Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) Smartphone Review

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, T. Hinum (translated by Katherine Bodner), 11/23/2018

All good things come in threes. According to our tests, the highlight of the Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) is not its triple camera. It is another hardware element that beats every other mid-range smartphone.

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

Samsung has gone down a new path with its own A series and is experimenting with the number of camera modules on the back of the device. With the Galaxy A7 (2018), users will have access to a wide-angle sensor, a powerful 24-MP main sensor with an aperture of f/1.7 and an additional 5-MP lens that enables the regulation of the depth of field and adjustment of bokeh effects at the time of recording. 

Samsung has chosen an OLED panel for its A7 (2018). The 6-inch Super AMOLED panel in the Galaxy A7 (2018) has a native resolution of 2220x1080 pixels. It is powered by Samsung's own mid-range SoC Exynos 7885, which is equipped with either 4 or 6 GB of RAM. The internal storage can have a capacity of either 64 or 128 GB. However, only the 4/64 GB version is available at the time of writing. This was released at the end of September 2018 and is currently available for around £250 in the UK. Please note that the Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) is not available for purchase in the US at the time of writing.

The mid-range smartphone segment is very well populated and the number of competitors is accordingly high. We have chosen the following smartphones as our comparison devices for this review: the Honor 8X, the Nokia 7 Plus, the Xiaomi Pocophone F1, the BQ Aquaris X2 and the Sony Xperia XA2. The price-to-performance champion Xiaomi Mi 6X is a little cheaper than the Samsung smartphone and is currently available for £200. We even found a competitor from within Samsung's Galaxy A series: the A8 (2018).

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Galaxy Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6 inch 18.5:9, 2220 x 1080 pixel 411 PPI, capacitive multi-touchscreen, Super AMOLED, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio jack, Card Reader: storage expansion: microSD (up to 512 GB), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, Miracast, VoLTE, WiFi-Calling, LED, OTG
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM band: GSM 850 MHz, GSM 900 MHz, DCS 1800 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz; UMTS band: B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B5 (850), B8 (900); LTE band: B1 (2100), B3 (1800), B5 (850), B7 (2600), B8 (900), B20 (800), 4G TDD LTE B38 (2600), B40 (2300), B41 (2500), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.5 x 159.8 x 76.8 ( = 0.3 x 6.29 x 3.02 in)
Battery
3300 mAh, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 19 h
Operating System
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 24 MPix 24-MP main camera with an aperture of f/1.7, an 8-MP sensor with a 120-degree ultra-wide angle and f/2.4 as well as a 5-MP unit with f/2.2; video resolution: Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels) @30fps
Secondary Camera: 24 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: on-screen keyboard, modular power supply, USB cable, Samsung Experience UI, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value head: 0.335 W/Kg SAR value body: 1.425 W/Kg , fanless
Weight
168 g ( = 5.93 oz / 0.37 pounds), Power Supply: 61 g ( = 2.15 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
350 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case - Galaxy A7 (2018) with a plastic frame

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

The front of the Galaxy A7 (2018) consists of a scratch-resistant 2.5D display that is slightly curved and smoothly merges into the plastic frame. The OLED panel is surrounded by a wide frame on every side - there is no display notch. The screen-to-body ratio of only about 74% is not particularly efficient compared to the Honor 8X.

The phone weighs 168 grams and is only 7.5 mm high. It is nice to hold despite its relatively large dimensions (150x77 mm). The fingerprint reader is integrated into the power button placed on the side and is comfortable to use. The physical buttons are easily distinguished by feel thanks to different sizes and surfaces. The volume rocker is very well made and sits tight in the case with a well-defined pressure point. However, unlike the power button, the volume rocker is positioned a little too far up on the phone and is hard to reach. Also, the pressure point of the power button is rather spongy.

The back of the Galaxy A7 (2018) is also covered in slightly curved glass that shows up fingerprints quickly - particularly the black version that we tested. The phone is available in black, blue and gold. The triple camera on the back is not flush with the case, which makes the smartphone wobble when using it on a flat surface.

The stability of the mid-range smartphone is very good and even strong pressure hardly has an effect on the device. The Galaxy A7 (2018) cannot be warped, even with a lot of force. Overall, the case does not appear cheap despite having a plastic frame, although the Honor 8X with its metal frame does feel a little more valuable.

