not need PWM flickering to display low brightness, and it is also relatively bright and offers a good contrast ratio, so colors are displayed a bit brighter.
An average brightness of 400 cd/m² is far from a record, but it is better than all comparison devices. However, this does not make the Blackview A52 2023 an outdoor professional. The reflections are still very strong, so it is better to use the phone in the shade or indoors.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 432 cd/m²
Contrast: 1662:1 (Black: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.97 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.86
ΔE Greyscale 6.7 | 0.09-98 Ø5.1
94.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.618
| Blackview A52 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Ulefone Note 14 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Motorola Moto E22i IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Realme C30 IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 9% | 29% | 5% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 45.2 ? | 40.1 ? 11% | 34 ? 25% | 41 ? 9% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 27 ? | 25 ? 7% | 18 ? 33% | 27 ? -0% |
| PWM Frequency | ||||
| Screen | 2% | 11% | -6% | |
| Brightness middle | 432 | 419 -3% | 390 -10% | 410 -5% |
| Brightness | 400 | 379 -5% | 355 -11% | 386 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 83 -6% | 86 -2% | 85 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.3 -15% | 0.24 8% | 0.5 -92% |
| Contrast | 1662 | 1397 -16% | 1625 -2% | 820 -51% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.97 | 4.77 32% | 3.81 45% | 4.56 35% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.36 | 10.61 -2% | 7.03 32% | 7.37 29% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.7 | 4.8 28% | 4.9 27% | 4 40% |
| Gamma | 2.618 84% | 2.156 102% | 2.166 102% | 2.179 101% |
| CCT | 7976 81% | 7541 86% | 7727 84% | 7450 87% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 6% /
3% | 20% /
15% | -1% /
-4% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 27 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.6 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 65 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 45.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 22.2 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. » 76 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.4 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8445 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Performance, emissions and battery life - Power off for charging
The Unisoc SC9863A is already 5 years old and actually no longer up-to-date as an SoC, especially because of its inefficient 28 nm node. In terms of performance, the Blackview A52 2023 even lags behind other inexpensive phones.
This is noticeable in everyday use with some noticeable stutters or apps that completely stop working. The smartphone heats up to 40.7 °C in some cases. We did not notice throttling in the GFXBench battery test, but 3DMark refused to start.
The small mono speaker is hardly usable for music because it is very treble-heavy and not fun to listen to. External audio devices can be connected via a 3.5 mm jack or Bluetooth 4.2; SBC, AAC, aptX, aptX HD, and LDAC are supported as Bluetooth codecs.
The battery is quite large with 5,150 mAh, but it only lasts for a comparatively short time even under light load: we measured 12:06 hours of runtime with the help of our script while browsing the Internet. This is enough for a workday, but it could have been much longer considering the battery capacity.
During the GFXBench battery test, we also noticed that the battery is very quickly drained under high load: the phone loses a good 10% of battery capacity within 10 minutes, so you cannot even assume a runtime of 2 hours.
Charging is also a real test of patience: we wait for hours until the device's battery is finally full again. Sometimes the battery even discharges even though the phone is on standby and the included charger is connected. The battery level only increases when the smartphone is turned off. Charging also works on standby after a restart, but the phone still seems very unreliable.
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5.5 - 166, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Average UNISOC SC9863A (3 - 6.2, n=8) | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.4 - 321, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Average UNISOC SC9863A (3.2 - 3.4, n=8) | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Average UNISOC SC9863A (1.9 - 3.8, n=8) | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 129, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Average UNISOC SC9863A (1.1 - 1.2, n=7) | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=206, last 2 years) | |
| Blackview A52 | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| Average UNISOC SC9863A (3111 - 6015, n=4) | |
| Blackview A52 | Ulefone Note 14 | Motorola Moto E22i | Realme C30 | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 19% | 32% | 248% | -10% | 886% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 226.4 | 294 30% | 263.1 16% | 569 151% | 242 ? 7% | 2054 ? 807% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 119.4 | 208 74% | 189 58% | 414.7 247% | 100.5 ? -16% | 1667 ? 1296% |
| Random Read 4KB | 40.5 | 55 36% | 53.6 32% | 125.4 210% | 43.1 ? 6% | 286 ? 606% |
| Random Write 4KB | 35 | 13 -63% | 42.3 21% | 169.4 384% | 22.3 ? -36% | 327 ? 834% |
Temperature
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.7 °C / 105 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 38.7 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.5 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
Blackview A52 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 37.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Realme C30 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 70% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 36%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 83% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%
Battery life
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Average of class Smartphone (575 - 3244, n=202, last 2 years) | |
| Realme C30 | |
| Ulefone Note 14 | |
| Motorola Moto E22i | |
| Blackview A52 | |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Cheap, but cheaply made
We cannot really recommend the Blackview A52, even for its low price of just under 100 Euros. Nevertheless, it is on the bestseller lists of some large shopping portals on the Internet and also has quite good reviews.
In view of software bugs, a battery that discharges with the charger connected, hardly any performance, and extremely slow WLAN connections, we cannot quite understand that. We also deduct one percentage point from the overall rating because of the problems with the charging technology.
The fact that the cameras do not offer good picture quality is common in this price range, and the screen can even convince with quite good brightness values and an acceptable contrast.
The Blackview A52 is a very inexpensive smartphone with partly serious problems, such as a non-loading battery and a very slow WLAN.
Otherwise, we see a lot of weak points in the smartphone, which seem even more serious in view of the competition: with Moto E22i for example, you get much faster Wi-Fi and even a 90-Hz screen. With Ulefone Note 14 you have to do without the fingerprint sensor, but you also get more performance and faster Wi-Fi.
Price and availability
The Blackview A52 is available directly from the manufacturerhttps://de.blackview.hk/products/a52-price.
It is also offered at amazon.de, where it costs 105 Euros at the time of testing.
Blackview A52
- 02/13/2023 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Price comparison
