Notebookcheck

CAT S52 smartphone review – A fancy outdoor device

Slimming diet. The CAT S52 has slimmed down considerably so that it no longer passes for a chubby outdoor phone but more for a fancy smartphone with special skills. However, only a small battery fits into the well-protected case. In the review, we look at how this affects the suitability for everyday use.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Stefanie Voigt (translated by Stephanie Chamberlain),
CAT S52

At the time of writing, a new decade is just beginning and everyone has positive intentions: To be good, to learn a new language and - at the very front - to lose weight. This is relevant with our test device in several ways, because on the one hand, the CAT S52 is an outdoor phone, which you can also have with you on long walks in rough terrain or while playing sports, and that is robust enough that it doesn't break right away if you drop it or when it lands in water.

On the other hand, the Caterpillar smartphone has also become slimmer and should no longer discourage demanding customers through a rustic and very bulky design. Rather, the mobile phone should also look good on a desk, without making too many compromises when it comes to protection. Moreover, Caterpillar promises a decent camera so that lifestyle and rough working conditions no longer have to be mutually exclusive here.

In our review, we'll see if this works. The Caterpillar brand name has been promising as a manufacturer of construction machinery and engines, but the smartphone is produced under license by Bullitt Group, which has already launched smartphones for other brands, for example, the Land Rover Explore and the Kodak Ektra.

CAT S52 (S Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 8 x 2.3 GHz, Cortex-A53
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
5.65 inch 18:9, 1440 x 720 pixel 285 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS, Corning Gorilla Glass 6, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 52 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 128 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB C
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 158.1 x 76.6 ( = 0.38 x 6.22 x 3.02 in)
Battery
3100 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/1.8, 1/2.55", 1.4µm, phase detection AF (dual pixel), dual-LED flash, videos @1080p/​30fps
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker on the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, USB cable, 24 Months Warranty, IP68 certified, MIL-STD-810G certified, notification LED (front/​multicolor), fanless, ruggedized, waterproof
Weight
210 g ( = 7.41 oz / 0.46 pounds), Power Supply: 75 g ( = 2.65 oz / 0.17 pounds)
Price
499 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Rating
ratingversion
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
77 %7
01/2020
CAT S52
Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320
210 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.65"1440x720
77 %7
09/2018
CAT S61
SD 630, Adreno 508
250 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.2"1920x1080
76 %7
11/2019
Gigaset GX290
Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2
279 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.1"1560x720
79 %6
05/2019
RugGear RG850
430, Adreno 505
209 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.99"1440x720
78 %7
03/2019
Crosscall Trekker-X4
SD 660, Adreno 512
250 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.5"1920x1080

Case – Scratch-resistant and stable

As it should be for a CAT Phone, the CAT S52 is also well protected against falls, water and dust: On the one hand, shatterproof Gorilla Glass 6 should prevent damage at the front. In addition, the front edge is slightly raised above the screen so that there is further protection here. On the other hand, the CAT S52 is IP68 and MIL-STD-810G certified, so environmental influences in harsh environments shouldn't be a problem either.

With a height of 9.7 millimeters, the CAT S52 is quite slim for an outdoor smartphone, and at 210 grams, it's also comparatively light. The screen has wide bezels at the top and bottom, so you can't expect a modern smartphone design, but the surrounding metal frame and the grippy, roughened back look quite high-quality. What also strikes us is that the back is not prone to scratches, despite or perhaps even because of its soft nature.

CAT S52
CAT S52
CAT S52
CAT S52

Size comparison

162.4 mm / 6.39 inch 79 mm / 3.11 inch 15.3 mm / 0.602 inch 279 g0.615 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 78 mm / 3.07 inch 13 mm / 0.512 inch 250 g0.551 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 82 mm / 3.23 inch 12.85 mm / 0.506 inch 250 g0.551 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 79.2 mm / 3.12 inch 11.5 mm / 0.4528 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs158.1 mm / 6.22 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 210 g0.463 lbs

Connectivity – Dedicated microSD slot

For a smartphone that costs 499 Euros (~$557) with the manufacturer and that is now available on the Internet a little cheaper, 64 GB of storage is standard at first glance, but you can also get a Xiaomi Mi Note 10 with twice as much storage for the same price. But we're talking about an outdoor device here, and slightly different rules apply because you ultimately have to factor the numerous protective measures into the price. Even the much more expensive CAT S61 doesn't offer more storage.

