Notebookcheck
, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Samsung Galaxy A52 5G Smartphone Review - Another chapter in a success story

More premium. The Galaxy A52 5G is an updated version of one of the most successful Samsung smartphones. It comes with a price hike, which puts it above the 400-Euro (~$480) mark for the first time. Read our review to learn why it is still worth every cent.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Stanislav Kokhanyuk), 🇩🇪 🇳🇱 ...

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G was introduced alongside the Galaxy A52 LTE und A72 LTE. Out of the three aforementioned smartphones, it is the only one that supports the latest mobile communications standard, as its name suggests.

Unlike the Galaxy A32 5G, the Galaxy A52 5G does not have any disadvantages when compared to the LTE model. As a matter of fact, it packs a screen with a higher refresh rate when compared to its 4G counterpart. The A52 5G costs 80 Euros (~$97) more than, but it offers these two additional features. In our opinion, this is a very fair trade.

When compared to last year’s model Galaxy A51, a lot of changes have been made. For instance, A52 models no longer use Samsung’s proprietary SoCs and instead rely on Qualcomm’s SoCs. The amount of RAM has been increased, the storage speeds have been improved, the battery capacity has been expanded and the resolution of the main camera has been bumped from 48 MP to 64 MP. In addition, the A52 has an IP67 certification and a new UWB chip. 

, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Galaxy A Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G 8 x 1.8 - 2.2 GHz, Kryo 570 (Cortex-A77/A55)
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.50 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 405 PPI, Capacitive, Super AMOLED, HDR10, HDR10+, HLG, glossy: yes, HDR, 120 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 102.2 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), Audio Connections: Audio Jack, USB-C, Card Reader: microSD up to 1 TB (FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, Gyro Sensor, Geomagnetic Sensor, Hall Sensor, Virtual Proximity Sensing, OTG
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 MHz), 3G (Band 1, 2, 4, 5, 8), 4G (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66), 5G (Band 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.4 x 159.9 x 75.1 ( = 0.33 x 6.3 x 2.96 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 11
Camera
Primary Camera: 64 MPix (f/1.8, OIS) + 12 MPix (Ultra Wide, f/2.2) + 5 MPix (Depth, f/2.4) + 5 MPix (Macro, f/2.4); Camera2-API-Level: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix (f/2.2)
Additional features
Speakers: Dual, Keyboard: Onscreen, 15W-Charger, USB-Cabel, SIM-Needle, Quick Start Guide, One UI 3.1, 24 Months Warranty, Head-SAR: 1.055 W/kg, Body-SAR: 1.420 W/kg; Single-Band-GNSS: GPS, Glonass, BeiDou, Galileo; IP67-Rating, DRM Widevine L1, fanless, waterproof
Weight
189 g ( = 6.67 oz / 0.42 pounds) ( = 0 oz / 0 pounds)
Price
429 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Likely Competitors

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
83 %
04/2021
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619
189 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.50"2400x1080
80 %
01/2020
Samsung Galaxy A51
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
172 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.50"2400x1080
82 %
10/2020
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
SD 732G, Adreno 618
215 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
84 %
11/2020
Google Pixel 4a 5G
SD 765G, Adreno 620
168 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.20"2340x1080
82 %
03/2021
Oppo Find X3 Lite
SD 765G, Adreno 620
172 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.43"2400x1080

Case - Galaxy A52 5G with Gorilla Glass 3 and an IP67 certification

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G is thicker and heavier than its predecessor, because it has a bigger battery. With the 1.55-mm (0.06″) camera bump, the smartphone has a thickness of 9.95 mm (0.4″). When you put it on its back, the A52 is not flush with the table.

Visually, both the 5G model and the LTE model look identical. Both models also come in the same colour schemes (Black, White, Blue and Purple). The back and the mid-frame are made of plastic. The latter mimics a metallic surface and is very susceptible to fingerprints. The screen is protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 3 and has a 0.4-mm punch-hole (0.2″) for the front-facing camera. The build quality is on a very good level. The A52 5G did not make any sounds when we tried to bend it. 

Positive: The A52 comes with an IP67 certification, which means that it is both water- and dustproof. 

, , , , , ,
search relation.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Size Comparison

165.3 mm / 6.51 inch 76.8 mm / 3.02 inch 9.4 mm / 0.3701 inch 215 g0.474 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 75.1 mm / 2.96 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 189 g0.4167 lbs159.1 mm / 6.26 inch 73.4 mm / 2.89 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 73.6 mm / 2.9 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs153.9 mm / 6.06 inch 74 mm / 2.91 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 168 g0.3704 lbs

Connectivity - A-series smartphone now with UWB

In terms of connectivity options, the Galaxy A52 5G is very similar to its predecessor. However, unlike the Galaxy A51, the Galaxy A52 comes with the UWB chip, which unlocks the full functionality of Samsung’s SmartThings platform. The USB 2.0 port supports OTG functionality and can be used to output an audio signal. The A52 also features a headphone jack and a radio tuner, for which an optional headset can serve as an antenna.

Moreover, there is a variant of the A52 5G with 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage space. It costs 60 Euros (~$72) more. 

Top: card slot, microphone
Top: card slot, microphone
Left side
Left side
Right side: volume rocker, power button
Right side: volume rocker, power button
Bottom: speaker, USB port, microphone, audio jack
Bottom: speaker, USB port, microphone, audio jack

Card Reader

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G comes with a hybrid slot, which can take two SIM cards or one SIM card and one microSD card. However, microSD cards cannot be used as internal storage. Moreover, applications cannot be installed on an SD card.

