Samsung Galaxy A53 5G smartphone review: Galaxy phone with bright AMOLED display
Every year, one of the most popular Samsung Galaxy phones stems from the A5x series. So it's not surprising for Samsung to only evolve the series through cautious modifications to each new model in order to avoid putting off fans. Once again this year, the Galaxy A53 5G is a phone that doesn't present any major changes. Maybe apart from the fact that there's no longer a 4G model this year.
But can the manufacturer keep up with the competition? By now, rivals also offer high-end processors in the upper mid-range price segment, such as in the Motorola Moto G200 5G, or fast Wi-Fi 6, like in the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE.
Possible contenders in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.4 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2022 | Samsung Galaxy A53 Exynos 1280, Mali-G68 MP4 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.1 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2021 | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.4 % v7 (old) | 12 / 2021 | Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 158 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.3 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2022 | Motorola Moto G200 5G SD 888+ 5G, Adreno 660 | 202 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.80" | 2460x1080 | |
| 83.4 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2021 | Sony Xperia 10 III SD 690 5G, Adreno 619L | 169 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.00" | 2520x1080 |
Case – Galaxy phone with matte plastic
The case is already very reminiscent of the predecessors, the Samsung Galaxy A52 and Galaxy A52s: A plastic chassis with a prominent camera module, in which the lenses are arranged in the same way as in the previous generation.
While the back is still matte, the four color options are now white, black, light blue, and a bright peach orange, which is also the color of our review sample. The glossy frame has been extended a bit further over the edges of the front and back, creating a somewhat more uniform and high-quality impression in terms of looks.
Furthermore, the front is protected by Gorilla Glass 5, and the device's stability hardly leaves anything to be desired. The smartphone features an IP67 certification, which means that the device is well protected against dust and water penetration.
Connectivity – No longer with a 3.5 mm audio jack
Compared to the predecessor, nothing has changed in terms of the smartphone's storage variants and prices:
- Samsung Galaxy A53 5G – 128 GB storage / 6 GB RAM: 449 Euros (~$478)
- Samsung Galaxy A53 5G – 256 GB storage / 8 GB RAM: 509 Euros (~$542)
Users of traditional wired headphones will probably complain about the removal of the 3.5 mm audio jack: You can only use the USB-C port of the Galaxy A53 as a headphone connection, if necessary with an adapter. With Bluetooth 5.1, you now get a slightly more up-to-date version of the wireless communication standard, and NFC is once again on board.
microSD card reader
We measure the data throughput that the card reader offers with our reference microSD card, the Angelbird V60: The Samsung Galaxy A53 can only score points when it comes to write speeds here. Transfer rates fluctuate considerably when reading data, and only low speeds are achieved in our copy test.
It's a bit annoying that you can only use either two SIM cards at the same time or one microSD card and one SIM card, just like with the predecessor.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Software – Galaxy phone with long-term updates
Android 12 is now preinstalled out of the box, namely Samsung's One UI 4.1, which is based on it. Samsung's software interface is in fact a pretty comprehensive customization compared to vanilla Android, but users of other phones will still be able to adjust well after a short familiarization period. That's also due to the fact that you have many options to customize the interface and the operation.
We received an update to the latest security patches from May 2022 during our review, which are completely up to date at the time of writing.
Praiseworthy: Although for a long time Samsung was reluctant to make any concrete statements about how long the phones would receive updates for, there have been good news since the Galaxy S22's Unpacked event. Select phones, including the Galaxy A53 5G, will receive four major updates and five years of software support. Now it's Samsung the one that has set a standard for other providers.
Communication and GNSS – Moderately fast Wi-Fi
The Galaxy A53 is only available as a 5G version. The number of 5G and 4G frequencies is solid, but particularly in the LTE range, there might be too few frequencies available to use the local network when traveling abroad. In other words, the Galaxy phone isn't really a world phone.
We repeatedly checked the phone's reception in random samples during our test period. We observed that the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G performed a bit worse than some high-end phones: Although the 4G network reception was usually sufficient, it was always a bit weaker than that of other phones, both indoors and outdoors.
In terms of Wi-Fi, the manufacturer has equipped the smartphone with Wi-Fi 5 as the fastest standard. With the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE and the Motorola Moto G200 5G you can definitely find smartphones in this price range that already support Wi-Fi 6, allowing them to achieve much higher speeds than our review sample. The other Wi-Fi 5 phones in the comparison field also provide faster Wi-Fi than the Galaxy A53.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (34.8 - 1875, n=189, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (40.5 - 1810, n=191, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
Outdoors, a short moment is needed, but then our location is determined with an accuracy of a good four meters. Numerous satellite networks are used for positioning, including GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo.
