Notebookcheck Logo

LG K50S Smartphone Review - Now with three cameras

Would you like a little bit more? The LG K50S is not far behind its predecessor in terms of time, brings a camera more and a larger battery, but still has a major weakness. Whether the smartphone still gets a purchase recommendation, you can find out in the test.
Android ARM Smartphone Touchscreen
LG K50S
LG K50S (K Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 8 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A53
Graphics adapter
PowerVR GE8320
Memory
3 GB 
Display
6.50 inch 19.5:9, 1560 x 720 pixel 264 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 18 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 2 TB, dediziert, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Proximity sensor, Compass
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/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.2 x 165.8 x 77.5 ( = 0.32 x 6.53 x 3.05 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.8, phase comparison AF, LED flash, video @1080p/30fps (camera 1); 5.0MP, f/2.2, wide angle lens (camera 2); 2.0MP, f/2.4, depth of field (camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat 6 (300Mbps/50Mbps); SAR value: 0.501W/kg (head), 1.105W/kg (body); MIL-STD-810G certified, notification LED (front), fanless
Weight
194 g ( = 6.84 oz / 0.43 pounds), Power Supply: 56 g ( = 1.98 oz / 0.12 pounds)
Price
199 Euro
Links
LG homepage
LG notebook section
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
75.5 %7
12/2019
LG K50S
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320		194 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1560x720
75 %7
10/2019
LG K50
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320		170 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.26"1520x720
76.8 %7
11/2019
Motorola One Macro
Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3		186 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.20"1520x720
79.2 %7
11/2019
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
SD 665, Adreno 610		190 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.30"2340x1080
75.5 %7
07/2019
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2		141 g32 GB eMMC Flash5.80"1560x720

Case, Equipment and Operation - Proven design

In February at the MWC in Barcelona, LG had announced its new low-cost smartphone LG K50, and before the end of the year its successor was released: The LG K50S. For friends of large screens and modern design, it is worthwhile at first glance, but in the test we want to take a closer look.

In contrast to the smaller LG K40, the K50 was already equipped with a quite modern design with Waterdrop-Notch and LG doesn't change anything here with the successor. The case actually looks identical, apart from the third camera lens on the back: Furthermore, there is a metal frame and plastic on the back; blue and black are available as colors. The certification according to US-MIL-STD810G, which is supposed to provide a certain amount of protection against the blows and elements, has also remained the same, but the manufacturer is free to choose which tests to carry out and how, so it unfortunately doesn't say much. However, there are certainly changes in the size: The LG K50S has become a bit slimmer and considerably longer, in addition to 24 grams more weight, probably due to the larger battery.

Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC are on board, there is also a 3.5mm audio connection and, despite the modern design, a notification LED on the front. A dedicated microSD port is used to expand the mass memory. There are certainly devices in this price range that offer more than 32 GB of internal memory.

The LG K50S comes with WiFi 5 and knows how to use it, but we couldn't find a correspondingly higher transfer speed in the LG K50 with the same configuration. In our test with the reference router Linksys Nighthawk AX12, the K50S is significantly faster than most of the comparable devices, but also noticeably slower than the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8. 

Control via the touchscreen is quite precise, the surface offers good gliding characteristics for the finger. As with almost all current LG phones, this model also has its own button for the Google Assistant.