With our reference-grade microSD card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, the Samsung smartphone manages to achieve acceptable read and write rates. Nevertheless, transfer rates could have been a little higher.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Adreno 619, SD 750G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
50.32 MB/s ∼100%

Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)

0510152025303540455055606570758045.454.667.679.28078.975.179.579.879.480.280.161.470.269.174.97468.963.376.578.668.871.677.676.267.163.569.969.562.849.57865.879.774.667.972.871.575.371.272.677.97476.977.571.270.769.666.860.273.480.47479.478.770.376.47575.877.578.97979.67378.676.978.178.679.679.679.979.978.279.97775.978.17979.779.779.379.177.676.975.475.976.669.577.177.377.77878.779.576.379.777.478.17977.878.67673.378.579.279.378.375.678.67977.77552.368.670.176.873.478.278.37778.876.877.477.377.974.371.478.145.454.667.679.28078.975.179.579.879.480.280.161.470.269.174.97468.963.376.578.668.871.677.676.267.163.569.969.562.849.57865.879.774.667.972.871.575.371.272.677.97476.977.571.270.769.666.860.273.480.47479.478.770.376.47575.877.578.97979.67378.676.978.178.679.679.679.979.978.279.97775.978.17979.779.779.379.177.676.975.475.976.669.577.177.377.77878.779.576.379.777.478.17977.878.67673.378.579.279.378.375.678.67977.77552.368.670.176.873.478.278.37778.876.877.477.377.974.371.478.150.748.850.248.652.449.551.742.639.737.642.341.338.143.236.238.937.439.636.839.841.84141.536.840.740.739.335.540.637.740.840.241.54140.139413641.441.138.54344.338.740.737.939.141.24139.236.443.144.241.239.238.235.542.842.235.341.541.242.340.842.53641.942.645.642.941.441.941.942.44237.942.739.838.242.441.539.840.839.238.436.239.136.740.944.534.942.342.134.738.64040.239.336.742.94140.539.439.744.241.9424540.34240.840.339.445.340.23840.641.137.44440.438.538.543.937.639.637.742.4Tooltip
; Sequential read; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø74.7 (45.4-80.4)
; Sequential write; Toshiba Exceria Pro M501: Ø40.8 (34.7-52.4)

Software - Android 11 and One UI 3.1 for the Galaxy A52

The Galaxy A52 5G runs Android 11 with a custom launcher known as One UI 3.1. At the time of writing, the security patches were still quite recent (February, 2021). We expect security updates on a quarterly basis. If past experience is any guide, buyers of the Samsung smartphone should get two major software updates. Even the Galaxy A50 got an Android 11 update.

Thanks to wide DRM support, users can steam video in HD quality with the A52 5G. In addition to Samsung’s proprietary applications and the Galaxy Store, the Android smartphone comes with various Microsoft applications, Facebook, Netflix and Spotify. Not all of the pre-installed applications can be completely removed from the device. 

Communication and Geolocation - A lot of good and mediocre GNSS performance

Both the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G and the Galaxy A51 support the same number of LTE bands. However, the A52 5G also supports 5G (there was a 5G variant of the A51 as well). We did not encounter any cellular connectivity issues during our review.

The Wi-Fi module supports Wi-Fi 5, but does not have a MIMO antenna array, which is why data transfer rates with our reference-grade router Netgear Nighthawk AX12 are not very impressive. However, the signal stability is on a very high level.

The Galaxy A52 5G also supports Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC.  

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Adreno 618, SD 732G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
636 (500min - 675max) MBit/s ∼100% +92%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
603 (517min - 635max) MBit/s ∼95% +82%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=296, last 2 years)
402 MBit/s ∼63% +21%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
342 (335min - 348max) MBit/s ∼54% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Adreno 619, SD 750G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
331 (322min - 337max) MBit/s ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
298 (185min - 350max) MBit/s ∼47% -10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Adreno 618, SD 732G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
633 (589min - 676max) MBit/s ∼100% +124%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=296, last 2 years)
390 MBit/s ∼62% +38%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
303 (164min - 328max) MBit/s ∼48% +7%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
300 (211min - 318max) MBit/s ∼47% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Mali-G72 MP3, Exynos 9611, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
297 (189min - 335max) MBit/s ∼47% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Adreno 619, SD 750G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
282 (275min - 287max) MBit/s ∼45%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320328331324332328327331337326330334330333331332326336335327330337332335332332332329322332323328331324332328327331337326330334330333331332326336335327330337332335332332332329322332323275285287276278287282280279281283283286284282286286284280281281282282284285279284284282284Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø330 (322-337)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø282 (275-287)
GPSTest - supported satellites
GPSTest - supported satellites
GPS Test - outdoors
Outdoors
GPS Test - indoors
Indoors

For geolocation, the Galaxy A52 5G relies on the following global navigation satellite systems: GPS, GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo. Just like its predecessor, the Galaxy A52 5G has a single-band GNSS receiver. Outdoors, the Android smartphone establishes a connection with the satellites very quickly and has a margin of error of up to 3 metres. Indoors, the A52 5G has a higher margin of error.

In order to determine how accurate our review device is when it comes to navigation, we take it with us on a bike ride. During this ride, we are also accompanied by the professional navigator Garmin Edge 500. There is a 200-metre difference between the A52 5G and the Garmin Edge 500. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the Galaxy smartphone is not particularly accurate, because there are large deviations from the path we took. Nevertheless, these deviations are still within reasonable bounds. 