Via microSD, you can further expand the storage capacity; even a standalone microSD slot is available to this end, so that you can use two SIM cards in the device at the same time.

The CAT S61 was specially equipped with an air quality sensor, a barometer and numerous other sensors. With the S52, there are no such special sensors, but there's a decent standard configuration that includes a compass.

Software – CAT S52 with bloatware

Android 9 is preinstalled on our test device; the security patches are still quite up-to-date at the time of conducting our review. CAT Phones has promised an update to Android 10.

There are no helpful special programs on the CAT S52, the Toolbox proves to be its own App Store, but it doesn't contain any apps that you can't get elsewhere. Otherwise, there are many preinstalled apps from social networks, a program to improve the user experience, which asks for very extensive permissions, and a support link, which only refers to the manufacturer's website. Most third-party apps can be completely uninstalled if you don't want them.

The manufacturer hasn't carried out a Widevine L1 certification, which is Google's copy protection system for digital content, so streaming on Netflix and other platforms will not work at HD resolution.

Software CAT S52
Software CAT S52
Software CAT S52

Communication and GPS – Little LTE, a lot of GPS

If you look at the Wi-Fi speeds of the CAT S52, it performs quite decently and meets the expectations of a device with Wi-Fi 5, even if the CAT S61 is still faster. We determine the Wi-Fi test values with our Linksys Nighthawk AX12 reference router. 

It's a little disappointing that the CAT phone only supports a few LTE frequencies; this could cause connecting to the mobile Internet to become a problem when traveling.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
CAT S61
Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
339 MBit/s ∼100% +31%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
322 (301min - 330max) MBit/s ∼95% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=600)
282 MBit/s ∼83% +9%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
259 (188min - 274max) MBit/s ∼76%
Gigaset GX290
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 32 GB eMMC Flash
110 (95min - 119max) MBit/s ∼32% -58%
RugGear RG850
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
45.5 (36min - 51max) MBit/s ∼13% -82%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
CAT S61
Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
341 MBit/s ∼100% +33%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
275 (268min - 279max) MBit/s ∼81% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=600)
268 MBit/s ∼79% +5%
CAT S52
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P35 MT6765, 64 GB eMMC Flash
256 (138min - 284max) MBit/s ∼75%
Gigaset GX290
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 32 GB eMMC Flash
109 (87min - 114max) MBit/s ∼32% -57%
RugGear RG850
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
29.5 (17min - 46max) MBit/s ∼9% -88%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø258 (188-274)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø255 (138-284)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

Outdoors, our test device locates us after minimal delay; two meters is the maximum accuracy, which is a very good value.

For our practical test, we take the CAT S52 on a bike ride, to which we also took the Garmin Edge 520, a professional navigator for cyclists. The CAT S52 determines a slightly longer distance than our reference device, but it's quite accurate in detail since it usually remains on the ridden track and only shows slight weaknesses in the roundabout at the turning point. The mobile phone also masters narrow old town streets and crossing the bridge quite confidently, so we can recommend it for navigation.

CAT S52 GPS – Overview
CAT S52 GPS – Overview
CAT S52 GPS – Turning point
CAT S52 GPS – Turning point
CAT S52 GPS – Bridge
CAT S52 GPS – Bridge
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Overview
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Turning point
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Turning point
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Bridge
Garmin Edge 520 GPS – Bridge

Telephone and call quality – Light buzzing

The CAT S52 uses Google's standard app for telephony.

In calls, the opposite person is reproduced loudly, but the voice makes a slight buzzing noise at high volume and is not quite clear. Our voice is transmitted well, but background noise isn't filtered out very well. The situation is similar in a telephone call via loudspeaker: The opposite person can be understood well but doesn't sound very natural, and our voice is transmitted well. However, ambient noise also reaches the other person quite clearly. So the phone is probably rather less suitable for a conversation at a noisy construction site.

Cameras – The best camera in an outdoor phone?

Front-facing camera sample
Front-facing camera sample

According to its website, Cat Phones wants to score highly here, describing the camera as the "best in its class" and the "best camera installed in a robust phone." These are strong words, and we want to verify them right away.

