Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy A51 Smartphone Review – Dedicated to success

An exemplary mid-range phone. The Samsung Galaxy A51 is the successor of one of the most successful smartphones of 2019. Naturally, therefore, our expectations are high - but competition never sleeps. Find out whether the Galaxy smartphone with its total of five cameras can stand its ground in our review.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Katherine Bodner),
Samsung Galaxy A51

The fact that users trust Samsung and its smartphones is confirmed by the sales figures of the largest smartphone manufacturer of the world. Last year's update of the Galaxy A series, which covers a wide price segment ranging from $100 to $750 with its many devices, was a great success: The devices were brought up to date and offered a great price-to-performance ratio which buyers rewarded accordingly.

The Galaxy A50 was one of the most successful models, so it is no surprise that Samsung has chosen it as one of the first devices to receive an update in this new decade. The Galaxy A51 is a little more expensive than its predecessor but offers a new camera technology, even more modern exteriors and a newer SoC. It sounds like a useful update - but of course we will be taking a very close look at it in our detailed review. Let's get started.

Samsung Galaxy A51 (Galaxy A50 Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 9611 8 x 1.7 - 2.3 GHz, Exynos 7 Series
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.5 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 405 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 105 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 512 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/​B12/​B13/​B17/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41/​B66), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 158.5 x 73.6 ( = 0.31 x 6.24 x 2.9 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix f/​2.0, phase detection Auto Focus, LED flash, videos @2160p/​30fps (camera 1); 12.0MP, f/​2.2, wide-angle lens (camera 2); 5.0MP, f/​2.2, depth of field (camera 3); 5.0MP, f/​2.4, macro lens (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.2
Additional features
Speakers: singe speaker on bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, quick-charge AC adapter, USB cable, headset, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0.369W/​kg (head), 1.59W/​kg (body); LTE speed: 600 Mbit/s (download) and 150 Mbit/s (upload); FM radio, fanless
Weight
172 g ( = 6.07 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 55 g ( = 1.94 oz / 0.12 pounds)
Price
369 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison Devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
80 %
01/2020
Samsung Galaxy A51
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
172 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.5"2400x1080
80 %
04/2019
Samsung Galaxy A50
Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3
166 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
81 %
07/2019
Xiaomi Mi 9T
SD 730, Adreno 618
191 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.39"2340x1080
80 %
07/2019
Google Pixel 3a
SD 670, Adreno 616
147 g64 GB eMMC Flash5.6"2220x1080
84 %
12/2019
Huawei Nova 5T
Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10
174 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.26"2340x1080

Case – pearl effect and a slim waistline

While the Galaxy A50 featured a waterdrop notch, the Galaxy A51 has an even more modern and minimalistic look thanks to its simple hole-punch camera with the picture continuing all around it. While this does not make a big difference in practice, the few pixels between the camera and the edge can hardly be put to real use, it does give the Galaxy A51 an even more flashy appearance. 

Not much has changed in terms of size and weight: the Galaxy A51 is actually slightly heavier and a little thicker than its predecessor. With a screen size of 6.5 inches, the Galaxy phone is ideal for slightly larger hands, but has a good feel to it, is comfortable to hold, not too heavy and still looks quite elegant.

The back has a pearl effect gloss finish and various patterns. It appears to be of high quality although it does give way quite easily under pressure. This is fairly normal for a device of this price range. Transitions between materials are hardly noticeable and the workmanship on this phone gives a very good impression.

Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Galaxy A51

Size Comparison

158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 73.6 mm / 2.9 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 166 g0.366 lbs156.7 mm / 6.17 inch 74.3 mm / 2.93 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 191 g0.4211 lbs154.25 mm / 6.07 inch 73.97 mm / 2.91 inch 7.87 mm / 0.3098 inch 174 g0.3836 lbs151.3 mm / 5.96 inch 70.1 mm / 2.76 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 147 g0.3241 lbs

Connectivity – quite a lot of storage

The Galaxy phone continues to have 128 GB of storage, which are combined with 4 GB of RAM. Other devices such as the Google Pixel 3a, which are similarly expensive, only offer 64 GB of storage, so this can be considered quite generous.

The drawer contains two SIM slots as well as a dedicated microSD slot. This means that users can use two SIM cards and a microSD card simultaneously. The phone also supports NFC and Bluetooth 5.0 as well as the option to receive FM radio.

The USB C port only supports USB 2.0 speeds. Instead, the phone still offers a 3.5-mm audio jack for those who prefer to use analogue headphones.

Right: standby button, volume rocker
Right: standby button, volume rocker
Left: SIM drawer
Left: SIM drawer
Bottom: 3.5-mm audio jack, USB-C port, microphone, speaker
Bottom: 3.5-mm audio jack, USB-C port, microphone, speaker
Top: microphone
Top: microphone

Software – Galaxy A51 with OneUI

The Samsung OneUI is modern and good-looking. The Galaxy A51 comes with OneUI 2.0, which is based on Android 10. The security patches are dated December 2019 at the time of testing, which is still fairly recent.