LG K50S
LG K50S
LG K50S
LG K50S
LG K50S
LG K50S

Size Comparison

❌
165.8 mm / 6.53 inch 77.5 mm / 3.05 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 194 g0.4277 lbs161.3 mm / 6.35 inch 77 mm / 3.03 inch 8.7 mm / 0.3425 inch 170 g0.3748 lbs158.3 mm / 6.23 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs157.6 mm / 6.2 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 186 g0.4101 lbs147.4 mm / 5.8 inch 69.7 mm / 2.74 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 141 g0.3109 lbs148 mm / 5.83 inch 105 mm / 4.13 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 1.5 g0.00331 lbs
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
303 (242min - 355max) MBit/s ∼100% +66%
LG K50S
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
182 (147min - 215max) MBit/s ∼60%
LG K50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
55.9 (51min - 59max) MBit/s ∼18% -69%
Motorola One Macro
802.11 b/g/n
53.7 (49min - 56max) MBit/s ∼18% -70%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
39.7 (23min - 50max) MBit/s ∼13% -78%
iperf3 receive AX12
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
339 (320min - 349max) MBit/s ∼100% +72%
LG K50S
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
197 (144min - 211max) MBit/s ∼58%
Motorola One Macro
802.11 b/g/n
64 (45min - 63max) MBit/s ∼19% -68%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
802.11 b/g/n
60 (47min - 67max) MBit/s ∼18% -70%
LG K50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
60 (53min - 57max) MBit/s ∼18% -70%
0153045607590105120135150165180195210Tooltip
LG K50S; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø196.8 (144-211)
LG K50S; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø182.2 (147-215)

Cameras - Triple camera in the LG K50S

13 megapixels are provided by both the main lens on the back and the selfie-cam on the front. At the back, as with the previous model, there is a 2 megapixel camera for depth of field, an additional wide-angle lens like the LG K40S is now also included, making the LG K50S a smartphone with an optical zoom, even if it only works in the direction of wide angle, so from the main lens' point of view you can only zoom out of the picture. Zooming in works only with digital zoom.

The light sensitivity of the main lens has also been increased in comparison to the LG K50, but overall the main lens takes decent pictures for its price range, slight pixel artifacts in the blue sky, a little too little dynamic in bright areas and a visible blue cast must be accepted. In dark situations, the autofocus is obviously difficult, which is a pity, as the dynamics are not that bad.

Videos can be recorded in 1080p at a maximum of 30 fps, the image quality is OK, but you can see clear steps when switching between different brightness levels.

The front camera offers good shots and even details are still clearly visible.

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
ColorChecker
4.9 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
3 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
1 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
3 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
3 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K50S: 4.96 ∆E min: 0.98 - max: 10.3 ∆E
ColorChecker
28.6 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
37.6 ∆E
34.1 ∆E
42.4 ∆E
57.3 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
33.2 ∆E
37.2 ∆E
27.6 ∆E
59.1 ∆E
60 ∆E
29.9 ∆E
44.4 ∆E
32.1 ∆E
67.5 ∆E
38.2 ∆E
39.8 ∆E
71.7 ∆E
66.8 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
23.3 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K50S: 42.93 ∆E min: 13.46 - max: 71.74 ∆E
Testchart - Perfect lighting
Testchart - Perfect lighting
Testchart – 1 Lux
Testchart – 1 Lux

Display - Hardly any changes

Sub-pixel Array
Sub-pixel Array

The screen has been stretched a little bit compared to the predecessor and has a few more pixels here. The brightness is on a good level, but can't keep up with the very bright screens in the Motorola One Macro and Xiaomi Redmi Note 8.

On the other hand, the black value of 0.33 cd/m² is on a fairly good level. The color deviations turn out a bit higher than in many other models, though. Our test with the CalMAN software also reveals a strong blue cast.