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 vs Honor 8X
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

Size Comparison

Connectivity - Samsung phone with 3.5-mm audio jack

The Galaxy A7 (2018) is equipped with a fingerprint reader, a status LED and an always-on function of the display for showing notifications. In addition, users can connect headphones via the 3.5-mm audio jack. Display content can be transferred wirelessly to an external monitor using Miracast. This worked well during our test with an Android TV from Sony.

Users of the Samsung smartphone will have to do without the modern USB Type-C port. The 3300-mAh battery is recharged using the old microUSB port on the bottom of the device. The port supports USB OTG for connecting external keyboards or USB sticks, though the speed is limited to the USB 2.0 standard.

The internal eMMC storage of our test unit has a capacity of 64 GB, although users only have 52 GB available for personal use after the initial setup. The dual-SIM smartphone's storage can be expanded using a microSD card (up to 512 GB). However, the SD card cannot be formatted as internal storage. The device supports the file system exFAT.

Right side
Right side
Top
Top
Left side
Left side
Bottom
Bottom

Software - Experience UI 9.0

Unlike with Android One or Pixel devices, the Galaxy A7 (2018) does not use Stock Android. The mid-range smartphone is equipped with Google's operating system Android 8.0 Oreo and the manufacturer's own user interface, Experience UI. The smartphone will probably receive an update to Android 9.0 Pie. However, this upgrade has not yet been officially announced. The security patches of our test unit were last updated in September 2018.  

The Samsung user interface Experience UI 9.0 expands the Android software with optical modifications and some additional functions. The "Dual Messenger", for example, enables users to use two different accounts within one application. In addition, Samsung's virtual assistant Bixby can offer personalized information as well as timed and geographically bound reminders.

Compared to Stock Android, the device comes with a high amount of preinstalled apps. These third-party apps (bloatware) can only be deactivated, not uninstalled.

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

Communication and GPS - Samsung phone with NFC

Samsung has equipped our test unit with Bluetooth 5.0 and an NFC chip for near-field communication, which enables users to use the smartphone for paying via Google Pay. 

The integrated Wi-Fi module in the Galaxy A7 (2018) supports the IEE 802.11 standards a/b/g/n/ac and uses both the 2.4 and 5-GHz band. The reception of the Wi-Fi module is good during everyday use and the signal remains stable. We measured an attenuation of -37 dBm at close proximity to the router (Telekom Speedport, W921V).  

When connected to our reference router Linksys EA8500, our test unit reached good transfer rates of 279 Mb/s and 320 Mb/s. This means the Galaxy A7 (2018) can keep up with the best comparison devices in our test. Only the Pocophone F1 is in its own league.

The Samsung smartphone connects to mobile Internet with LTE category 6 and reaches download speeds of up to 300 Mb/s. The Galaxy A7 (2018) only supports seven LTE frequencies as well as quad-band GSM and quad-band UMTS.  

The dual-SIM device offers space for two nano-SIM cards. Neither of the card slots is limited in its frequencies. The microSD slot is not connected to the SIM slots and can therefore be used even when using two SIM cards.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
675 (min: 630, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100% +142%
Sony Xperia XA2
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
309 MBit/s ∼46% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 32 GB eMMC Flash
280 MBit/s ∼41% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash
279 (min: 265, max: 284) MBit/s ∼41%
BQ Aquaris X2
Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash
275 MBit/s ∼41% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
247 MBit/s ∼37% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
246 MBit/s ∼36% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=303)
210 MBit/s ∼31% -25%
Honor 8X
Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash
207 (min: 162, max: 243) MBit/s ∼31% -26%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
647 (min: 598, max: 665) MBit/s ∼100% +102%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
333 MBit/s ∼51% +4%
BQ Aquaris X2
Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash
322 (min: 275) MBit/s ∼50% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash
320 (min: 164, max: 362) MBit/s ∼49%
Nokia 7 Plus
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
307 MBit/s ∼47% -4%
Sony Xperia XA2
Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash
289 MBit/s ∼45% -10%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 32 GB eMMC Flash
269 MBit/s ∼42% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=303)
205 MBit/s ∼32% -36%
Honor 8X
Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash
182 (min: 136, max: 231) MBit/s ∼28% -43%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø278 (265-284)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø320 (164-362)
GPS signal indoors
GPS signal indoors
GPS signal outdoors
GPS signal outdoors

The device uses the satellite systems GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou and the satellite-based augmentation system SBAS. The device is quick to position us within five meters outdoors. Even indoors the Galaxy A7 (2018) manages to locate us quite quickly, although the precision drops to 13 meters here.