The image quality of the 12-megapixel main camera is effectively fine at first glance; dark areas are properly brightened, and the level of detail is okay. With blue skies, however, the artifacts that form immediately stand out, and bright areas look shiny sometimes. The brightening is decent in low-light scenarios, but generally, the sharpness that the smartphone manages to reproduce is pleasing. If you look at what other outdoor smartphones offer, the photo quality is often not particularly high here, even with fairly expensive devices such as the Crosscall Trekker-X4. If you compare the images from the CAT S52 with these devices, you actually have to attest a slightly higher quality; however, the review device can't keep up with the camera of the equally expensive Xiaomi Mi Note 10, for example, which has no outdoor ambitions.

Videos can be recorded in 1080p and 30 fps, and quality is fair.

The front-facing camera takes 8-megapixel photos. Dynamic range could be higher here, and in addition, details quickly become pixelated. Overall, the quality of the front-facing camera is at the level of the slightly cheaper mid-range.

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

In our test laboratory and under controlled lighting conditions, the difficult task of photography at only one lux of brightness still provides some recognizable images, which are even somewhat sharp in the case of the test chart. With perfect lighting, we even like the reproduction of the test chart quite a lot. Although there are pale colors from time to time, the sharpness is convincing.

ColorChecker
24.9 ∆E
39.5 ∆E
32.1 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
49.4 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
26.6 ∆E
25.5 ∆E
25.3 ∆E
49.6 ∆E
46.8 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
35.8 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
44.9 ∆E
28.9 ∆E
35.4 ∆E
45.9 ∆E
50.7 ∆E
42.8 ∆E
31.6 ∆E
22.2 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
ColorChecker CAT S52: 34.06 ∆E min: 12.77 - max: 50.73 ∆E
ColorChecker
9.1 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
10.9 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
10 ∆E
14.2 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
1.8 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
2.6 ∆E
2.4 ∆E
3.4 ∆E
ColorChecker CAT S52: 7.85 ∆E min: 1.83 - max: 14.2 ∆E
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – 1 lux

Accessories and warranty – Extended warranty

In addition to a quick charger with up to 18 watts of charging power and a USB cable, there are no other accessories in the box. You don't need a SIM tool because the cover can be opened with your fingernail and the drawer can then be easily pulled out.

CAT seems to be convinced of its devices; it offers 24 months of warranty and even includes unintentional damage, as well as water damage and the display cracking. The smartphone is picked up at the customer's home and returned after the repair.

Input devices and handling – Usable even with wet fingers

Google's Gboard is used as a virtual keyboard; you can type reliably and quickly with it, but any other keyboard app can be installed too.

The display can be operated with wet fingers and gloves, and there is a special mode for this. In a short test, both work perfectly and very precisely. In general, the touchscreen responds quickly and accurately. It's very rare to find that a gesture needs to be repeated because it wasn't recognized.

Keyboard in portrait mode
Keyboard in portrait mode
Keyboard in landscape mode
Keyboard in landscape mode

Display – Low resolution, accurate colors

Subpixel photo
Subpixel photo

In terms of resolution, the display is at a mid-range level with 1440x720 pixels. Cheaper outdoor smartphones usually offer a similarly high resolution, and with more expensive devices, you usually find Full HD. The resolution is sufficient and the image reproduction is clean.

The brightness is unexceptional at an average of 530 cd/m²; the Gigaset GX290, for example, offers a much brighter screen, which is helpful in bright ambient light.

524
cd/m²
558
cd/m²
520
cd/m²
513
cd/m²
521
cd/m²
561
cd/m²
508
cd/m²
517
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 561 cd/m² Average: 530.3 cd/m² Minimum: 19.39 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 521 cd/m²
Contrast: 3256:1 (Black: 0.16 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.69 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6
93.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.243
CAT S52
IPS, 1440x720, 5.65
CAT S61
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Gigaset GX290
IPS, 1560x720, 6.1
RugGear RG850
IPS, 1440x720, 5.99
Crosscall Trekker-X4
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
-109%
-157%
-206%
-130%
Brightness middle
521
693
33%
635
22%
444
-15%
374
-28%
Brightness
530
672
27%
615
16%
469
-12%
352
-34%
Brightness Distribution
91
90
-1%
91
0%
88
-3%
86
-5%
Black Level *
0.16
0.77
-381%
0.39
-144%
0.62
-288%
0.35
-119%
Contrast
3256
900
-72%
1628
-50%
716
-78%
1069
-67%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.69
5.23
-94%
10.5
-290%
9.75
-262%
7.46
-177%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5.07
10.18
-101%
17.9
-253%
22.4
-342%
13.27
-162%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.8
6.9
-283%
11.8
-556%
13.5
-650%
9.8
-444%
Gamma
2.243 98%
2.834 78%
1.86 118%
2.736 80%
2.152 102%
CCT
6622 98%
7137 91%
9570 68%
9287 70%
10554 62%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 2500000 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2500000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2500000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17507 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