Samsung has included a fair share of third-party apps that cannot be fully deleted and continue to occupy storage space even when they are deactivated. The manufacturer itself has also installed some of its own software, such as Galaxy Health or Smart Things. 

The phone has a Widevine DRM L1 certification, which means that streamed content can be watched on the device in HD. 

Samsung Galaxy A51 Software
Samsung Galaxy A51 Software
Samsung Galaxy A51 Software

Communication and GPS – more LTE

Like the Galaxy A50 our test unit's maximum LTE speed is 600 MBit/s (download), which is very normal for a device of this price range. We are pleased that the phone now supports more LTE bands compared to the predecessor, which means that it is more likely to work overseas. The LTE reception remains good when walking through town between high buildings.

The Wi-Fi speed of the Galaxy A50 wasn't its forte: while the results were average, the competition was significantly faster. The Galaxy A51 has a similar fate despite its Netgear Nighthawk AX12 doing slightly better in our standardized test. The Google Pixel 3a, for example, manages to transfer a lot more data via Wi-Fi within the same time. 

In practice, websites on the Galaxy A51 load fairly quickly although images may take a little longer to load while scrolling. Reception hardly drops at a distance of 10 meters (~33 feet) to the router and with three walls in between. Although websites load a little more slowly, this difference is not really noticeable. 

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 3a
Adreno 616, SD 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
637 (275min - 679max) MBit/s ∼100% +114%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Adreno 618, SD 730, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
333 (297min - 343max) MBit/s ∼52% +12%
Huawei Nova 5T
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
317 (30min - 340max) MBit/s ∼50% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
298 (185min - 350max) MBit/s ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
294 (278min - 302max) MBit/s ∼46% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1414, n=590)
277 MBit/s ∼43% -7%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 3a
Adreno 616, SD 670, 64 GB eMMC Flash
541 (422min - 570max) MBit/s ∼100% +82%
Huawei Nova 5T
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
315 (226min - 345max) MBit/s ∼58% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
297 (189min - 335max) MBit/s ∼55%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Adreno 618, SD 730, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
293 (161min - 346max) MBit/s ∼54% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9610, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
272 (250min - 285max) MBit/s ∼50% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 1599, n=590)
263 MBit/s ∼49% -11%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø298 (185-350)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø297 (189-335)
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors

The phone was able to locate itself within 3 meters (~10 feet) fairly quickly and the compass works well. Google Maps is fairly precise as well.

The Samsung Galaxy A51 does quite a good job in our practical test (a bike ride with the Garmin Edge 520 as our reference navigation system). Although it often positions us next to the road and sometimes crosses houses, the deviations are never that bad and the smartphone can definitely be used as a navigation system.  

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bend
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bend
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – bend
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – bend
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A51 – bridge

Telephone and Call Quality – short dropouts

Samsung uses its own telephony app that has a very clean design and can also display nearby places that can be contacted directly if necessary.

The phone supports VoLTE and VoWiFi.

The call quality is decent, although the predecessor's might have been a bit better: Our voice, for example, is not transmitted to our call partner when we speak quietly over speakerphone. We always hear our call partner clearly, although dropouts do occur occasionally, which can be irritating.

Camera – another lens

Photo taken with front camera
Photo taken with front camera

The biggest difference between the Galaxy A50 and its successor is probably the camera: the Galaxy A51 has an additional macro lens on the back and the MP of the main camera has increased noticeably to 48 MP. The standard resolution is still 12 MP because the camera combines four pixels to one large pixel for a better image with less noise.

Below, you can see some photos taken on a walk with the Galaxy A51. We immediately noticed that the photos taken with the Galaxy smartphone were slightly too dark but were pleased with the image sharpness and details. Our camera comparison confirmed the first impressions we got on our photography walk: The images could be brighter and sharpness is good considering this is a mid-range smartphone.

The Galaxy A51 does a decent job in low lighting as well and details on our test chart are still noticeable at 1 lux. Our low-light test photo taken at candlelight still shows several details clearly, although it could be brighter. We were a little annoyed by the fact that we managed to improve the delineation in dark areas without losing details in brighter sections by manually increasing the brightness during our photography walk. This means that the camera could offer better dynamics but that camera software simply does not make use of this possibility. 

Another artificial limitation based on software that separates this phone from the high-end segment: The zoom function cannot be used continuously between the wide-angle, the standard and the macro lens - users are forced to choose one lens. The macro lens even requires you to choose a separate camera mode to be able to take photos with it.