487
cd/m²		466
cd/m²		450
cd/m²
467
cd/m²		486
cd/m²		440
cd/m²
464
cd/m²		472
cd/m²		441
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 487 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 463.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.46 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 436 cd/m²
Contrast: 1473:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.79 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.1
ΔE Greyscale 7.1 | 0.57-6493 Ø6.6
93.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.283
LG K50S
IPS, 1560x720, 6.50		LG K50
IPS, 1520x720, 6.26		Motorola One Macro
IPS, 1520x720, 6.20		Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.30		Samsung Galaxy A20e
IPS, 1560x720, 5.80
Response Times
23%
136%
11%
97%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
52 ?(21, 31)
38 ?(19, 19)
27%
36 ?(17, 19)
31%
49.6 ?(23.6, 26)
5%
44.4 ?(20, 24.4)
15%
Response Time Black / White *
28 ?(13, 15)
16 ?(5, 11)
43%
24 ?(9, 15)
14%
23.6 ?(9.6, 14)
16%
20.8 ?(7.6, 13.2)
26%
PWM Frequency
100 ?(10)
100
0%
463 ?(10)
363%
349.7 ?(50)
250%
Screen
4%
15%
29%
-8%
Brightness middle
486
489
1%
581
20%
656
35%
475
-2%
Brightness
464
453
-2%
565
22%
643
39%
473
2%
Brightness Distribution
90
85
-6%
92
2%
95
6%
93
3%
Black Level *
0.33
0.42
-27%
0.42
-27%
0.54
-64%
0.35
-6%
Contrast
1473
1164
-21%
1383
-6%
1215
-18%
1357
-8%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
5.79
4.75
18%
4.3
26%
1.1
81%
6.8
-17%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
11.87
7.75
35%
6.94
42%
2.4
80%
13.4
-13%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
7.1
4.6
35%
4.4
38%
2.2
69%
8.7
-23%
Gamma
2.283 96%
2.164 102%
2.217 99%
2.2 100%
2.33 94%
CCT
8511 76%
7510 87%
7067 92%
6263 104%
9385 69%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
14% / 9%
76% / 48%
20% / 25%
45% / 21%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ
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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 66 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.9 ms).
   ↔    Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
52 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 31 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 86 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (34.6 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ
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 100 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 100 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 100 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19019 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Color Space

Performance, Emissions and Battery life - the crux with the SoC

The SoC MediaTek Helio P22 is the same as in the LG K50 and therefore inferior to other smartphones in the price range. Although the operating system basically runs smoothly, you have to accept occasional jerks and waiting times for more complex tasks and apps.

The memory is also a bit slower in comparison to other smartphones in the class, which occasionally means longer waiting times when starting apps. The LG K50 couldn't keep up with the competition in terms of performance. It's all the more incomprehensible that LG decided to use the same SoC for its successor.

In return, the temperature development on the outside of the smartphone is very moderate and won't cause any problems even on hot days. The speaker sits on the lower edge and has quite similar sound characteristics to the LG K50. If you're very good-natured, you might be able to hear a bit more low midrange and a slightly rounder sound, the trebles are still very strongly emphasized. The sound output via 3.5mm connection or Bluetooth works without any problems.

The smartphone cuts a good figure with 15:46 hours in our WLAN test, the 4.000.mAh battery makes it possible. Other smartphones with a similarly sized battery offer sometimes more, sometimes less, so LG didn't do too bad a job in terms of energy efficiency. The Smarptphone will probably survive one or maybe even two working days even with very frequent use. However, charging takes a good 3 hours due to the rather weak 6 watt adapter.