GNSS test ride: Overview
GNSS test ride: Overview
GNSS test ride: Lake
GNSS test ride: Lake
GNSS test ride: Looping around
GNSS test ride: Looping around

Telephony and Call Quality

The quality of phone calls is on a good level, as long as you hold the smartphone close to your ear. The A52 5G manages to filter out most of the background noise. However, when there are loud noises, the user starts to sound somewhat muffled and tinny. The Samsung smartphone can be used without any issues in loudspeaker mode, as long as the user is close to the device. Even one metre away from the smartphone, the voice of the user starts to sound tinny and echoey.

The Galaxy smartphone supports Wi-Fi calling and VoLTE. Howbeit, it does not support eSIM functionality.  

Cameras - 64 MP and a dollop of software processing should suffice

Selfie taken with the Galaxy A52 5G
Selfie taken with the Galaxy A52 5G

The front-facing camera of the A52 5G has a 32-MP image sensor. In standard mode, the camera takes 8-MP selfies, due to 4-1 pixel binning. However, pixel binning can be disabled. The front-facing shooter can record 1080p video at 60 FPS and 2160p video at 30 FPS. Under good lighting conditions, photographs look very good. The photo quality is significantly worse under poor lighting conditions, though. 

The main camera has a 64-MP image sensor and also uses pixel binning, which is why it produces decent photographs even in low-light conditions. In night mode, the main shooter takes even better pictures. It is also worth mentioning that the camera software brings a lot to the table. For instance, in addition to the single take feature, which was introduced alongside the S21 series, there are also various AR filters from Snapchat under the Fun tab. Unfortunately, there are not many filters, and to get more you will have to download Snapchat.

The three remaining cameras of the A52 5G are identical to the those of the predecessor. While the depth sensor and the micro lens offer only marginal benefits in day-to-day use, the ultra wide-angle shooter will certainly be used much more frequently. We were expecting to see better ultra wide-angle shots given the price tag and the 12-MP image sensor. There is just too much blurriness around the edges.

The main camera can record video at the same resolutions and frame rates as the front-facing shooter. However, the main camera supports optical image stabilisation.  

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.

Wide-angleUltra wide-angle5X zoomLow-light photography

Under controlled lighting conditions, the photographs taken with the Galaxy A52 5G appear blurry. This is why it is sometimes hard to tell objects apart. Furthermore, there is a lot of chromatic aberration around the edges.

The Samsung smartphone produces very colour-accurate images. However, the colour temperature tends to be on the warmer side.

ColorChecker
29.1 ∆E
46.9 ∆E
37.9 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
42.7 ∆E
57.6 ∆E
46.5 ∆E
33 ∆E
31.8 ∆E
28.6 ∆E
57 ∆E
58.6 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
46.3 ∆E
26.5 ∆E
62 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
41.5 ∆E
60.4 ∆E
62.8 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
36.4 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A52 5G: 41.24 ∆E min: 13.91 - max: 62.75 ∆E
ColorChecker
15.5 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
11.7 ∆E
19 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6 ∆E
12 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
5 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
12 ∆E
1.8 ∆E
5.7 ∆E
7.8 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
3.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A52 5G: 7.83 ∆E min: 1.78 - max: 18.98 ∆E

Accessories and Warranty - Not a lot in the box, but optional Samsung Care+ warranty

Besides the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G itself, the box contains a modular 15-W charger (Type-A), a USB cable (Type-A to Type-C) a SIM card removal tool, a Quick Start Guide and warranty information. There is no headset now, and the 80-cm USB cable is rather short. The A72 comes with the faster 25-W charger.

The Galaxy A52 5G has a 2-year warranty, which can be extended with a Care+ warranty package. A 2-year package costs 79 Euros (~$95). Alternatively, users can pay for the warranty package in 4.49-Euro (~$5.4) installment over a 2-year period.

At the time of writing, Samsung offered no accessories designed specifically for the Galaxy A52. However, plenty of accessories from Samsung and other manufacturers should be released in the near future. 

Input Devices and Handling - A52 with an in-display fingerprint sensor

The capacitive touchscreen reacts reliably and promptly to inputs. It has a smooth surface and can recognise up to 10 inputs at the same time. The Galaxy A52 5G comes with the pre-installed Samsung keyboard, which is usually replaced by almost everyone with Gboard.

The optical in-display fingerprint sensor unlocks the smartphone reliably, but it is not particularly fast. The face unlock works faster. However, it is less secure.

The hardware buttons, which are located on the right side, have a clear actuation point and sit firmly in their cutouts. 

Furthermore, the A52 5G can be controlled via various gestures. It also offers a customisable one-handed mode and Always-on-Display functionality.

Display - Samsung smartphone with a bright Super AMOLED screen

Pixel arrangement
Pixel arrangement

The 6.5-inch IPS display of the A52 5G has a native resolution of 2400x1080 pixels. The predecessor model had a screen with the same resolution and size. 

The screen of the A52 5G is brighter than that of its predecessor. However, with the brightness set to 100% and the light sensor enabled, the panel was not able to crack the 800-nit mark when displaying pure white. Samsung specifies a maximum brightness of 800 cd/m² for the A52 5G. In manual mode, the brightness maxes out at only 354 cd/m². In the APL50 test, we measured a maximum brightness of 1109 cd/m², which is why the A52 5G is suitable for displaying HDR content.