The front camera has a resolution of 32 MP and takes decent pictures, although they could be sharper.

Users must again choose between the standard or wide-angle lens when recording videos. The main camera enables you to record 4K videos at 30 fps, although some effects as well as digital image stabilization are not possible at maximum resolution. The transition between different exposure levels is smooth although you can occasionally see some pixel borders in direct light. The overall video quality is decent for this price 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


ColorChecker
27.8 ∆E
44.9 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
32.2 ∆E
39 ∆E
52.7 ∆E
42 ∆E
28.9 ∆E
33.2 ∆E
26.9 ∆E
53 ∆E
51.6 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
39.7 ∆E
26.9 ∆E
54.1 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
37.4 ∆E
51.2 ∆E
53.4 ∆E
43.6 ∆E
33.1 ∆E
22.7 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A51: 37.61 ∆E min: 13.46 - max: 54.12 ∆E
ColorChecker
4.8 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
5 ∆E
2.5 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
17.2 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A51: 5.94 ∆E min: 2.47 - max: 17.17 ∆E
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – perfect lighting
Test chart – 1 lux
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo wide-angle lens
Photo wide-angle lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens – manual brightness
Photo standard lens – automatic brightness
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo wide-angle lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo standard lens
Photo macro lens

Accessories and Warranty – 24 months of security

The Galaxy A51 is delivered with a quick-charge AC adapter as well as a USB-A-to-USB-C charging cable, a headset and a SIM tool.

Samsung gives users 24 months of warranty, which can either be claimed via the retailer or directly via one of the Samsung Service Centers which exist in many larger cities.

Input Devices & Handling – in-screen fingerprint reader on the Galaxy A51

The touchscreen is nice to use, the hardware buttons on the right of the device are relatively narrow (like on the predecessor) but easy to find and they respond well when pressed.

The keyboard app is from Samsung itself and is similar to Apple's virtual keyboard. While it works reliably, the phone is slightly narrower than its predecessor, which also means that there is less space for the keys when typing in portrait mode. This can make it somewhat more difficult to hit the right key when typing.

The integrated fingerprint sensor works well although it is not quite as fast and reliable as a dedicated sensor, e.g. on the back, would be. Face recognition works well via the software too and unlocks the smartphone reliably, although you should keep in mind that this method isn't quite as fail-safe as others and similar-looking people could use it to unlock the smartphone. 

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

Display – accurate AMOLED

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

We nowadays expect Samsung to equip even affordable devices with a high-quality AMOLED display and the Galaxy A51 does not disappoint: As the aspect ratio has changed, we now have a few more pixels along the length than we did on the Galaxy A50. Apart from that, not much has changed. The expanded Full-HD resolution is similar and the same for all other comparison devices.

The display doesn't become quite as bright in boost mode (when the brightness sensor is activated and at maximum brightness) as its predecessor did. However, the measured average of 589 cd/m²is still a good result. The maximum brightness is significantly lower when the brightness sensor is turned off.

576
cd/m²
590
cd/m²
601
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
589
cd/m²
602
cd/m²
576
cd/m²
586
cd/m²
609
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 609 cd/m² Average: 589.3 cd/m² Minimum: 1.8 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 589 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.22 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 2.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.111
Samsung Galaxy A51
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5
Samsung Galaxy A50
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Xiaomi Mi 9T
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Google Pixel 3a
P-OLED, 2220x1080, 5.6
Huawei Nova 5T
LTPS, 2340x1080, 6.26
Screen
-2%
11%
-33%
-88%
Brightness middle
589
644
9%
589
0%
403
-32%
524
-11%
Brightness
589
628
7%
589
0%
411
-30%
510
-13%
Brightness Distribution
94
91
-3%
96
2%
96
2%
86
-9%
Black Level *
0.39
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.22
2.64
-19%
2.5
-13%
5.1
-130%
6.6
-197%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.24
9.23
-12%
4.9
41%
11
-33%
12.2
-48%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.6
2.5
4%
1.6
38%
2
23%
9.1
-250%
Gamma
2.111 104%
2.024 109%
2.24 98%
2.22 99%
2.34 94%
CCT
6508 100%
6649 98%
6544 99%
6589 99%
8987 72%
Contrast
1344

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 242.7 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 242.7 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 242.7 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17612 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Colors appear strong and the black value looks perfect thanks to AMOLED technology. We did not notice a color cast subjectively and most colors seem to be well calibrated ex-works according to our measurements with the spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software.

The PWM curve shows the typical progression for an AMOLED screen: Oscillating between 100 and 280 Hz as soon as brightness is reduced. This means that sensitive users had better try out the screen before purchase, as they might react to the flickering display after prolonged use. This can lead to headaches for some users.

The response times might be too slow for hardcore gamers, but casual gamers should be happy with them.