PCMark for Android | 3DMark | GFXBench | Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4526 Points ∼33%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4635 Points ∼34% +2%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7160 Points ∼53% +58%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7446 Points ∼55% +65%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6902 Points ∼51% +52%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (4404 - 7465, n=18)
5847 Points ∼43% +29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10619 - 19297, n=3, last 2 years)
13600 Points ∼100% +200%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3965 Points ∼38%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4052 Points ∼39% +2%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5992 Points ∼57% +51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6498 Points ∼62% +64%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5305 Points ∼50% +34%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3805 - 5380, n=21)
4696 Points ∼45% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7100 - 12871, n=15, last 2 years)
10509 Points ∼100% +165%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10692 Points ∼17%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10547 Points ∼17% -1%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
18067 Points ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
23534 Points ∼38% +120%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11565 Points ∼19% +8%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9835 - 13960, n=20)
11460 Points ∼19% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53961 - 68549, n=2, last 2 years)
61255 Points ∼100% +473%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10777 Points ∼12%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10826 Points ∼12% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
19186 Points ∼21% +78%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
24654 Points ∼28% +129%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
11427 Points ∼13% +6%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9536 - 13491, n=20)
11373 Points ∼13% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88482 - 90133, n=2, last 2 years)
89308 Points ∼100% +729%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10404 Points ∼34%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
9674 Points ∼32% -7%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
15003 Points ∼49% +44%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
20354 Points ∼67% +96%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12075 Points ∼40% +16%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9080 - 15891, n=20)
12110 Points ∼40% +16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (22441 - 38328, n=2, last 2 years)
30385 Points ∼100% +192%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
505 Points ∼16%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
480 Points ∼15% -5%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1767 Points ∼54% +250%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1728 Points ∼53% +242%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
737 Points ∼23% +46%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (428 - 830, n=23)
633 Points ∼19% +25%
Average of class Smartphone
  (712 - 7285, n=82, last 2 years)
3248 Points ∼100% +543%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
449 Points ∼13%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
423 Points ∼12% -6%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1608 Points ∼46% +258%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1607 Points ∼46% +258%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
637 Points ∼18% +42%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (370 - 750, n=23)
572 Points ∼16% +27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (618 - 9025, n=82, last 2 years)
3496 Points ∼100% +679%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
900 Points ∼31%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
911 Points ∼31% +1%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2701 Points ∼92% +200%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2378 Points ∼81% +164%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1646 Points ∼56% +83%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (854 - 1185, n=23)
1026 Points ∼35% +14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1093 - 4535, n=82, last 2 years)
2946 Points ∼100% +227%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
738 Points ∼10%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
742 Points ∼10% +1%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1758 Points ∼24% +138%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1778 Points ∼25% +141%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
759 Points ∼10% +3%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (513 - 873, n=23)
770 Points ∼11% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (704 - 18846, n=151, last 2 years)
7238 Points ∼100% +881%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
701 Points ∼6%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
701 Points ∼6% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1603 Points ∼13% +129%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1668 Points ∼14% +138%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
659 Points ∼6% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (452 - 823, n=23)
719 Points ∼6% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 38087, n=150, last 2 years)
11960 Points ∼100% +1606%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
902 Points ∼22%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
936 Points ∼23% +4%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2656 Points ∼64% +194%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2348 Points ∼57% +160%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1624 Points ∼39% +80%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (900 - 1195, n=23)
1032 Points ∼25% +14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1075 - 43985, n=150, last 2 years)
4128 Points ∼100% +358%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
316 Points ∼13%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
305 Points ∼12% -3%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1293 Points ∼52% +309%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1114 Points ∼45% +253%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
526 Points ∼21% +66%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (269 - 470, n=22)
383 Points ∼15% +21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (286 - 7890, n=124, last 2 years)
2502 Points ∼100% +692%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
267 Points ∼11%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
257 Points ∼10% -4%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1125 Points ∼45% +321%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
967 Points ∼39% +262%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
443 Points ∼18% +66%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (222 - 405, n=22)
326 Points ∼13% +22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (240 - 9814, n=124, last 2 years)