At 0.16 cd/m², however, the black value of the CAT S52 is remarkably low, which leads to a great contrast ratio of 3,256:1 and makes the color reproduction appear a little stronger than with other outdoor smartphones.

We also like the values from the CalMAN tests very much: Small deviations in colors and grayscales make professional work possible on the display. There's also hardly any color tint to be identified, so the manufacturer has done a good job here.

We also detected pulse width modulation at such a high frequency that it's negligible. Furthermore, the response times are probably too high for hardcore gamers.

CalMAN Grayscales
CalMAN Grayscales
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 15 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 60 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
66 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 31 ms rise
↘ 35 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (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 (38.7 ms).

Thanks to the IPS display, the viewing angles are in order, and even outdoors, the bright display looks quite good.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

Performance – Fast processor, so-so graphics

The MediaTek Helio P35 is not a high-end chipset, but it beats most other mid-range SoCs easily. This means that the CAT S52 offers quite a lot of performance and even ranks first among the comparison devices in some benchmarks.

Multitasking shouldn't be a problem with this, and even more-demanding apps and games are likely to work well on the CAT S52.

Geekbench 5
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1002 Points ∼55%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
807 Points ∼44% -19%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (915 - 1031, n=3)
983 Points ∼54% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=65)
1821 Points ∼100% +82%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
173 Points ∼33%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
159 Points ∼31% -8%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (165 - 176, n=3)
171 Points ∼33% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=65)
519 Points ∼100% +200%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
5794 Points ∼94%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
4748 Points ∼77% -18%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5133 Points ∼84% -11%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
3596 Points ∼59% -38%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6135 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3814 - 5794, n=9)
5008 Points ∼82% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=525)
5982 Points ∼98% +3%
Work performance score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7739 Points ∼100%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5548 Points ∼72% -28%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
4290 Points ∼55% -45%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6651 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (4040 - 7753, n=7)
5938 Points ∼77% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=683)
6565 Points ∼85% -15%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1210 Points ∼44%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1720 Points ∼63% +42%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1536 Points ∼56% +27%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1121 Points ∼41% -7%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2724 Points ∼100% +125%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (766 - 1221, n=9)
1093 Points ∼40% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=528)
2235 Points ∼82% +85%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
488 Points ∼22%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
787 Points ∼36% +61%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
430 Points ∼20% -12%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
305 Points ∼14% -37%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1266 Points ∼58% +159%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (432 - 489, n=9)
464 Points ∼21% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 10043, n=528)
2173 Points ∼100% +345%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
563 Points ∼28%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
895 Points ∼44% +59%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
512 Points ∼25% -9%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
364 Points ∼18% -35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1437 Points ∼71% +155%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (496 - 564, n=9)
531 Points ∼26% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8386, n=529)
2026 Points ∼100% +260%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1212 Points ∼44%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1766 Points ∼64% +46%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1571 Points ∼57% +30%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1148 Points ∼42% -5%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2748 Points ∼100% +127%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (653 - 1213, n=9)
1063 Points ∼39% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=560)
2150 Points ∼78% +77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
816 Points ∼28%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1297 Points ∼44% +59%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
636 Points ∼22% -22%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
529 Points ∼18% -35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2001 Points ∼68% +145%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (695 - 817, n=9)
757 Points ∼26% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=560)
2926 Points ∼100% +259%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
880 Points ∼36%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1378 Points ∼56% +57%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
733 Points ∼30% -17%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
601 Points ∼24% -32%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2130 Points ∼87% +142%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (725 - 881, n=9)
806 Points ∼33% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=560)
2454 Points ∼100% +179%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1173 Points ∼43%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1711 Points ∼63% +46%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1489 Points ∼55% +27%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1116 Points ∼41% -5%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2731 Points ∼100% +133%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (435 - 1183, n=9)
978 Points ∼36% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=609)
2112 Points ∼77% +80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
439 Points ∼24%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
708 Points ∼39% +61%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
445 Points ∼24% +1%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
252 Points ∼14% -43%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1185 Points ∼65% +170%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (145 - 508, n=9)
350 Points ∼19% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 9167, n=609)
1833 Points ∼100% +318%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
510 Points ∼29%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
814 Points ∼47% +60%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
527 Points ∼30% +3%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
304 Points ∼17% -40%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1356 Points ∼78% +166%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (178 - 512, n=9)
378 Points ∼22% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7678, n=610)
1742 Points ∼100% +242%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1172 Points ∼43%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1729 Points ∼63% +48%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1483 Points ∼54% +27%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1128 Points ∼41% -4%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2751 Points ∼100% +135%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (722 - 1177, n=9)
1047 Points ∼38% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=652)
1982 Points ∼72% +69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
736 Points ∼30%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1234 Points ∼51% +68%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
633 Points ∼26% -14%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
522 Points ∼21% -29%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1914 Points ∼79% +160%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (205 - 736, n=9)
523 Points ∼22% -29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 13305, n=651)
2428 Points ∼100% +230%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
802 Points ∼39%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1318 Points ∼63% +64%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
725 Points ∼35% -10%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
593 Points ∼29% -26%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2053 Points ∼99% +156%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (244 - 802, n=9)
583 Points ∼28% -27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9611, n=654)
2080 Points ∼100% +159%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17243 Points ∼87%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
12945 Points ∼65% -25%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12304 Points ∼62% -29%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9051 Points ∼46% -48%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
19890 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (10689 - 17468, n=7)
15446 Points ∼78% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=796)