CalMAN grayscales
CalMAN grayscales
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color space sRGB
CalMAN color space sRGB
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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 35 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.8 ms).

Colors do not invert when looking at the display from an angle and the screen content continues to be easy to read thanks to AMOLED technology. The Galaxy A51 is easy to read outdoors as well due to its good brightness.

Outdoor use
Outdoor use
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance – could be better

We are familiar with our test unit's SoC, the Samsung Exynos 9611, from the Galaxy M30s. It usually offers a decent mid-range performance with 8 cores and a maximum clock rate of 2.3 GHz. The Galaxy A51 is faster than its predecessor in most of our benchmarks but cannot keep up with some other devices in this price range: the Xiaomi Mi 9T and the Huawei Nova 5T are both significantly faster. 

The Galaxy A51 works very well in everyday use and also deals well with multi-tasking, although you can tell that this might not be the fastest SoC around when using more demanding apps. 

Geekbench 5
Vulkan Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1079 Points ∼49%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
2203 Points ∼100% +104%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (663 - 1079, n=3)
932 Points ∼42% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (143 - 3794, n=45)
1362 Points ∼62% +26%
OpenCL Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1522 Points ∼45%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
3360 Points ∼100% +121%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1393 - 1522, n=3)
1451 Points ∼43% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (183 - 4593, n=53)
1738 Points ∼52% +14%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1326 Points ∼52%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
2549 Points ∼100% +92%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1063 - 1326, n=3)
1229 Points ∼48% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=65)
1821 Points ∼71% +37%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
347 Points ∼49%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
707 Points ∼100% +104%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (345 - 349, n=3)
347 Points ∼49% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=65)
519 Points ∼73% +50%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5649 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5827 Points ∼70% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
7533 Points ∼91% +33%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7387 Points ∼89% +31%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
8279 Points ∼100% +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5351 - 5925, n=6)
5654 Points ∼68% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=512)
5918 Points ∼71% +5%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
6416 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7029 Points ∼69% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
9049 Points ∼89% +41%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
9458 Points ∼93% +47%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
10209 Points ∼100% +59%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5886 - 6697, n=6)
6231 Points ∼61% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=670)
6486 Points ∼64% +1%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2161 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2786 Points ∼82% +29%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
3406 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2061 - 2163, n=6)
2120 Points ∼62% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 4061, n=165)
2653 Points ∼78% +23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1438 Points ∼30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
1917 Points ∼40% +33%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4853 Points ∼100% +237%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1320 - 1442, n=6)
1419 Points ∼29% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 8783, n=165)
2966 Points ∼61% +106%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1554 Points ∼35%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2060 Points ∼46% +33%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4434 Points ∼100% +185%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1442 - 1557, n=6)
1531 Points ∼35% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 6754, n=165)
2665 Points ∼60% +71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2311 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2266 Points ∼46% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3241 Points ∼66% +40%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2763 Points ∼56% +20%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4917 Points ∼100% +113%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2058 - 2332, n=6)
2224 Points ∼45% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=515)
2200 Points ∼45% -5%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1530 Points ∼30%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1188 Points ∼23% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2176 Points ∼42% +42%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1611 Points ∼31% +5%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5157 Points ∼100% +237%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1267 - 1533, n=6)
1486 Points ∼29% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=515)
2109 Points ∼41% +38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1654 Points ∼32%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1328 Points ∼26% -20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2347 Points ∼46% +42%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1772 Points ∼35% +7%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5102 Points ∼100% +208%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1390 - 1659, n=6)
1604 Points ∼31% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8269, n=516)
1970 Points ∼39% +19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2336 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2241 Points ∼45% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3296 Points ∼66% +41%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2771 Points ∼55% +19%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4997 Points ∼100% +114%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1917 - 2336, n=5)
2224 Points ∼45% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=546)
2112 Points ∼42% -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1993 Points ∼31%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1553 Points ∼24% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3316 Points ∼52% +66%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2533 Points ∼40% +27%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
6350 Points ∼100% +219%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1601 - 2021, n=5)
1848 Points ∼29% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=546)
2826 Points ∼45% +42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2060 Points ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1667 Points ∼28% -19%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3312 Points ∼55% +61%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2582 Points ∼43% +25%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5990 Points ∼100% +191%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1662 - 2074, n=5)
1919 Points ∼32% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=546)
2374 Points ∼40% +15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2217 Points ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2351 Points ∼52% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3227 Points ∼72% +46%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2728 Points ∼61% +23%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4509 Points ∼100% +103%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2080 - 2258, n=6)
2196 Points ∼49% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=596)
2084 Points ∼46% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1473 Points ∼30%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1149 Points ∼23% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2008 Points ∼41% +36%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1482 Points ∼30% +1%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4937 Points ∼100% +235%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1203 - 1478, n=6)
1420 Points ∼29% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=596)
1777 Points ∼36% +21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1592 Points ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1296 Points ∼27% -19%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
2192 Points ∼45% +38%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1651 Points ∼34% +4%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4835 Points ∼100% +204%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1342 - 1601, n=6)
1540 Points ∼32% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7400, n=597)
1694 Points ∼35% +6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2225 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2432 Points ∼55% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3239 Points ∼73% +46%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2708 Points ∼61% +22%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4436 Points ∼100% +99%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2176 - 2286, n=5)
2216 Points ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=638)
1949 Points ∼44% -12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2027 Points ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1279 Points ∼21% -37%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3184 Points ∼52% +57%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2419 Points ∼40% +19%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
6111 Points ∼100% +201%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1468 - 2092, n=5)
1931 Points ∼32% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12611, n=637)
2339 Points ∼38% +15%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2068 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1430 Points ∼25% -31%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3196 Points ∼57% +55%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2477 Points ∼44% +20%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5638 Points ∼100% +173%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1595 - 2110, n=5)
1983 Points ∼35% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9549, n=640)
2011 Points ∼36% -3%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
20393 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14353 Points ∼60% -30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
19433 Points ∼81% -5%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
18523 Points ∼78% -9%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
23870 Points ∼100% +17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (19797 - 20393, n=5)