2499 Points ∼100% +836%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
872 Points ∼29%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
897 Points ∼30% +3%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2701 Points ∼90% +210%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2408 Points ∼80% +176%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1630 Points ∼54% +87%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (860 - 1175, n=22)
1022 Points ∼34% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (858 - 4679, n=124, last 2 years)
3017 Points ∼100% +246%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
492 Points ∼9%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
493 Points ∼9% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1257 Points ∼23% +155%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1134 Points ∼21% +130%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
525 Points ∼10% +7%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (426 - 536, n=22)
482 Points ∼9% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (317 - 16291, n=201, last 2 years)
5498 Points ∼100% +1017%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
434 Points ∼6%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
434 Points ∼6% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1096 Points ∼14% +153%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
980 Points ∼13% +126%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
440 Points ∼6% +1%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (368 - 467, n=22)
418 Points ∼5% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (267 - 26802, n=200, last 2 years)
7691 Points ∼100% +1672%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
927 Points ∼25%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
936 Points ∼25% +1%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2589 Points ∼69% +179%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2298 Points ∼61% +148%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1628 Points ∼43% +76%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (912 - 1188, n=22)
1036 Points ∼28% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (938 - 7042, n=200, last 2 years)
3751 Points ∼100% +305%
GFXBench
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6.7 fps ∼17%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6.8 fps ∼18% +1%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
15 fps ∼39% +124%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7.2 fps ∼19% +7%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
7.8 fps ∼20% +16%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (6.4 - 7.6, n=21)
6.9 fps ∼18% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.6 - 123, n=241, last 2 years)
38.4 fps ∼100% +473%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3.7 fps ∼7%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3.7 fps ∼7% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.6 fps ∼17% +132%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
8.1 fps ∼16% +119%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4 fps ∼8% +8%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3.5 - 4.7, n=21)
3.81 fps ∼7% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.9 - 175, n=242, last 2 years)
50.9 fps ∼100% +1276%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.2 fps ∼15%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.1 fps ∼15% -2%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.7 fps ∼31% +107%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
4.4 fps ∼16% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.8 fps ∼17% +14%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (4.1 - 4.8, n=21)
4.35 fps ∼16% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.8 - 100, n=242, last 2 years)
28 fps ∼100% +567%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.4 fps ∼7%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.4 fps ∼7% 0%
Motorola One Macro
Mediatek Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2.9 fps ∼15% +107%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2.8 fps ∼14% +100%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.4 fps ∼7% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (1.3 - 1.6, n=21)
1.39 fps ∼7% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.85 - 72, n=242, last 2 years)
20 fps ∼100% +1329%
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
768 Points ∼17%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
773 Points ∼17% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1495 Points ∼34% +95%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1212 Points ∼27% +58%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (749 - 824, n=10)
777 Points ∼18% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (800 - 8424, n=86, last 2 years)
4424 Points ∼100% +476%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3573 Points ∼31%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3480 Points ∼30% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
5366 Points ∼46% +50%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3714 Points ∼32% +4%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3300 - 3660, n=10)
3497 Points ∼30% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 21505, n=86, last 2 years)
11698 Points ∼100% +227%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
LG K50S
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2710 Points ∼30%
LG K50
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2680 Points ∼29% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
5122 Points ∼56% +89%
Samsung Galaxy A20e
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3271 Points ∼36% +21%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (2166 - 3015, n=8)
2675 Points ∼29% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2053 - 14785, n=66, last 2 years)
9087 Points ∼100% +235%
LG K50SLG K50Motorola One MacroXiaomi Redmi Note 8Samsung Galaxy A20eAverage 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
51%
87%
10%
-2%
649%
Sequential Read 256KB
272.8
263.4
-3%
277
2%
297.6
9%
300.4
10%
242 ?(25.8 - 452, n=246)
-11%
1228 ?(215 - 4512, n=234, last 2 years)
350%
Sequential Write 256KB
86.6
78.9
-9%
223
158%
160.5
85%
103.6
20%
100.5 ?(14.8 - 196, n=246)
16%
815 ?(57.5 - 3062, n=234, last 2 years)
841%
Random Read 4KB
54.3
52.1
-4%
59.9
10%
84.8
56%
79.8
47%
43.1 ?(3.59 - 117.2, n=246)
-21%
215 ?(22.2 - 543, n=234, last 2 years)
296%
Random Write 4KB
18.6
12.03
-35%
53.3
187%
91.2
390%
13.18
-29%
22.1 ?(0.75 - 91, n=246)
19%
225 ?(13 - 572, n=235, last 2 years)
1110%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
78.3 ?(Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
78.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
79.5 ?(SanDisk 64GB)
2%
71.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-9%
79.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
71.8 ?(8.2 - 96.5, n=178)
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
58 ?(Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
58.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
28.2 ?(SanDisk 64GB)
-51%
52.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-9%
64.3 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
11%
52.9 ?(3.4 - 87.1, n=178)
-9%