15601 Points ∼78% -10%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12064 Points ∼42%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
18375 Points ∼63% +52%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
10913 Points ∼38% -10%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9704 Points ∼33% -20%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
29055 Points ∼100% +141%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (7061 - 12205, n=7)
10938 Points ∼38% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=794)
27343 Points ∼94% +127%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12927 Points ∼49%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
16808 Points ∼64% +30%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11194 Points ∼42% -13%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9551 Points ∼36% -26%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
26356 Points ∼100% +104%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (7637 - 13081, n=7)
11674 Points ∼44% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=794)
21234 Points ∼81% +64%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
21 fps ∼42%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
29 fps ∼58% +38%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
21 fps ∼42% 0%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
50 fps ∼100% +138%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (19 - 21, n=4)
19.8 fps ∼40% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=797)
46 fps ∼92% +119%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
29 fps ∼59%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
29 fps ∼59% 0%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
32 fps ∼65% +10%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
49 fps ∼100% +69%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (18 - 29, n=4)
23 fps ∼47% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=806)
31.5 fps ∼64% +9%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
11 fps ∼40%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
14 fps ∼51% +27%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11 fps ∼40% 0%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
22 fps ∼81% +100%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (9.8 - 11, n=4)
10.2 fps ∼37% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=702)
27.3 fps ∼100% +148%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
19 fps ∼83%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
13 fps ∼57% -32%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
20 fps ∼87% +5%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
23 fps ∼100% +21%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (9.1 - 19, n=4)
13.4 fps ∼58% -29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=710)
22.8 fps ∼99% +20%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
6.6 fps ∼30%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
9.7 fps ∼44% +47%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.6 fps ∼30% 0%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼68% +127%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (5.8 - 6.6, n=4)
6.23 fps ∼28% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=565)
21.9 fps ∼100% +232%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
12 fps ∼61%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.3 fps ∼27% -56%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
14 fps ∼71% +17%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼76% +25%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (6 - 12, n=4)
8.48 fps ∼43% -29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=567)
19.8 fps ∼100% +65%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.7 fps ∼41%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
3.1 fps ∼27% -34%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3.8 fps ∼33% -19%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (2.2 - 4.7, n=8)
3.63 fps ∼32% -23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=321)
11.5 fps ∼100% +145%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼18%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1.8 fps ∼22% +20%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.4 fps ∼17% -7%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (1.4 - 1.5, n=8)
1.438 fps ∼18% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=319)
8.16 fps ∼100% +444%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
7.4 fps ∼43%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5 fps ∼29% -32%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.5 fps ∼38% -12%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3.5 - 7.4, n=9)
5.86 fps ∼34% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=325)
17.2 fps ∼100% +132%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.9 fps ∼20%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5 fps ∼25% +28%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3.9 fps ∼20% 0%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3.8 - 3.9, n=9)
3.84 fps ∼19% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=324)
19.7 fps ∼100% +405%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2.8 fps ∼19%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.5 fps ∼37% +96%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4 fps ∼27% +43%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9 fps ∼61% +221%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (2.6 - 2.9, n=4)
2.73 fps ∼19% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=490)
14.7 fps ∼100% +425%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4.9 fps ∼38%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
5.4 fps ∼42% +10%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8 fps ∼62% +63%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9.4 fps ∼72% +92%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (2.8 - 4.9, n=4)
3.63 fps ∼28% -26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=494)
13 fps ∼100% +165%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
887 Points ∼81%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
896 Points ∼82% +1%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
684 Points ∼62% -23%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1095 Points ∼100% +23%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (680 - 887, n=3)
794 Points ∼73% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=736)
827 Points ∼76% -7%
Graphics (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
866 Points ∼34%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1499 Points ∼59% +73%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
740 Points ∼29% -15%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2247 Points ∼88% +159%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (792 - 866, n=3)
817 Points ∼32% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=736)
2556 Points ∼100% +195%
Memory (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1141 Points ∼41%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1228 Points ∼44% +8%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
706 Points ∼25% -38%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2799 Points ∼100% +145%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (1141 - 1366, n=3)
1242 Points ∼44% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=736)
1903 Points ∼68% +67%
System (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2390 Points ∼47%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
3283 Points ∼65% +37%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1746 Points ∼35% -27%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5048 Points ∼100% +111%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (2390 - 2533, n=3)
2470 Points ∼49% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=736)
3504 Points ∼69% +47%
Overall (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1203 Points ∼50%
CAT S61
Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Adreno 508, 4096
1526 Points ∼63% +27%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
889 Points ∼37% -26%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2428 Points ∼100% +102%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (1131 - 1223, n=3)
1186 Points ∼49% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=736)
1793 Points ∼74% +49%
AnTuTu v8
UX (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
17134 Points ∼30%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
15332 Points ∼27% -11%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (17134 - 22496, n=2)
19815 Points ∼35% +16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6969 - 110361, n=121)
56278 Points ∼100% +228%
MEM (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
32868 Points ∼58%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
24176 Points ∼43% -26%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (27000 - 32868, n=2)
29934 Points ∼53% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9394 - 122714, n=120)
56757 Points ∼100% +73%
GPU (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
6340 Points ∼6%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
15036 Points ∼14% +137%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (5938 - 6340, n=2)
6139 Points ∼6% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4095 - 241176, n=120)
104464 Points ∼100% +1548%
CPU (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
46624 Points ∼44%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
40810 Points ∼38% -12%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (46101 - 46624, n=2)
46363 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (23816 - 186023, n=120)
106570 Points ∼100% +129%
Total Score (sort by value)
CAT S52
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
102966 Points ∼32%
Gigaset GX290
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
95354 Points ∼29% -7%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (101535 - 102966, n=2)
102251 Points ∼32% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 622888, n=120)
324582 Points ∼100% +215%