20068 Points ∼84% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=784)
15422 Points ∼65% -24%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
25086 Points ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16593 Points ∼32% -34%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
46605 Points ∼91% +86%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
35401 Points ∼69% +41%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
51362 Points ∼100% +105%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (15971 - 25625, n=5)
23373 Points ∼46% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=782)
26542 Points ∼52% +6%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23866 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16037 Points ∼39% -33%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
35557 Points ∼87% +49%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
29229 Points ∼71% +22%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
40895 Points ∼100% +71%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (16738 - 24052, n=5)
22432 Points ∼55% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=782)
20755 Points ∼51% -13%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
46 fps ∼34%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
39 fps ∼28% -15%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
77 fps ∼56% +67%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
58 fps ∼42% +26%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
137 fps ∼100% +198%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (35 - 48, n=6)
41 fps ∼30% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=786)
44.9 fps ∼33% -2%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
40 fps ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
36 fps ∼60% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
58 fps ∼97% +45%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
52 fps ∼87% +30%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +50%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (31 - 44, n=6)
36.8 fps ∼61% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 138, n=795)
31 fps ∼52% -22%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
24 fps ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23 fps ∼26% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
38 fps ∼43% +58%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
29 fps ∼33% +21%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
88 fps ∼100% +267%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (18 - 26, n=6)
21 fps ∼24% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=691)
26.5 fps ∼30% +10%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23 fps ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
21 fps ∼36% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
34 fps ∼58% +48%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
27 fps ∼46% +17%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
59 fps ∼100% +157%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (17 - 24, n=6)
20.7 fps ∼35% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=699)
22.3 fps ∼38% -3%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
15 fps ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼25% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
27 fps ∼48% +80%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
20 fps ∼36% +33%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
56 fps ∼100% +273%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (14 - 16, n=6)
15.5 fps ∼28% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=554)
21.3 fps ∼38% +42%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
13 fps ∼27% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
24 fps ∼50% +71%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
19 fps ∼40% +36%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
48 fps ∼100% +243%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (14 - 14, n=6)
14 fps ∼29% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=556)
19.4 fps ∼40% +39%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5.5 fps ∼26%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4.9 fps ∼23% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
9.3 fps ∼44% +69%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
7 fps ∼33% +27%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
21 fps ∼100% +282%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (5.5 - 8.3, n=6)
6.08 fps ∼29% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=308)
11.3 fps ∼54% +105%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.5 fps ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.1 fps ∼22% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
6.1 fps ∼44% +74%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
4.4 fps ∼31% +26%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
14 fps ∼100% +300%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (3.5 - 3.6, n=6)
3.55 fps ∼25% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=306)
8.05 fps ∼58% +130%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.1 fps ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.2 fps ∼25% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
15 fps ∼45% +65%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼33% +21%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
33 fps ∼100% +263%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (8.8 - 9.7, n=6)
9.27 fps ∼28% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=312)
16.8 fps ∼51% +85%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9 fps ∼24% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
16 fps ∼43% +60%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
12 fps ∼32% +20%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
37 fps ∼100% +270%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (9.8 - 10, n=6)
9.97 fps ∼27% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=311)
19.4 fps ∼52% +94%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼31%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.9 fps ∼28% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
16 fps ∼50% +60%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
11 fps ∼34% +10%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
32 fps ∼100% +220%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (9.6 - 10, n=6)
9.93 fps ∼31% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=479)
14.3 fps ∼45% +43%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.6 fps ∼31%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.1 fps ∼29% -6%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
13 fps ∼46% +51%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
10 fps ∼36% +16%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
28 fps ∼100% +226%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (8.6 - 9.6, n=6)
9.03 fps ∼32% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=483)
12.7 fps ∼45% +48%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 Points ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
927 Points ∼63% +9170%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
1099 Points ∼75% +10890%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
1229 Points ∼84% +12190%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
1462 Points ∼100% +14520%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (10 - 1202, n=6)
576 Points ∼39% +5660%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=725)
818 Points ∼56% +8080%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2168 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1957 Points ∼26% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3559 Points ∼47% +64%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2818 Points ∼37% +30%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
7640 Points ∼100% +252%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (2127 - 2168, n=6)
2151 Points ∼28% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=725)
2491 Points ∼33% +15%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1605 Points ∼31%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2492 Points ∼49% +55%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
4646 Points ∼91% +189%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
3288 Points ∼64% +105%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5116 Points ∼100% +219%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (1605 - 2122, n=6)
1775 Points ∼35% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 8874, n=725)
1850 Points ∼36% +15%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4738 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5112 Points ∼60% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
6760 Points ∼80% +43%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
5480 Points ∼65% +16%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
8456 Points ∼100% +78%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (4029 - 4978, n=6)
4615 Points ∼55% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=725)
3444 Points ∼41% -27%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
634 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2193 Points ∼47% +246%
Xiaomi Mi 9T
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 6144
3329 Points ∼71% +425%
Google Pixel 3a
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670, Adreno 616, 4096
2811 Points ∼60% +343%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4689 Points ∼100% +640%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (634 - 2191, n=6)
1384 Points ∼30% +118%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6273, n=725)
1754 Points ∼37% +177%
AnTuTu v8
UX (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
38475 Points ∼58%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
66660 Points ∼100% +73%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (33717 - 44600, n=6)
40206 Points ∼60% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6969 - 110361, n=109)
54914 Points ∼82% +43%
MEM (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
43405 Points ∼60%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
71845 Points ∼100% +66%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (37768 - 44128, n=6)
40160 Points ∼56% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9394 - 122714, n=108)
55910 Points ∼78% +29%
GPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
36821 Points ∼27%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
135337 Points ∼100% +268%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (34020 - 46247, n=6)
38675 Points ∼29% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4095 - 224320, n=108)
101605 Points ∼75% +176%
CPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
62594 Points ∼46%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
136978 Points ∼100% +119%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (57481 - 63005, n=6)
60314 Points ∼44% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (23816 - 185108, n=108)
104948 Points ∼77% +68%
Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
181295 Points ∼44%
Huawei Nova 5T
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
410820 Points ∼100% +127%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
  (174870 - 187087, n=6)
179355 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 607937, n=108)
317934 Points ∼77% +75%