In order to test the precision of our test unit in practice, we take it on a bike ride together with the professional bike navigation system Garmin Edge 500. After a 9-km trip, the difference between the route tracked by our affordable mid-range smartphone and the professional navigator is only 70 meters.

The deviations from our route as tracked by the Galaxy A7 (2018) are minimal, which means that the mid-range smartphone is definitely suitable for use as a navigator when driving.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

Telephone and Voice Quality - VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

The voice quality of the mid-range smartphone is very good as tested in the German Vodafone network. We did not encounter any dropouts or reception issues during our test period. Voices are reproduced clearly and our call partner also understood us very well. The smartphone supports modern standards such as VoLTE and Wi-Fi Calling.

The telephone app offers the usual Android features such as favorites, a call list and integrated contacts. The number pad allows you to input phone numbers manually.

Cameras - Samsung smartphone with triple camera

Picture taken with front camera
Picture taken with front camera

 The main camera on the back of the Galaxy A7 (2018) has a resolution of 5664x4248 pixels and a 4:3 format. A dual LED supports the camera in bad lighting. While the 24-MP camera takes photos at a 77 ° standard angle, the 8-MP ultra-wide-angle lens records at an angle of 120 °, which corresponds to our natural field of vision. The third lens is a 5-MP sensor that enables the main camera to collect more depth of field information and determine the three-dimensionality of the main subject. This enables real-time bokeh effects and goes by the name of Live Focus.

The 24-MP camera module has a powerful aperture of f/1.7, which creates relatively light photos in dark surroundings. However, the photo quality is not much better than that of any other mid-range device. Bad lighting situations soon cause image noise and photos are characterized by artifacts and blurriness. Photos taken with the ultra-wide-angle lens turn out very dark and have a lot of noise due to the f/2.4 aperture.

The photo quality is good during daylight and image details and color reproduction are good, although photos taken with the Galaxy A7 (2018) always turn out a little pale in automatic mode. The contrast is slightly higher in the ultra-wide-angle mode. The dynamic range could be more pronounced overall, which would prevent the loss of some details in difficult lighting situations.

The 24-MP front camera has an f/2.0 aperture and takes good selfies during daylight, although they tend to be a little overexposed. Unfortunately, this camera does not support auto focus for ideal image sharpness. The front camera records videos in FHD resolution (1920x1080 pixels) at up to 30 fps. This also applies to the main camera on the back.

The camera software used in the Galaxy A7 (2018) offers 19 different scenes and automatically chooses suitable parameters for each photo. The scene optimization feature recognizes image content such as people or landscapes and adjusts color tones, brightness and contrast accordingly.

Standard angle
Standard angle
Ultra-wide angle
Ultra-wide angle
Standard angle
Standard angle
Ultra-wide angle
Ultra-wide angle
Automatic mode
Automatic mode
Live Focus mode
Live Focus mode
Photo taken at night
Photo taken at night
Photo taken by day
Photo taken by day
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
Picture of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport
Picture of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport

Colors are reproduced quite well under controlled lighting. As you can see below, all colors apart from greens are displayed relatively accurately compared to their reference colors, which are displayed in the bottom half of every field. Still, the picture taken of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport (no post-processing such as manual white balance was done) with the 24-MP camera shows that the white balance is too warm. The colors also appear visibly lighter.

In order to measure the sharpness of photos, we took a photo of our test chart under controlled artificial lighting. The image sharpness is good in the image center, but photos become visibly blurry at the edges.

Galaxy A7 2018
Galaxy A7 2018

Accessories and Warranty - in-ear headphones included

Accessories
Accessories

The scope of delivery includes a modular 7.8-watt power supply (5 V, 55 A), a USB cable and a quick-start guide as well as in-ear headphones suitable for the 3.5-mm audio jack.