In order to be able to give a realistic assessment of the phone's tracking accuracy, we go for a bike ride with the Galaxy A53 and the Garmin Venu 2 as a comparison device. Our review sample is actually a bit more accurate than the Garmin smartwatch in some places, so you can confidently use the phone for navigation purposes.
Telephone and call quality – Louder, please!
Samsung's phone app is a bit different from the Google version found on many other phones. Nonetheless, it's similar in terms of the basic layout and features: A keypad for dialing, a list of recent calls, and an overview of contacts.
Call quality is acceptable, and the internal earpiece can get quite loud, but this causes a lot of the conversation to become audible to the surroundings. In addition, sound distorts at high volumes, and there's a noticeable droning. Our voice doesn't reach the person on the other end very clearly, especially when we speak more quietly. You can also communicate well via the speaker and the hands-free microphone. Quality isn't perfect here either, and quiet voices in particular get lost quickly.
Cameras – The same as before
Compared to the Samsung Galaxy A52s, there are no differences in terms of the camera setup on paper: Four camera lenses continue to be built-in at the back, three of which can actually take photos.
The main camera is optically stabilized and typically uses its 64-pixel resolution to combine every four pixels into one light-sensitive, large pixel, resulting in 16-megapixel photos.
In our opinion, the image quality remains unchanged compared to the predecessor: The camera is good at HDR shots, but details quickly become washed out, and colors are very vivid in some cases. When looking at the sky in the surroundings picture, it's noticeable that areas aren't as pixelated in detail as in cheaper phones. The smartphone is quite good at taking low-light pictures; only in very dark areas could one wish for a bit more brightening.
The ultra wide-angle camera keeps distorting quite badly at the corners, and you should avoid enlarging the pictures too much, but it's still suitable for snapshots. Unfortunately, you still can't zoom between the main camera and the ultra wide-angle lens, since you can only toggle between them.
The video options also remain limited to a maximum of 30 fps at 4K and up to 60 frames per second at Full HD. When it comes to shooting videos, the smooth autofocus and the fast brightness adjustment continue to be highlights worth mentioning.
The front-facing camera also uses pixel-binning to increase light sensitivity, so it only takes pictures of 32 megapixels in a special mode. In most cases, 8-megapixel pictures are taken. The quality is sufficient for social media or mobile phone use, but you can't enlarge the images too much, since details are only displayed in a blurry way.
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Main camera - FlowersMain camera - SurroundingsMain camera - Low lightWide-angle camera
In the lab under good lighting conditions, the phone's camera only shows a slight loss of sharpness towards the edges. However, text isn't displayed with absolutely sharp edges, while color transitions are quite smooth and hardly have any artifacts on the other hand.
The camera still does a decent job at an illumination of only 1 lux. The image content is still recognizable, and text is still easy to read as long as there's enough contrast against the background color.
Accessories and warranty – Chargers are a thing of the past
Users who buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G will get a very small box without an included charger. This is a trend since many consumers already have a USB charger at home anyway; plus, it saves transportation and manufacturing costs while also protecting the environment. Therefore, only a USB cable and a SIM tool are found in the package.
Samsung charges almost $35 for a suitable charger, which is surprising in view of the relatively low 25-watt charging capacity. However, our third-party chargers also work seamlessly with the phone.
Samsung offers a 24-month warranty for its smartphones. Even afterwards, you can get clear information for many repairs in advance thanks to their fixed prices.
Input devices and handling – 120 Hz for a smooth navigation
Thanks to the 120 Hz display, the device feels very smooth to use. The touchscreen also allows fingers to glide well. However, you'll have to live with occasional stutters in the system software, especially when more complex processes are running in the background.
The fingerprint sensor is located under the screen. It recognizes the finger placed quite reliably, but it takes a bit for the screen to actually unlock. Face recognition is also available for the unlocking process, but it's not that secure due to the lack of an infrared sensor.
Display – Brighter display in the Galaxy A53
The AMOLED display has been a highlight of Samsung's higher-end devices for a long time now, and the A53 also features a self-illuminating display with a refresh rate of 120 Hz. The Full HD resolution is absolutely standard for the class, and it's usually completely sufficient to display a sharp image.
The screen can get quite bright at up to 761 cd/m² when the brightness sensor is fully illuminated, but the average brightness is still slightly lower than that of the Samsung Galaxy A52s predecessor's display. The display can fully deactivate individual pixels, which theoretically results in a color that is completely black; this in turn leads to vibrant colors and deep blacks.