The Galaxy A51 is slightly slower than its competition while browsing the web and cannot quite keep up with its predecessor either. While the smartphone does not seem slow when browsing during everyday use, the difference in speed compared to the fastest devices in this price range is noticeable.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
47.131 Points ∼100% +70%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 140, n=185)
40.6 Points ∼86% +47%
Google Pixel 3a
33.563 Points ∼71% +21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=6)
28.3 Points ∼60% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
27.681 Points ∼59%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74)
109.88 Points ∼100% +114%
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
87.488 Points ∼80% +71%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
51.257 Points ∼47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=6)
50.2 Points ∼46% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=616)
47.1 Points ∼43% -8%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
46.46 runs/min ∼100% +60%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 158, n=168)
42.9 runs/min ∼92% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73)
33.07 runs/min ∼71% +14%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
29.1 runs/min ∼63%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=6)
29 runs/min ∼62% 0%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74)
124 Points ∼100% +118%
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
86 Points ∼69% +51%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=252)
69.8 Points ∼56% +22%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
62 Points ∼50% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
57 Points ∼46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=6)
53 Points ∼43% -7%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74)
22379 Points ∼100% +120%
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
17501 Points ∼78% +72%
Google Pixel 3a
10844 Points ∼48% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
10322 Points ∼46% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
10194 Points ∼46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10434, n=6)
9497 Points ∼42% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=783)
7840 Points ∼35% -23%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1914 - 59466, n=809)
9777 ms * ∼100% -123%
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=6)
4874 ms * ∼50% -11%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
4375.1 ms * ∼45%
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73)
3897 ms * ∼40% +11%
Google Pixel 3a
3589.4 ms * ∼37% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101)
2563.9 ms * ∼26% +41%
Huawei Nova 5T (Chrome 74)
2059 ms * ∼21% +53%

* ... smaller is better

The internal UFS storage in the Galaxy A51 reaches similar speeds as the other devices in this price range, although there still are significantly faster devices such as the Nova 5T. Overall, apps start fairly quickly and data is retrieved fast enough as well.