When surfing the web, there are, on the other hand, much faster outdoor smartphones than the CAT S52. But performance is still okay for everyday use.

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
55.524 Points ∼100% +112%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=626)
47.7 Points ∼86% +82%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
28.136 Points ∼51% +7%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
26.218 Points ∼47%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (23.8 - 26.2, n=3)
25.4 Points ∼46% -3%
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
18.351 Points ∼33% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
10573 Points ∼100% +135%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=794)
7973 Points ∼75% +77%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
5146 Points ∼49% +15%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (4347 - 4707, n=3)
4516 Points ∼43% 0%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
4494 Points ∼43%
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
3386 Points ∼32% -25%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
13599.1 ms * ∼100% -25%
CAT S52 (Chrome 79)
10848.6 ms * ∼80%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 (10236 - 11323, n=3)
10803 ms * ∼79% -0%
Average of class Smartphone (1854 - 59466, n=820)
9698 ms * ∼71% +11%
CAT S61 (Chrome 68)
9692 ms * ∼71% +11%
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
3954.2 ms * ∼29% +64%

* ... smaller is better

eMMC memory is the slowest flash memory currently used in smartphones. With it, the CAT S52 is, nonetheless, a bit faster than the competition. Moreover, the access rates to the reference microSD card, the Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, are done at the usual speed.