We detect PWM at 250 Hz, and we couldn't find a DC dimming mode that is easy on the eyes in the settings.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 718 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.62 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.156
| Samsung Galaxy A53 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Motorola Moto G200 5G IPS LCD, 2460x1080, 6.8" | Sony Xperia 10 III OLED, 2520x1080, 6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -11% | 28% | -51% | 13% | |
| Brightness middle | 718 | 736 3% | 797 11% | 512 -29% | 536 -25% |
| Brightness | 730 | 751 3% | 800 10% | 488 -33% | 540 -26% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 96 4% | 97 5% | 87 -5% | 97 5% |
| Black Level * | 0.36 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.62 | 2.18 -35% | 0.9 44% | 3.42 -111% | 1.1 32% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.21 | 5.69 -35% | 2 52% | 5.9 -40% | 1.9 55% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2 | 2.1 -5% | 1.1 45% | 3.7 -85% | 1.3 35% |
| Gamma | 2.156 102% | 2.27 97% | 2.26 97% | 7154 0% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 6545 99% | 6563 99% | 6397 102% | 1.944 334362% | 6494 100% |
| Contrast | 1422 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Series of measurements with fixed zoom level and different brightness settings
Color accuracy is very good, especially when you select the "Natural" preset for color reproduction. In this case, only red tones are slightly exaggerated, but even here, the color deviation should hardly be noticeable to the naked eye.
We detected a very subtle shift towards green when looking at the grayscale, but the reproduction is overall very accurate here as well.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 22 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Thanks to the AMOLED display, the screen content is very easy to recognize from all viewing angles, and it barely becomes distorted.
The smartphone can be used outdoors without any issues; the high display brightness is helpful here. In direct sunlight, however, you should preferably move to a place in the shade because of the reflections on the screen.
Performance – Exynos once again
Samsung's in-house Exynos 1280 SoC powers the Galaxy A53. It uses 2 fast and 6 power-saving cores, but its performance isn't entirely compelling in comparison with similarly priced smartphones: It's at the lower end of the comparison field in almost every performance benchmark, and it only achieves a very low score in the AImark test for AI processing.
| CrossMark - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (187 - 2044, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (579 - 601, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| AImark - Score v2.x | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (4714 - 4926, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
The Mali G68 MP4 serves as the GPU, which is also rather unimpressive in a smartphone of this price range.
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
Users shouldn't look forward to a completely smooth experience when surfing the web, either. Long loading times, especially for pictures, are a daily occurrence. Although the Galaxy A53 5G will be sufficient for everyday use, there are phones in this price range with significantly faster browsing speeds.
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=164, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (63.5 - 102.3, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=150, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (48 - 90.6, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chome 93) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chome 101) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (69 - 187, n=4) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=205, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (24159 - 32736, n=5) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III (Chrome 91) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 (Chrome 101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G (Chrome 93) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=163, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1280 (1244 - 1920, n=5) | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G (Chrome97) | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE (Chrome 96) | |
* ... smaller is better
The Galaxy A53's UFS storage can barely keep up with that in comparable devices in terms of speed. The storage solution proves to be quite sluggish when reading data in particular, so you have to deal with longer loading times and occasional delays.
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | Motorola Moto G200 5G | Sony Xperia 10 III | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 13% | 25% | 85% | 6% | -15% | 132% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 510.1 | 951 86% | 944 85% | 1898 272% | 840 65% | 760 ? 49% | 1859 ? 264% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 486.7 | 486.5 0% | 679 40% | 712 46% | 400.8 -18% | 297 ? -39% | 1445 ? 197% |
| Random Read 4KB | 229.9 | 168.2 -27% | 208.7 -9% | 155.9 -32% | 172.3 -25% | 152.9 ? -33% | 278 ? 21% |
| Random Write 4KB | 210.8 | 192.5 -9% | 178.8 -15% | 322.5 53% | 210.7 0% | 131.6 ? -38% | 310 ? 47% |
Games – Even 100 fps is possible at times
The Galaxy A53 can definitely exploit its strengths, namely the fast display, when playing simpler games like Armajet: Over 100 fps is possible here for a short time, but about 90 frames per second is the stable rate, which is still absolutely sufficient for smooth gaming. We use the software from GameBench to measure frame rates.
However, as soon as the games become a bit more demanding, such as in the PUBG Mobile battle royale game, the potential frame rates drop drastically, and even 30 fps can only be achieved somewhat reliably at very low details. Nevertheless, the controls using the position sensor and touchscreen work reliably at all times.
The handset is sufficient for users who only want to play simple games. On the other hand, gamers with higher ambitions will have to look elsewhere.