We measured normal transfer rates during our write and read tests with our reference microSD card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501.

Samsung Galaxy A51Samsung Galaxy A50Xiaomi Mi 9TGoogle Pixel 3aHuawei Nova 5TAverage 128 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-14%
4%
-12%
63%
-3%
-33%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
60.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
54 (28.6 - 70.2, n=15)
-10%
51.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=530)
-15%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
73 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
73.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
69.7 (30.2 - 86, n=15)
-5%
69.1 (8.1 - 96.5, n=530)
-5%
Random Write 4KB
104.4
18.2
-83%
107.82
3%
99.86
-4%
247.05
137%
81.5 (13.5 - 187, n=21)
-22%
35.5 (0.14 - 319, n=881)
-66%
Random Read 4KB
110.8
98.9
-11%
128.65
16%
63.6
-43%
146.23
32%
124 (88.4 - 173, n=21)
12%
58.9 (1.59 - 324, n=881)
-47%
Sequential Write 256KB
184.9
192.1
4%
179.19
-3%
253.87
37%
186.43
1%
195 (143 - 257, n=21)
5%
127 (2.99 - 911, n=881)
-31%
Sequential Read 256KB
496.1
507.3
2%
492.74
-1%
301.99
-39%
904.03
82%
495 (409 - 733, n=21)
0%
339 (12.1 - 1802, n=881)
-32%

Games – for casual gamers

The Galaxy A51 is suitable for gaming - although you will need to limit the settings when playing more demanding games: Asphalt 9 is a lot smoother at low settings than at high ones while Arena of Valor even manages 60 fps at high details, which is quite impressive for a mid-range smartphone. We measure the framerates with GameBench.

Games are controlled easily via the position sensor and touchscreen.

Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
010203040506070Tooltip
; Arena of Valor; min; 1.32.1.2: Ø60 (60-61)
; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.32.1.2: Ø59.8 (53-61)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.9.3a: Ø27.8 (20-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.9.3a: Ø28.8 (18-31)

Emissions – no throttling, hardly any heat development

Temperature

GFXBench Battery test
GFXBench Battery test

The temperature development of the Samsung Galaxy A51 is limited: There is no noticeable heat development while idling (device turned on but without load) and the device is only slightly warmer than the ambient temperature. While it does heat up slightly under load, the temperature remains comfortable for users at all times. We measured a maximum surface temperature of 39.9 °C (103.8 °F) at the top of the display.

We used the GFXBench battery test to find out whether the phone throttled under continuous load, but this was not the case.

Max. Load
 38.8 °C
102 F
35.9 °C
97 F
33.3 °C
92 F
 
 39.9 °C
104 F
35.5 °C
96 F
33.3 °C
92 F
 
 39 °C
102 F
35.4 °C
96 F
32.7 °C
91 F
 
Maximum: 39.9 °C = 104 F
Average: 36 °C = 97 F
32.3 °C
90 F
34.7 °C
94 F
36.3 °C
97 F
31.5 °C
89 F
34.2 °C
94 F
39.3 °C
103 F
31.4 °C
89 F
34.4 °C
94 F
38.6 °C
101 F
Maximum: 39.3 °C = 103 F
Average: 34.7 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  38.2 °C = 101 F | Room Temperature 21.5 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36 °C / 97 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 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.3 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.4 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Heat map front
Heat map front
Heat map back
Heat map back

Speaker

Speaker test Pink Noise
Speaker test Pink Noise

The speaker is positioned along the bottom of the device and continues to do a good job in this generation. It isn't quite as loud as it was in the Galaxy A50 but the sound characteristics are similar. This includes a fairly warm sound pattern without strong highs and a well-rounded sound. HiFi enthusiasts will prefer to use external speakers or headphones, but the speakers are definitely suitable for getting the idea of a song or watching the occasional YouTube video.

You can connect audio devices via Bluetooth or the 3.5-mm audio jack. This works reliably and the sound is transmitted nicely.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.544.22539.937.83134.532.54033.8355033.940.96328.933.58024.129.110023.22812523.233.516022.339.32002041.425018.743.531517.449.440017.153.550016.858.663014.562.680014.462.310001669.9125014.370.8160014.37020001570.8250014.272.1315014.273400014.166.3500014.569630014.569.2800014.971.91000015.265.31250015.557.31600016.156.6SPL68.227.281.7N22.60.949.7median 15.2median 62.6Delta2.510.942.246.742.143.934.636.737.342.739.84532.736.427.729.327.83125.734.323.340.22344.221.449.221.455.720.161.620.563.421.869.520.472.12074.618.273.918.972.9187419.174.518.276.71871.21968.21872.418.17518.166.418.252.318.148.365.965.66267.731.38518.518.514.623.11.662.7median 19.1median 68.21.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A51Samsung Galaxy A50
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A51 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A50 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life – Galaxy A51 doesn't have great stamina