The manufacturer's warranty lasts 24 months after purchase. The warranty of the battery and power supply is limited to 12 months.

Input Devices & Handling - Galaxy A7 (2018) with FaceUnlock

The capacitive touchscreen responds precisely to inputs with up to 10 fingers. Its precision is good even at the edges of the screen and inputs are implemented without delay. 

The Galaxy A7 (2018) can be navigated using the typical Android onscreen keys or by hiding the onscreen keys and using gesture control.

The virtual keyboard of the Galaxy offers nicely large keys thanks to the large display. The layout is customizable and the app offers a lot of optional settings.

The device can be unlocked via biometric identification using your fingerprint or face. The active fingerprint reader is integrated into the power button, which is positioned on the right side of the case. The reader works well and is reliable but takes some time to unlock the phone. The FaceUnlock function is similar. It works reliably but needs quite some time to recognize the face. The front camera cannot be used to unlock the Galaxy A7 (2018) in dark surroundings.

Display - Samsung phone with great OLED panel

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

The Super AMOLED display from Samsung has a diagonal of 6 inches. Its resolution of 2220x1080 pixels means that it has a pixel density of 441 ppi. Although current high-end smartphones offer a significantly higher number of pixels per inch, our mid-range smartphone seems to display even small writing very sharply nonetheless. The pixel structure is hardly noticeable during normal use and at an average distance to the screen.

The OLED panel reaches a high brightness level of 583 cd/m² when displaying a purely white panel. This makes the Galaxy A7 (2018) significantly brighter than most of its competition. Only the BQ Aquaris X2 can trump the brightness of our test unit. We also did a test with evenly distributed light and dark areas (APL50). Here, the brightness was 708 cd/m².

The phone uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to control the brightness of the screen, even at its maximum. At brightness levels up to 99% the frequency of this flickering is rather low at 240 Hz.

583
cd/m²
564
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
574
cd/m²
570
cd/m²
546
cd/m²
583
cd/m²
571
cd/m²
553
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 583 cd/m² Average: 565.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.79 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 570 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.5 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
98.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.07
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 5.6
Nokia 7 Plus
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Xiaomi Mi 6X
LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
Honor 8X
LCD IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5
BQ Aquaris X2
IPS LCD, 2160x1080, 5.65
Sony Xperia XA2
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Samsung Galaxy S8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Screen
-84%
-101%
-173%
-91%
-191%
-124%
-170%
-48%
Brightness middle
570
541
-5%
458
-20%
459
-19%
489
-14%
484
-15%
631
11%
513
-10%
566
-1%
Brightness
565
538
-5%
463
-18%
441
-22%
486
-14%
469
-17%
622
10%
506
-10%
564
0%
Brightness Distribution
93
96
3%
92
-1%
91
-2%
93
0%
93
0%
96
3%
93
0%
94
1%
Black Level *
0.22
0.47
0.34
0.55
0.61
0.42
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.5
5.8
-287%
4
-167%
5.8
-287%
3.8
-153%
7.3
-387%
5.5
-267%
5
-233%
2.7
-80%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.6
7.4
-106%
10.7
-197%
7.1
-97%
11.1
-208%
8.5
-136%
11.4
-217%
5.4
-50%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.2
2.7
-125%
4.7
-292%
7.3
-508%
4.4
-267%
7.4
-517%
5.6
-367%
7.8
-550%
3.1
-158%
Gamma
2.07 106%
2.07 106%
2.19 100%
2.28 96%
2.22 99%
2.16 102%
2.38 92%
2.2 100%
2.15 102%
CCT
6504 100%
6570 99%
7425 88%
7984 81%
7213 90%
8534 76%
7531 86%
7964 82%
6335 103%
Contrast
2082
977
1438
880
1034
1221
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.87

* ... 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 240.4 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8943 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Due to their technology, OLED panels have a significant advantage compared to IPS panels. These displays are able to display complete blackness even in a dark room and at maximum brightness. This means that in theory the contrast ratio of the Galaxy A7 (2018) tends towards infinity.