You can set the refresh rate either to 60 or 120 Hz. An adaptive refresh rate is not supported. The OLED panel flickers at all brightness levels. The PWM frequencies range from 231.5 Hz to 250 Hz. In eye comfort mode, the smartphone simply adjusts the colour temperature.

740
cd/m²
743
cd/m²
749
cd/m²
751
cd/m²
744
cd/m²
750
cd/m²
748
cd/m²
754
cd/m²
758
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 3
Maximum: 758 cd/m² Average: 748.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.82 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 744 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.2 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
98.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.06
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Samsung Galaxy A51
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Google Pixel 4a 5G
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.20
Oppo Find X3 Lite
OLED, 2400x1080, 6.43
Screen
-15%
-8%
22%
-31%
Brightness middle
744
589
-21%
623
-16%
669
-10%
569
-24%
Brightness
749
589
-21%
600
-20%
671
-10%
572
-24%
Brightness Distribution
98
94
-4%
93
-5%
94
-4%
97
-1%
Black Level *
0.54
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.2
2.22
-1%
1.8
18%
1
55%
3.2
-45%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7
8.24
-18%
4.7
33%
1.8
74%
6
14%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.1
2.6
-24%
3.3
-57%
1.5
29%
4.3
-105%
Gamma
2.06 107%
2.111 104%
2.26 97%
2.25 98%
2.23 99%
CCT
6516 100%
6508 100%
6712 97%
6685 97%
6607 98%
Contrast
1154

* ... 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 250 Hz ≤ 100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 250 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 9679 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 151500) Hz was measured.

OLED panels can display pure black, because each pixel can be switched off completely. This is why the contrast ratio tends to infinity.

Our CalMAN analysis reveals good colour and grayscale performance in natural mode, in which the colour space is clamped to sRGB. In vivid screen mode, the colour temperature is cooler and the colour space is clamped to DCI-P3, which is wider than sRGB. With the colour temperature set to its warmest setting, the colour reproduction is as good in this mode as in natural mode. 

Grayscale (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Colour accuracy (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Colour accuracy (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Colour space coverage (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Colour space coverage (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (profile: Vivid (white balance: max. warm setting), colour space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Grayscale (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Colour accuracy (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Colour accuracy (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Colour space coverage (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Colour space coverage (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (profile: natural, colour space: sRGB)
Saturation (profile: Natural, colour space: sRGB)

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
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.2 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 0 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.2 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1.6 ms rise
↘ 1.6 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.4 ms).

Thanks to a high screen brightness, the OLED display of the A52 5G is legible outside even on a sunny day. However, refections make the screen harder to read. 

The A52 5G under an overcast sky
The A52 5G under an overcast sky
In the shade
In the shade

The OLED panel offers wide viewing angles. Nevertheless, at very acute angles, users can observe colour shimmering. Moreover, when the screen is viewed at an angle, the brightness drops slightly. 

Viewing angles of the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Viewing angles of the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G

Performance - Galaxy A52 with a Snapdragon SoC

The Galaxy A52 5G comes with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G and 6 or 8 GB of RAM. The Qualcomm Adreno 619 GPU is integrated into the SoC.

In our usual suite of benchmarks, the Qualcomm SoC achieves very good results and is able to keep up with the rest of the competition. Nevertheless, we occasionally encountered stutters in daily use.

The main advantage that the competing devices with the Snapdragon 765G offer is a higher level of GPU performance, with the notable exception of the Pixel 4a 5G that features a cut-down version of the SoC. 