Temperature

Max. Load
 35.4 °C
96 F		33.7 °C
93 F		31.4 °C
89 F		 
 35.9 °C
97 F		34.2 °C
94 F		31.3 °C
88 F		 
 36.7 °C
98 F		33.4 °C
92 F		31.4 °C
89 F		 
Maximum: 36.7 °C = 98 F
Average: 33.7 °C = 93 F
32.4 °C
90 F		33.1 °C
92 F		36.3 °C
97 F
32 °C
90 F		33.8 °C
93 F		35.5 °C
96 F
32 °C
90 F		33.4 °C
92 F		37.4 °C
99 F
Maximum: 37.4 °C = 99 F
Average: 34 °C = 93 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.1 °C = 99 F | Room Temperature 20.7 °C = 69 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.7 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.7 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.4 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap - Top
Heatmap - Top
Heatmap - Bottom
Heatmap - Bottom

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.943.82542.341.43134.836.7403939.95040.838.46334.433.68028.128.210025.12512523.624.616022.125.720020.232.825019.638.331518.447.540018.953.650020.157.76302062.680017.563.5100016.171.5125015.573160017.87120001672.4250015.972.5315016.170.6400016.364.4500016.565.5630016.566.3800016.967.31000016.662.2125001752.31600016.548.3SPL66.429.381.4N18.51.246.7median 17.5median 62.2median 64Delta3.414.717.446.84542.543.634.237.934.241.439.241.32934.125.82924.227.324.429.622.628.521.428.321.435.219.941.919.148.919.457.118.663.317.870.219.174.817.873.119.272.61871.117.468.916.96716.966.216.971.116.97017.266.117.26517.265.117.350.968.758.871.772.930.182.121.711.726.627.71.349.3median 18.6median 65median 49.2median 50.3median 15.7median 65.73.21522.622.614.416.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseLG K50SLG K50
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
LG K50S audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (129.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 98% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 99% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 26%, worst was 134%

LG K50 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.1 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 (123.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 90% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 39%, 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 26%, worst was 134%

Battery Life

LG K50S
4000 mAh		LG K50
3500 mAh		Motorola One Macro
4000 mAh		Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
4000 mAh		Samsung Galaxy A20e
3000 mAh		Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
946
822
-13%
973
3%
824
-13%
715
-24%
884 ?(424 - 1205, n=242, last 2 years)
-7%
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing
15h 46min

Pros

+ good contrast of the screen
+ camera with optical zoom out
+ dedicated microSD port
+ robust case
+ fast WLAN

Cons

- too weak performance for the price range
- Autofocus problems with low brightness
- Blue cast in the display

Verdict - Almost an insider tip

In Review: LG K50S. Test device provided by:
In Review: LG K50S. Test device provided by:
cyberport.de

The LG K50 has meanwhile fallen considerably in price, which is quite necessary, as the performance level of the competition was a bit too high for the smartphone for just under 200 Euros. The LG K50S is threatened in a similar way, whereby it offers some features with the larger battery and a camera with a wide angle lens and even optical zoom out, which smartphones don't even have for 200 Euros.

If only it weren't for the weak SoC, it can't keep up with the competition in any benchmark. Sometimes the performance of other smartphones for the same money is twice as high. If LG had made improvements here, the LG K50S would probably have become a real insider tip.

If the performance were higher, the LG K50S would be even more recommendable thanks to its zoom camera and long battery life.

Thus, the LG K50S remains a very neat smartphone of the lower middle class with individual highlights. The low warming, the neat screen, the fast WLAN and the flexible camera make it a good choice if you don't need that much performance. 

If you're torn between the LG K50 and the K50S and if the price difference doesn't matter, the K50S is a much more future-proof phone with faster WLAN, better cameras and longer battery life.

LG K50S - 12/20/2019 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
67%
Pointing Device
86%
Connectivity
44%
Weight
89%
Battery
91 / 86 → 100%
Display
83%
Games Performance
6%
Application Performance
45 / 90 → 50%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
74%
Camera
53%
Average
70%
76%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > LG K50S Smartphone Review - Now with three cameras
Florian Schmitt, 2019-12-20 (Update: 2019-12-20)