CAT S52CAT S61Gigaset GX290RugGear RG850Crosscall Trekker-X4Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-10%
-29%
-21%
-8%
-4%
1%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
74.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
20%
63.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
59.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
57.9 (11.2 - 74.7, n=129)
-6%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=536)
-17%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
82.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
81.05 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
83.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
77 (21.1 - 87.2, n=129)
-7%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=536)
-16%
Random Write 4KB
21.3
15.1
-29%
10.95
-49%
12.64
-41%
14.3
-33%
27.8 (3.4 - 147, n=147)
31%
36.9 (0.14 - 319, n=892)
73%
Random Read 4KB
76.6
44.7
-42%
33.33
-56%
39
-49%
71.5
-7%
56.3 (11.4 - 149, n=147)
-27%
60.1 (1.59 - 324, n=892)
-22%
Sequential Write 256KB
195.4
212.2
9%
33.77
-83%
120.74
-38%
194.7
0%
175 (40 - 254, n=147)
-10%
130 (2.99 - 911, n=892)
-33%
Sequential Read 256KB
286.2
284.7
-1%
275.59
-4%
280.06
-2%
272.4
-5%
272 (95.6 - 704, n=147)
-5%
347 (12.1 - 1802, n=892)
21%

Games – Moderate gaming is possible

Playing games on the CAT S52 is possible, but Asphalt 9 is a jerky affair at the highest settings. The PowerVR GE8320 graphics card is also installed in much slower smartphones and doesn't make such a good impression. Simpler games like Angry Birds 2, on the other hand, are no problem. 

Controlling games through the touchscreen and position sensor works without any issues.

Angry Birds 2
Angry Birds 2
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9

Emissions – Barely heats up

Temperature

With a maximum temperature of 40.8 °C (~105 °F), heat development under load is noticeable but not critical. Furthermore, hardly any heat can be measured in idle usage.

Max. Load
 39.7 °C
103 F
35.7 °C
96 F
31.9 °C
89 F
 
 40.3 °C
105 F
35 °C
95 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
 38.7 °C
102 F
34.7 °C
94 F
32 °C
90 F
 
Maximum: 40.3 °C = 105 F
Average: 35.6 °C = 96 F
31.9 °C
89 F
35.1 °C
95 F
40.8 °C
105 F
31.5 °C
89 F
34.5 °C
94 F
40.4 °C
105 F
31.4 °C
89 F
33.8 °C
93 F
37.4 °C
99 F
Maximum: 40.8 °C = 105 F
Average: 35.2 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  38.9 °C = 102 F | Room Temperature 20.8 °C = 69 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.5 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Heat map back
Heat map back
Heat map front
Heat map front

Speaker

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The mono speaker of the CAT S52 is located at the bottom edge and is similarly powerful in terms of volume as those of other mid-range smartphones. It offers slightly less deep mids than, for example, the CAT S61 and therefore doesn't sound quite as warm, but it's still at a solid level in regard to sound. Naturally, audio enthusiasts won't be satisfied with the sound, but it's definitely enough for an occasional YouTube video.

Sound transmission via Bluetooth or the 3.5 mm audio jack is smooth and offers good sound.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.939.72542.342.83134.834.9403935.65040.838.96334.433.48028.127.410025.130.212523.630.716022.136.620020.241.325019.645.131518.450.840018.95650020.159.66302062.480017.565.2100016.173.4125015.574160017.87220001672.4250015.973.1315016.174400016.366.7500016.566.6630016.569.4800016.9701000016.665.7125001754.51600016.548.4SPL68.866.667.866.429.382.9N22.519.420.818.51.252.3median 17median 65.2Delta1.71132.342.325.635.425.732.927.428.23738.423.327.221.424.821.728.819.934.517.440.5174716.450.114.552.714.259.114.161.812.664.212.568.61267.411.864.911.66811.470.611.369.211.47111.16711.265.611.363.111.265.811.363.111.350.611.346.567.365.824.179.421.617.80.644.8median 11.8median 63.11.79hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseCAT S52CAT S61
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
CAT S52 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