Geekbench 5.3
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1304 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
1291 Points ∼62% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1231 Points ∼59% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1227 - 1304, n=4)
1257 Points ∼61% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=95, last 2 years)
2074 Points ∼100% +59%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1272 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
1090 Points ∼56% -14%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
925 Points ∼48% -27%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1172 Points ∼60% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1081 - 1272, n=4)
1154 Points ∼60% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=94, last 2 years)
1939 Points ∼100% +52%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1878 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
1787 Points ∼91% -5%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1631 Points ∼83% -13%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1810 Points ∼92% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1878 - 2009, n=4)
1963 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=197, last 2 years)
1913 Points ∼97% +2%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
636 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
567 Points ∼87% -11%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
601 Points ∼92% -6%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
615 Points ∼94% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (636 - 658, n=4)
652 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=197, last 2 years)
554 Points ∼85% -13%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
9573 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5649 Points ∼58% -41%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
8101 Points ∼83% -15%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
8319 Points ∼85% -13%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
9800 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (7547 - 9573, n=4)
8315 Points ∼85% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=268, last 2 years)
7674 Points ∼78% -20%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
10998 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
6416 Points ∼58% -42%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
8773 Points ∼79% -20%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
10122 Points ∼92% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
11041 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (8853 - 10998, n=3)
9882 Points ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=245, last 2 years)
9813 Points ∼89% -11%
3DMark
Wild Life Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1097 Points ∼36%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
720 Points ∼23% -34%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1026 Points ∼33% -6%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1681 Points ∼55% +53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1094 - 1098, n=3)
1096 Points ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (205 - 8672, n=59, last 2 years)
3077 Points ∼100% +180%
Wild Life Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1103 Points ∼39%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
835 Points ∼30% -24%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1023 Points ∼36% -7%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1681 Points ∼60% +52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1097 - 3658, n=3)
1953 Points ∼70% +77%
Average of class Smartphone
  (153 - 7275, n=61, last 2 years)
2804 Points ∼100% +154%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2823 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2161 Points ∼73% -23%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2827 Points ∼95% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2978 Points ∼100% +5%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
2809 Points ∼94% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2823 - 2876, n=4)
2855 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=206, last 2 years)
2654 Points ∼89% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2520 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1438 Points ∼45% -43%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2427 Points ∼76% -4%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2145 Points ∼67% -15%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3186 Points ∼100% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2479 - 2548, n=4)
2514 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (210 - 11259, n=206, last 2 years)
3027 Points ∼95% +20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2582 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1554 Points ∼50% -40%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2506 Points ∼81% -3%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2287 Points ∼74% -11%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3094 Points ∼100% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2581 - 2611, n=4)
2594 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (262 - 6977, n=206, last 2 years)
2672 Points ∼86% +3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3466 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2311 Points ∼64% -33%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3438 Points ∼95% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3539 Points ∼98% +2%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3459 Points ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3466 - 3659, n=4)
3603 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5780, n=267, last 2 years)
2883 Points ∼80% -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2802 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1530 Points ∼43% -45%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2735 Points ∼77% -2%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2814 Points ∼79% 0%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3557 Points ∼100% +27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2762 - 2845, n=4)
2808 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 12914, n=267, last 2 years)
3412 Points ∼96% +22%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2927 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1654 Points ∼47% -43%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2865 Points ∼81% -2%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2948 Points ∼83% +1%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3535 Points ∼100% +21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2927 - 2990, n=4)
2962 Points ∼84% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=267, last 2 years)
3071 Points ∼87% +5%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3469 Points ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2336 Points ∼65% -33%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3425 Points ∼96% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3563 Points ∼100% +3%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3441 Points ∼96% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3469 - 3651, n=3)
3572 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5765, n=265, last 2 years)
2840 Points ∼80% -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4239 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1993 Points ∼37% -53%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
4086 Points ∼76% -4%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
4053 Points ∼75% -4%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5383 Points ∼100% +27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (4211 - 4298, n=4)
4253 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 22052, n=267, last 2 years)
4754 Points ∼88% +12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4040 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2060 Points ∼43% -49%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3918 Points ∼82% -3%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3933 Points ∼82% -3%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4783 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (4040 - 4120, n=4)
4092 Points ∼86% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=267, last 2 years)
3783 Points ∼79% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3428 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2217 Points ∼62% -35%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3436 Points ∼97% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3556 Points ∼100% +4%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3345 Points ∼94% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3428 - 3588, n=4)
3531 Points ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=258, last 2 years)
2769 Points ∼78% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2603 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1473 Points ∼45% -43%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2559 Points ∼78% -2%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2048 Points ∼62% -21%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3286 Points ∼100% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2549 - 2667, n=4)
2609 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=258, last 2 years)
2804 Points ∼85% +8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
2750 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1592 Points ∼48% -42%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
2713 Points ∼82% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2261 Points ∼69% -18%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3299 Points ∼100% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2750 - 2828, n=4)
2789 Points ∼85% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=258, last 2 years)
2627 Points ∼80% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3394 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2225 Points ∼63% -34%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3382 Points ∼95% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3501 Points ∼99% +3%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
3371 Points ∼95% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3394 - 3657, n=4)
3545 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=258, last 2 years)
2728 Points ∼77% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4076 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2027 Points ∼39% -50%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3917 Points ∼76% -4%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2862 Points ∼56% -30%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5144 Points ∼100% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (4072 - 4189, n=4)
4109 Points ∼80% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=258, last 2 years)
3949 Points ∼77% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3902 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2068 Points ∼45% -47%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3784 Points ∼82% -3%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2983 Points ∼65% -24%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4606 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (2825 - 4044, n=4)
3692 Points ∼80% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=258, last 2 years)
3345 Points ∼73% -14%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
56 fps ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
46 fps ∼47% -18%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
91 fps ∼93% +63%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
49 fps ∼50% -12%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
96 fps ∼98% +71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (56 - 91, n=4)
81.8 fps ∼83% +46%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 322, n=218, last 2 years)
98.2 fps ∼100% +75%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
53 fps ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
40 fps ∼67% -25%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +13%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
43 fps ∼72% -19%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
59 fps ∼98% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (50 - 60, n=4)
55.8 fps ∼93% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=218, last 2 years)
53.2 fps ∼89% 0%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
33 fps ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
24 fps ∼42% -27%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
45 fps ∼79% +36%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
31 fps ∼54% -6%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
55 fps ∼96% +67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (33 - 46, n=4)
42.3 fps ∼74% +28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 180, n=217, last 2 years)
57.2 fps ∼100% +73%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
33 fps ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
23 fps ∼43% -30%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
34 fps ∼64% +3%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
30 fps ∼57% -9%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
53 fps ∼100% +61%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (33 - 59, n=4)
43 fps ∼81% +30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=216, last 2 years)
41.7 fps ∼79% +26%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
26 fps ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
15 fps ∼38% -42%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
33 fps ∼84% +27%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
22 fps ∼56% -15%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
37 fps ∼95% +42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (26 - 33, n=4)
31.3 fps ∼80% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 117, n=214, last 2 years)
39.1 fps ∼100% +50%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
25 fps ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14 fps ∼38% -44%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
28 fps ∼76% +12%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
21 fps ∼57% -16%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
37 fps ∼100% +48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (25 - 56, n=4)
34.8 fps ∼94% +39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=214, last 2 years)
32.6 fps ∼88% +30%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
11 fps ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5.5 fps ∼37% -50%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
11 fps ∼73% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
8.9 fps ∼59% -19%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
15 fps ∼100% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (11 - 21, n=4)
13.5 fps ∼90% +23%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=268, last 2 years)
13.9 fps ∼93% +26%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
7.6 fps ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.5 fps ∼37% -54%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
7.5 fps ∼79% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5.5 fps ∼58% -28%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
8.4 fps ∼88% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (7.4 - 7.6, n=4)
7.48 fps ∼78% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=267, last 2 years)
9.55 fps ∼100% +26%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
18 fps ∼78%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.1 fps ∼40% -49%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼78% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
14 fps ∼61% -22%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
23 fps ∼100% +28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (17 - 33, n=4)
21.3 fps ∼93% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 66, n=267, last 2 years)
20.9 fps ∼91% +16%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
20 fps ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼42% -50%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
20 fps ∼83% 0%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
13 fps ∼54% -35%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
23 fps ∼96% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (19 - 20, n=4)
19.8 fps ∼83% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=267, last 2 years)
24 fps ∼100% +20%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
16 fps ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 fps ∼43% -37%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
19 fps ∼81% +19%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
12 fps ∼51% -25%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
21 fps ∼89% +31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (16 - 19, n=4)
18 fps ∼77% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 75, n=213, last 2 years)
23.5 fps ∼100% +47%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
16 fps ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.6 fps ∼41% -46%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼81% +6%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
11 fps ∼52% -31%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
21 fps ∼100% +31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (16 - 33, n=4)
20.3 fps ∼97% +27%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 60, n=213, last 2 years)
20.5 fps ∼98% +28%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
334292 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
181295 Points ∼54% -46%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
279048 Points ∼83% -17%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
287407 Points ∼86% -14%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
332305 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (291387 - 334292, n=4)
314100 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 727247, n=169, last 2 years)
331865 Points ∼99% -1%
Antutu v9 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
393060 Points ∼84%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
 