Power Consumption

The power consumption is on par with that of the Galaxy M30s with the same SoC. While the Galaxy A51 is less demanding under maximum load, it consumes more power while idling. The Galaxy smartphone does a decent job compared to other smartphones of this price range and requires relatively little power.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.1 / 0.4 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.7 / 1.8 Watt
Load midlight 5.2 / 6.6 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy A51
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9T
4000 mAh
Google Pixel 3a
3000 mAh
Huawei Nova 5T
3750 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 9611
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-2%
38%
27%
-12%
-29%
3%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.8
11%
0.54
40%
0.61
32%
0.87
3%
1.135 (0.9 - 1.6, n=6)
-26%
0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=884)
1%
Idle Average *
1.7
1.5
12%
0.95
44%
1.56
8%
2.34
-38%
2.29 (1.7 - 4.24, n=6)
-35%
1.756 (0.6 - 6.2, n=883)
-3%
Idle Maximum *
1.8
1.7
6%
1.08
40%
1.6
11%
2.4
-33%
2.77 (1.8 - 4.34, n=6)
-54%
2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=884)
-13%
Load Average *
5.2
5.9
-13%
2.7
48%
2.67
49%
4.56
12%
5.92 (5 - 6.99, n=6)
-14%
4.1 (0.8 - 10.8, n=878)
21%
Load Maximum *
6.6
8.3
-26%
5.4
18%
4.33
34%
6.97
-6%
7.65 (6.3 - 9.4, n=6)
-16%
6.08 (1.2 - 14.2, n=878)
8%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Considering that the Galaxy A51 consumes relatively little power in our tests and has a decently-sized battery with a capacity of 4000 mAh, its battery life is slightly disappointing. Similarly to the Galaxy A50, our test unit managed around 11:40 hours in our Wi-Fi test. This isn't a bad result in itself, and should easily last you a day or maybe two if you're careful. 

The Xiaomi Mi 9T, however, manages to get a lot more battery life out of a similarly-sized battery, probably because it has a more aggressive energy management. The Google Pixel 3a has a significantly smaller battery and has a considerably shorter battery life. Overall, we would recommend Samsung to take a closer look at its energy management if it wants to remain competitive in future.

The Galaxy A51 has a 15-watt AC adapter, which is the lowest output that can be considered a fast charger. The phone requires around 2 hours to fully recharge, which is a normal rate for this price range.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
28h 9min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 38min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 06min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 49min
Samsung Galaxy A51
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 9T
4000 mAh
Google Pixel 3a
3000 mAh
Huawei Nova 5T
3750 mAh
Battery Runtime
-2%
25%
-12%
11%
Reader / Idle
1689
1587
-6%
2138
27%
H.264
846
869
3%
1208
43%
WiFi v1.3
698
701
0%
991
42%
612
-12%
776
11%
Load
289
275
-5%
258
-11%

Pros

+ slim, fancy case
+ flexible camera of good quality
+ a lot of LTE frequencies
+ dedicated microSD slot
+ 60-fps gaming in some games
+ color-accurate and bright screen
+ hardly any heat development

Cons

- performance average for this price range
- battery life could be longer
- no continuous zoom
- browsing is on the slow side

Verdict – good midrange

Review: Samsung Galaxy A51.
Review: Samsung Galaxy A51.

Samsung's Galaxy A51 is another mid-range device that has hardly any real weaknesses. Its cameras are one of its highlights - although the gap to the high-end is still noticeable, for example when it comes to low-light performance or zooming. Nonetheless, the Galaxy A51 can take some really nice pictures. The bright AMOLED screen is another pleasure - we were particularly impressed by the good color display.

The phone supports a significantly higher amount of LTE frequencies than its predecessor, but the Wi-Fi continues to be rather slow. 

Samsung could have put in a little more work in terms of performance and the battery life can't quite keep up with that of other devices. These are aspects that are particularly noticeable in a direct comparison. Still, the Galaxy A51 is a reliable mid-range phone.

The Galaxy A51 is a mid-range smartphone that does a good job in all areas and takes good photos.

As Samsung has not really made any mistakes, we can definitely recommend the Galaxy A51 smartphone.

Samsung Galaxy A51 - 01/13/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
83%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 65%
Weight
90%
Battery
89%
Display
88%
Games Performance
17 / 64 → 27%
Application Performance
50 / 86 → 58%
Temperature
91%
Noise
100%
Audio
71 / 90 → 79%
Camera
63%
Average
73%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 5 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 > Samsung Galaxy A51 Smartphone Review – Dedicated to success
Florian Schmitt, 2020-01-13 (Update: 2020-01-16)
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.