Emissions – Good stereo speakers from Samsung
Temperature
The smartphone can certainly heat up significantly under load: We measure up to 44.2 °C (~112 °F) at the front as well as the back. This is noticeable, but not problematic. But you might have issues if you use your smartphone frequently in very warm environments.
Our long-term benchmarks with 3DMark show no or only very minor performance losses after prolonged load.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.1 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
3DMark Wild Life stress test
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G | |
| Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE | |
| Sony Xperia 10 III | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 | |
| Motorola Moto G200 5G | |
Speakers
The Samsung phone comes with good stereo speakers that don't crackle or distort even at high volumes. Nevertheless, they can get quite loud overall, which means that you can still fill slightly larger rooms with sound.
Connecting headphones or speakers works via the USB-C port or Bluetooth 5.1. The latter is puzzling, since the SoC actually supports Bluetooth 5.2 as well. The small number of available audio codecs for wireless sound transmission is also a limitation: SBC, AAC, aptX, LDAC, and Samsung's in-house Scalable Codec are on board, but no aptX HD or Adaptive.
Samsung Galaxy A53 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Sony Xperia 10 III audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 35.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery life – More powerful battery on board
Energy consumption
The phone doesn't require an excessive amount of energy, but Sony has a much better grip on energy management among the comparison devices. It should also be considered that the Galaxy A53 offers less processing power, so the ratio between performance and energy consumption is rather mediocre.
| Off / Standby |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Idle |  0.9 / 1.3 / 1.6 Watt |
| Load |
5.7 / 7.3 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A53 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE 4250 mAh | Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 III 4500 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 1280 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -1% | -3% | 6% | 46% | -2% | -12% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 1.2 -33% | 0.78 13% | 0.6 33% | 0.44 51% | 0.996 ? -11% | 0.885 ? 2% |
| Idle Average * | 1.3 | 1.4 -8% | 1.97 -52% | 0.9 31% | 0.65 50% | 1.374 ? -6% | 1.451 ? -12% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.6 | 1.7 -6% | 1.99 -24% | 1.5 6% | 0.69 57% | 1.664 ? -4% | 1.608 ? -1% |
| Load Average * | 5.7 | 3.6 37% | 3.23 43% | 7 -23% | 2.99 48% | 4.54 ? 20% | 6.55 ? -15% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.3 | 6.9 5% | 7.08 3% | 8.4 -15% | 5.42 26% | 7.78 ? -7% | 9.92 ? -36% |
* ... smaller is better
Energy consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Energy consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
Battery life
The Galaxy A53's 5,000 mAh battery makes battery runtimes much longer compared to the predecessor with a weaker battery: We register 14:46 hours in the Wi-Fi test. This is no record, but it's still sufficient for 1-2 workdays, depending on the phone's load.
The Samsung phone also cuts a fine figure overall; you have to deal with considerably less endurance with some of the comparison phones.
The charging technology of only 25 watts is a bit slow nowadays. Other phones in this price range charge in one hour, while it takes at least 1:30 hours with the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G.
| Samsung Galaxy A53 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE 4250 mAh | Motorola Moto G200 5G 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 III 4500 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -5% | -13% | 9% | 26% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2431 | 1897 -22% | 1648 -32% | 2695 11% | 2272 -7% |
| H.264 | 1146 | 1109 -3% | 1215 6% | 1501 31% | 1411 23% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 886 | 721 -19% | 705 -20% | 905 2% | 809 -9% |
| Load | 246 | 309 26% | 233 -5% | 229 -7% | 479 95% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict – Not everything has been improved
Samsung has once again built a good mid-range phone that will certainly find its audience. But again, it's also the case that the manufacturer isn't doing itself any favors with its own SoCs: The performance of the Exynos 1280 is definitely too low for this price range, which is also reflected in the strong price drop shortly after its release. In addition, there's the slow storage and the Wi-Fi module, which isn't exactly fast.
At 120 Hz, the bright and very responsive AMOLED display is certainly one of the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G's highlights. The camera is good at lighting dark environments, and the battery runtimes are good, but in view of the strong competition, Samsung should also consider a faster charging technology for lower-priced phones.
Samsung positions its Galaxy A53 5G well with its great AMOLED display, but the SoC's low level of performance is bothersome.
Users who don't care that much about system performance and who primarily want a great display will get a decent mid-range phone with the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G, especially at the already significantly reduced prices.
Users who want the best features for as little money as possible should rather take a look at the Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE. Motorola also offers a great phone with an interesting desktop mode with the Moto G200 5G.
Price and availability
At the time of writing, you can find the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G on Amazon with 128 GB of storage and 6 GB of RAM for $449.99. It's also available in Best Buy's online store for this same price.
Samsung Galaxy A53
- 08/30/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