393060 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (131776 - 815441, n=11, last 2 years)
469259 Points ∼100% +19%
AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
42629 Points ∼85%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
35458 Points ∼71% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (4989 - 42629, n=3)
17537 Points ∼35% -59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4293 - 228879, n=41, last 2 years)
49907 Points ∼100% +17%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
1365 Points ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
1395 Points ∼96% +2%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
1436 Points ∼98% +5%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
1459 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (1233 - 1468, n=4)
1372 Points ∼94% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=203, last 2 years)
1224 Points ∼84% -10%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3989 Points ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2168 Points ∼42% -46%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3960 Points ∼76% -1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
2525 Points ∼49% -37%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5206 Points ∼100% +31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3947 - 4017, n=4)
3985 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 16996, n=203, last 2 years)
5195 Points ∼100% +30%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
4211 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1605 Points ∼31% -62%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
4041 Points ∼79% -4%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5046 Points ∼99% +20%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
5102 Points ∼100% +21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (4211 - 4769, n=4)
4553 Points ∼89% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=203, last 2 years)
3983 Points ∼78% -5%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
6242 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4738 Points ∼69% -24%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
6542 Points ∼96% +5%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
5997 Points ∼88% -4%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
6774 Points ∼99% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (6242 - 7064, n=4)
6848 Points ∼100% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=203, last 2 years)
6304 Points ∼92% +1%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G, Adreno 619, 6144
3459 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy A51
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
634 Points ∼16% -82%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G, Adreno 618, 6144
3477 Points ∼86% +1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 6144
3237 Points ∼80% -6%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, Adreno 620, 8192
4025 Points ∼100% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
  (3459 - 3708, n=4)
3627 Points ∼90% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 6959, n=203, last 2 years)
3411 Points ∼85% -1%

In the browser benchmarks, the Galaxy A52 5G performs quite well. Here, it often takes the top spot in our comparison chart. The A52 5G provides a smooth web-surfing experience. However, heavy websites can take some time to load completely.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
56.483 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (52.7 - 56.5, n=4)
54.1 Points ∼96% -4%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
52.591 Points ∼93% -7%
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
49.09 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=185, last 2 years)
47.7 Points ∼84% -16%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
27.681 Points ∼49% -51%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (92.3 - 94.5, n=3)
93.3 Points ∼100% +1%
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
92.693 Points ∼99% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
92.34 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
90.555 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=190, last 2 years)
85.4 Points ∼92% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181)
79.988 Points ∼86% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
51.257 Points ∼55% -44%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=162, last 2 years)
49.1 runs/min ∼100% +8%
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
48.5 runs/min ∼99% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (45.4 - 47.6, n=3)
46.4 runs/min ∼95% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
45.44 runs/min ∼93%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
43.9 runs/min ∼89% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
29.1 runs/min ∼59% -36%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
82 Points ∼100%
Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181)
78 Points ∼95% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (75 - 82, n=3)
77.7 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=203, last 2 years)
75.9 Points ∼93% -7%
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
75 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
72 Points ∼88% -12%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
57 Points ∼70% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
19009 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (17730 - 17899, n=4)
17806 Points ∼94% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
17730 Points ∼93%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
17398 Points ∼92% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=213, last 2 years)
16273 Points ∼86% -8%
Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181)
15422 Points ∼81% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
10194 Points ∼54% -43%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=215, last 2 years)
4424 ms * ∼100% -85%
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79)
4375.1 ms * ∼99% -83%
Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181)
2941.1 ms * ∼66% -23%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85)
2672.8 ms * ∼60% -12%
Google Pixel 4a 5G (Chrome 86.0.4240.110)
2560.6 ms * ∼58% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G (2393 - 2665, n=4)
2537 ms * ∼57% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89)
2393.3 ms * ∼54%