CAT S61 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life – The CAT S52 needs to be charged frequently

Energy consumption


Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 1 / 1.9 / 2.7 Watt
Load midlight 3.6 / 5.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
CAT S52
3100 mAh
CAT S61
4500 mAh
Gigaset GX290
6200 mAh
RugGear RG850
4000 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-8%
-3%
-5%
8%
2%
2%
Idle Minimum *
1
1.4
-40%
0.89
11%
1.2
-20%
0.7
30%
0.993 (0.73 - 1.3, n=6)
1%
0.891 (0.2 - 3.4, n=897)
11%
Idle Average *
1.9
1.9
-0%
2.09
-10%
1.7
11%
1.4
26%
2.07 (1.9 - 2.35, n=6)
-9%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=896)
8%
Idle Maximum *
2.7
2.6
4%
2.15
20%
2.6
4%
2.2
19%
2.38 (2.01 - 2.9, n=6)
12%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=897)
24%
Load Average *
3.6
3.5
3%
4.49
-25%
3.8
-6%
4.1
-14%
3.4 (2.9 - 4.3, n=6)
6%
4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=891)
-14%
Load Maximum *
5.2
5.6
-8%
5.78
-11%
6
-15%
6.4
-23%
5.16 (4.71 - 5.96, n=6)
1%
6.11 (1.2 - 14.2, n=891)
-18%

* ... smaller is better

Battery life

The battery can provide 3,100 mAh, and the CAT S52 shows a clear disadvantage compared to other outdoor phones here: The Gigaset GX290 offers a battery twice as powerful and therefore also consequently twice as long battery life than our test device. All other comparison devices also have at least 30% more battery capacity and last significantly longer than the 10:37 hours that the CAT S52 manages in our Wi-Fi test.

The fast charger can't display its skills properly either: 18 watts of charging power isn't bad in itself, but 2:30 hours for a full charge isn't exactly a record time, especially with such a small battery.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 37min
CAT S52
3100 mAh
CAT S61
4500 mAh
Gigaset GX290
6200 mAh
RugGear RG850
4000 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Battery Runtime
45%
107%
35%
32%
Reader / Idle
1891
WiFi v1.3
637
923
45%
1316
107%
857
35%
839
32%
Load
341
H.264
962

Pros

+ abundant processing power
+ comparatively manageable and high-quality
+ good camera for an outdoor smartphone
+ color-accurate display
+ IP certified
+ exact GPS
+ barely generates heat
+ comprehensive warranty
+ dedicated microSD slot

Cons

- short battery life
- relatively long charging times
- useless software preinstalled
- no Widevine L1
- little graphics power
- only a few LTE frequencies supported

Verdict – Good and fancy outdoor phone

In review: CAT S52. Test device provided by CAT Germany.
In review: CAT S52. Test device provided by CAT Germany.

The CAT S52 actually keeps quite a lot of the boastful marketing promises: It offers a slim case that's still quite well protected, a good camera, a high-quality screen, and it's more compact and slightly lighter than many comparison devices. Moreover, its conservative design doesn't make it as eye-catching as other ruggedized smartphones.

Given the good performance values, the only real criticism is battery life, which is acceptable at 10:37 hours in our Wi-Fi test, but it's not quite up-to-date, especially since the charger takes quite a long time for a full charge.

The CAT S52 offers many qualities such as a good camera, a lot of performance and a color-accurate screen, but it shows weaknesses when it comes to battery life.

But if you charge your smartphone every day anyway and are looking for an accurate GPS, while not caring that much about mobile Internet abroad, you will get a good and reasonably manageable outdoor smartphone with the CAT S52.

CAT S52 - 01/02/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
85%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
45 / 70 → 64%
Weight
88%
Battery
89%
Display
89%
Games Performance
6 / 64 → 10%
Application Performance
49 / 86 → 57%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
75 / 90 → 84%
Camera
55%
Average
72%
77%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > CAT S52 smartphone review – A fancy outdoor device
Florian Schmitt, 2020-01- 5 (Update: 2020-01- 4)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.