* ... smaller is better

The Samsung smartphone features fast UFS 2.1 storage. When it comes to read rates, it is only beaten by the Find X3 Lite

Samsung Galaxy A52 5GSamsung Galaxy A51Xiaomi Poco X3 NFCGoogle Pixel 4a 5GOppo Find X3 LiteAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-47%
-44%
-13%
1%
-29%
-32%
Random Write 4KB
179.23
104.4
-42%
112.55
-37%
186.74
4%
166.03
-7%
116 (18.2 - 290, n=78)
-35%
108 (4.78 - 319, n=274, last 2 years)
-40%
Random Read 4KB
176.05
110.8
-37%
123.43
-30%
168.63
-4%
194.66
11%
144 (92.6 - 239, n=78)
-18%
126 (13.5 - 325, n=274, last 2 years)
-28%
Sequential Write 256KB
484.62
184.9
-62%
173.09
-64%
228.73
-53%
466.19
-4%
257 (182 - 511, n=78)
-47%
301 (11.9 - 1321, n=274, last 2 years)
-38%
Sequential Read 256KB
926.67
496.1
-46%
505.96
-45%
945.02
2%
953.46
3%
776 (427 - 999, n=78)
-16%
711 (41.9 - 2037, n=274, last 2 years)
-23%

Gaming - Perfect for casual gamers

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G features a mid-range GPU (Adreno 619) and a 120-Hz display. Unfortunately, for gamers, the GPU in the A52 5G can hit 120 FPS only in older titles.

In demanding games, users will have to reduce graphics settings to achieve stable frame rates. In PUBG Mobile with the HD preset, the A52 5G was able to maintain 30 FPS most of the time during our run of gameplay.

Both the touchscreen and the stereo speakers worked well during our gaming sessions. We use Gamebench to record frame rates.

PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
0510152025302931303129303030303030303129303030303030303030303030303030303030303031293130293029313030303031293030303030303030303031293030303030293129303030303030303030303030303031302931302930303030303031293030303030303031293030293029313031293030303030303031293030303030303030303030303030303030303030312931302930293130303030312930303030303030303030312930303030302931293030303030303030303030303030313029313029303030303030312930303030303030312930302930313029312930293030302929303030303029303030303030303030302930293030303030303030303030303030303030303029312930303030303030283030303030303030303030303030303030303030293030313029303031293030293130303029303030303030303030303030303030303030303030293030303030303030303030303030303030303030303030302931293130283030302930303030303030293129303031293030303129303030Tooltip
; Asphalt 9: Legends; 2.8.4a: Ø30 (29-31)
; PUBG Mobile; 1.3.0: Ø29.9 (28-31)

Emissions - Stereo speakers in the Samsung smartphone

Temperature

T-Rex
T-Rex
Manhattan
Manhattan

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G does not get hot. The surface temperatures peak at 36.3 °C (97.34 °F).

In the stress test with 3DMark Wild Life, the Android smartphone did not throttle. However, in the battery test with GFXBench, the A52 5G started to throttle down even in the less demanding T-Rex section (OpenGL ES 2.0). Here, the performance fell by 19% in the 22nd and all subsequent benchmark passes. This is not a big deal, though, since the frame rate never dropped below 50 FPS. In the Manhattan section (OpenGL ES 3.1), the drop in performance occurred earlier and was harder (up to 38%), but then performance returned to its normal level. 

3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
Adreno 619, SD 750G 5G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.7 (1097min - 1100max) % ∼100%
Oppo Find X3 Lite
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
99.5 (1673min - 1681max) % ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
Adreno 618, SD 732G, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
96.6 (807min - 835max) % ∼97% -3%
Google Pixel 4a 5G
Adreno 620, SD 765G, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
93 % ∼93% -7%
Max. Load
 34.6 °C
94 F
35 °C
95 F
32.4 °C
90 F
 
 34.3 °C
94 F
34.9 °C
95 F
32.1 °C
90 F
 
 34.2 °C
94 F
33.3 °C
92 F
32 °C
90 F
 
Maximum: 35 °C = 95 F
Average: 33.6 °C = 92 F
31.5 °C
89 F
33.8 °C
93 F
35 °C
95 F
31 °C
88 F
33.4 °C
92 F
36.3 °C
97 F
30 °C
86 F
33 °C
91 F
33.8 °C
93 F
Maximum: 36.3 °C = 97 F
Average: 33.1 °C = 92 F
Power Supply (max.)  29.2 °C = 85 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Speakers

The Galaxy A52 can steam audio to two devices over Bluetooth
The Galaxy A52 can steam audio to two devices over Bluetooth

The stereo speakers offer a decent volume and satisfactory sound quality. However, the bass is almost completely missing and the highs sound tinny. All in all, the speakers are good enough for daily use.

You can connect a set of headphones via the 3.5-mm audio jack or the USB-C port. The former also serves as an antenna for the radio tuner and has a superb signal-to-noise ratio of 109.31 dBFS.

The A52 5G supports the following Bluetooth codecs: SBC, AAC, aptX, and LDAC. The Galaxy A52 5G also offers a Music Share feature, which allows users to steam the same song to two devices simultaneously over Bluetooth. This can only be done using SBC codec. 

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.642.42534.734.43124.726.64023.521.65042.433.56328.425.58023.925.910020.425.112515.331.61602049.820014.64825013.153.63151461.14001160.350010.363.16301163.780010.267.2100010.372.2125010.874.6160010.977.2200011.680.2250012.278.9315012.277.5400012.581500013.477.5630013.177.180001574.21000013.873.71250014.166.9160001659.4SPL24.789N0.673.6median 13.1median 67.2Delta211.435.939.22932.225.131.231.431.842.436.332.430.12631.921.537.81534.721.342.714.449.41456.813.560.111.963.412.267.312.666.413.473.212.276.812.377.212.778.213.580.21382.112.880.513.775.913.576.213.875.614.779.513.680.314.271.7155825.790.10.781.5median 13.5median 73.2110.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A52 5GOppo Find X3 Lite
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 25% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Oppo Find X3 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life - Improved, but not the best

Energy Consumption

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G has a similar power draw to other smartphones with the same SoC. Only Google’s smartphone is more efficient.

The 4500-mAh battery takes 1h and 36m to fully charge with the included 15-W charger. The A52 5G also supports 25-W charging. The included charger draws only 0.0011 W from the power socket.

The A52 5G does not support wireless charging. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.92 / 1.78 / 1.81 Watt
Load midlight 3.86 / 6.14 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A51
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
5160 mAh
Google Pixel 4a 5G
3885 mAh
Oppo Find X3 Lite
4300 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G 5G
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
-28%
31%
0%
-24%
-11%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
0.9
2%
0.93
-1%
0.7
24%
0.92
-0%
1.08 (0.5 - 1.6, n=4)
-17%
0.924 (0.37 - 2.3, n=235, last 2 years)
-0%
Idle Average *
1.78
1.7
4%
2.47
-39%
0.96
46%
1.97
-11%
1.845 (1.5 - 2.1, n=4)
-4%
1.848 (0.82 - 3.94, n=235, last 2 years)
-4%
Idle Maximum *
1.81
1.8
1%
2.51
-39%
0.98
46%
1.98
-9%
2.16 (1.81 - 2.6, n=4)
-19%
2.13 (0.85 - 4.2, n=235, last 2 years)
-18%
Load Average *
3.86
5.2
-35%
5.62
-46%
2.95
24%
3.33
14%
5.84 (3.86 - 7.1, n=4)
-51%
4.44 (2.1 - 8.4, n=235, last 2 years)
-15%
Load Maximum *
6.14
6.6
-7%
6.93
-13%
5.2
15%
5.77
6%
7.99 (6.14 - 9.5, n=4)
-30%
7.21 (3.16 - 12.3, n=235, last 2 years)
-17%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G did better than its predecessor in most of our battery tests, likely because it has a bigger battery.

Nevertheless, the A52 5G could not keep up with the rest of the competition in our Wi-Fi test, in which we limit the brightness to 150 cd/m² to make comparison more equal. All in all, the Samsung smartphone offers decent battery life.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
31h 57min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 89)
11h 50min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
17h 32min
Load (maximum brightness)
5h 24min
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A51
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
5160 mAh
Google Pixel 4a 5G
3885 mAh
Oppo Find X3 Lite
4300 mAh
Battery Runtime
-11%
21%
17%
17%
Reader / Idle
1917
1689
-12%
2427
27%
2459
28%
H.264
1052
846
-20%
1188
13%
1337
27%
WiFi v1.3
710
698
-2%
1116
57%
768
8%
834
17%
Load
324
289
-11%
280
-14%
341
5%

Pros

+ bright 120-Hz OLED screen
+ high level of system performance
+ expandable storage
+ stable Wi-Fi and 5G
+ IP67 certification

Cons

- camera system with no optical zoom
- fewer accessories in the box
- mediocre GNSS performance

Verdict - The Galaxy A52 5G is an update without compromises

Review of the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G. Device provided courtesy of: Samsung Germany.
Review of the Samsung Galaxy A52 5G. Device provided courtesy of: Samsung Germany.

The Galaxy A52 5G is another device in the Galaxy A series. It comes with major improvements, such as an IP certification, which make the Galaxy smartphone more competitive in this price range. The display has also been significantly improved. Now it is brighter, more colour-accurate and supports HDR10+.

The Samsung Galaxy A52 5G lives up to the successes of its predecessors. 

The bigger battery results in longer battery runtimes. However, it also made the smartphone a little thicker. The new main 64-MP camera still needs some work. Nevertheless, it is still more than good enough for taking casual photographs. It is a pity, though, that the A52 5G does not feature the same camera system as the Galaxy A72, because a telephoto lens is a lot more useful than a depth sensor. 

In terms of geolocation, the Galaxy A52 did not do particularly well. In this price range, a dual-band GNSS module would not hurt.

Those who are looking for an upper mid-range smartphone will be satisfied with the Galaxy A52 5G, even though it does not have a thriving ecosystem of accessories yet. 

Price and Availability

Currently, the Galaxy A52 5G is available at Best Buy for $449.

Samsung Galaxy A52 5G - 04/20/2021 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
88%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
51 / 70 → 72%
Weight
89%
Battery
90%
Display
89%
Games Performance
30 / 64 → 46%
Application Performance
73 / 86 → 85%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
72 / 90 → 80%
Camera
66%
Average
77%
83%
Smartphone - Weighted Average