Our analysis using the spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software results in a low average DeltaE deviation of the sRGB color space of 1.5 for colors and 1.3 for grayscales (see photo below). The ideal range of these values is below 3. The measured results are very good considering the device's price range.

The color temperature is very precise at 6504 K compared to an ideal value of 6500 K. The OLED panel covers the color spaces we measured (sRGB, AdobeRGB, P3) almost entirely. We did not notice a particular color cast.

CalMAN color accuracy (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN color accuracy (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN color space (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN color space (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN grayscales (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN grayscales (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN saturation (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN saturation (AdobeRGB) - profile: adaptable
CalMAN color accuracy (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN color accuracy (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN color space (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN color space (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN grayscales (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN grayscales (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN saturation (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN saturation (sRGB) - profile: simple
CalMAN color accuracy (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN color accuracy (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN color space (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN color space (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN grayscales (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN grayscales (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN saturation (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN saturation (P3) - profile: cinema
CalMAN color accuracy (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN color accuracy (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN color space (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN color space (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN grayscales (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN grayscales (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN saturation (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo
CalMAN saturation (AdobeRGB) - profile: photo

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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 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. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 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 0.9 (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 (41 ms).

The organic display also does well outdoors. Content can be read off the OLED display easily even in direct sunlight. The bright screen also manages to outshine most reflections.

Outdoor use: shade
Outdoor use: shade
Outdoor use: shade
Outdoor use: shade
Outdoor use: sun
Outdoor use: sun

The viewing angles are very good thanks to the display technology. Even at very wide angles screen content is displayed vividly with accurate colors. We did not notice any changes in colors.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance - Samsung Exynos 7885 has some everyday weaknesses

The Samsung Exynos 7885 was first presented at the beginning of 2018 in the Samsung Galaxy A8 2018. The SoC has two Cortex A73 cores that clock at a maximum of 2.2 GHz as well as six energy-efficient Cortex A53 cores with a clock rate of 1.6 GHz. The Exynos 7885 is produced using the (old) 14-nm FinFET process. The graphics card is an ARM Mali-G71 MP2.

The system performance of our test unit does not seem to be up to par with its competitors. Despite the rather powerful Exynos 7885 the system does not always run smoothly during everyday use. We often encountered judders and lags, particularly while multitasking. Closing and opening applications also seemed to go rather slowly. Even the Honor 8X with its weaker HiSilicon Kirin 710 offers better system performance.

The Samsung processor gives a similar impression during our benchmarks. The Exynos 7885 reaches similar results to the Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 in the BQ Aquaris X2. Particularly during the graphics-intensive GFXBench benchmark, our test unit was not able to keep up with its Qualcomm competition. We also noticed rather low results in PCMark, which evaluates the general system performance. This corresponds with our personal impression of the phone.

There is a large difference between the benchmark results of the Xiaomi Pocophone F1 equipped with a Snapdragon 845 and a Qualcomm Adreno 630 and the Galaxy A7 (2018).

Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
4026 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
3680 Points ∼26% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
5486 Points ∼38% +36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14369 Points ∼100% +257%
Honor 8X
4083 Points ∼28% +1%
BQ Aquaris X2
4309 Points ∼30% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (3680 - 4026, n=2)
3853 Points ∼27% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼31% +12%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
4429 Points ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
4431 Points ∼48% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
5867 Points ∼64% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
5843 Points ∼64% +32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9182 Points ∼100% +107%
Honor 8X
5557 Points ∼61% +25%
BQ Aquaris X2
4974 Points ∼54% +12%
Sony Xperia XA2
4170 Points ∼45% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4429 - 4431, n=2)
4430 Points ∼48% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼47% -3%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1525 Points ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1526 Points ∼62% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
1646 Points ∼67% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1620 Points ∼66% +6%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2468 Points ∼100% +62%
Honor 8X
1614 Points ∼65% +6%
BQ Aquaris X2
1323 Points ∼54% -13%
Sony Xperia XA2
865 Points ∼35% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1525 - 1526, n=2)
1526 Points ∼62% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼51% -17%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
5387 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
5214 Points ∼64% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus
6077 Points ∼75% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
5995 Points ∼74% +11%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8101 Points ∼100% +50%
Honor 8X
7141 Points ∼88% +33%
BQ Aquaris X2
5706 Points ∼70% +6%
Sony Xperia XA2
5006 Points ∼62% -7%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (5214 - 5387, n=2)
5301 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼56% -15%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
5625 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
5916 Points ∼61% +5%
Nokia 7 Plus
6825 Points ∼71% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
6723 Points ∼70% +20%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9664 Points ∼100% +72%
Honor 8X
8939 Points ∼92% +59%
BQ Aquaris X2
6437 Points ∼67% +14%
Sony Xperia XA2
5844 Points ∼60% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (5625 - 5916, n=2)
5771 Points ∼60% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼51% -12%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1845 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
2051 Points ∼74% +11%
Nokia 7 Plus
2789 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2764 Points ∼99% +50%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2257 Points ∼81% +22%
Honor 8X
2702 Points ∼97% +46%
BQ Aquaris X2
2396 Points ∼86% +30%
Sony Xperia XA2
1696 Points ∼61% -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1845 - 2051, n=2)
1948 Points ∼70% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼61% -7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
629 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
577 Points ∼13% -8%
Nokia 7 Plus
1239 Points ∼28% +97%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1244 Points ∼28% +98%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4468 Points ∼100% +610%
Honor 8X
801 Points ∼18% +27%
BQ Aquaris X2
872 Points ∼20% +39%
Sony Xperia XA2
790 Points ∼18% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (577 - 629, n=2)
603 Points ∼13% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼33% +133%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
737 Points ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
687 Points ∼19% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus
1441 Points ∼39% +96%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1417 Points ∼39% +92%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3669 Points ∼100% +398%
Honor 8X
950 Points ∼26% +29%
BQ Aquaris X2
1016 Points ∼28% +38%
Sony Xperia XA2
896 Points ∼24% +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (687 - 737, n=2)
712 Points ∼19% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼37% +85%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1871 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
2003 Points ∼71% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus
2768 Points ∼98% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2815 Points ∼99% +50%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2832 Points ∼100% +51%
Honor 8X
2697 Points ∼95% +44%
BQ Aquaris X2
2359 Points ∼83% +26%
Sony Xperia XA2
1657 Points ∼59% -11%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1871 - 2003, n=2)
1937 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼60% -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
954 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
971 Points ∼14% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus
1980 Points ∼29% +108%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1981 Points ∼29% +108%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6898 Points ∼100% +623%
Honor 8X
1316 Points ∼19% +38%
BQ Aquaris X2
1402 Points ∼20% +47%
Sony Xperia XA2
1305 Points ∼19% +37%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (954 - 971, n=2)
963 Points ∼14% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼30% +117%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1071 Points ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1097 Points ∼21% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus
2114 Points ∼40% +97%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2121 Points ∼41% +98%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5230 Points ∼100% +388%
Honor 8X
1485 Points ∼28% +39%
BQ Aquaris X2
1540 Points ∼29% +44%
Sony Xperia XA2
1370 Points ∼26% +28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1071 - 1097, n=2)
1084 Points ∼21% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼33% +62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1821 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1950 Points ∼71% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus
2749 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2757 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2528 Points ∼92% +39%
Honor 8X
2663 Points ∼97% +46%
BQ Aquaris X2
2353 Points ∼85% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2
1631 Points ∼59% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1821 - 1950, n=2)
1886 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼60% -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
634 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
618 Points ∼13% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus
1161 Points ∼24% +83%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1164 Points ∼25% +84%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4746 Points ∼100% +649%
Honor 8X
798 Points ∼17% +26%
BQ Aquaris X2
816 Points ∼17% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2
709 Points ∼15% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (618 - 634, n=2)
626 Points ∼13% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼25% +87%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
741 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
729 Points ∼18% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus
1332 Points ∼34% +80%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1335 Points ∼34% +80%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3972 Points ∼100% +436%
Honor 8X
945 Points ∼24% +28%
BQ Aquaris X2
955 Points ∼24% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2
811 Points ∼20% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (729 - 741, n=2)
735 Points ∼19% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼29% +53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1829 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1946 Points ∼71% +6%
Nokia 7 Plus
2734 Points ∼100% +49%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2680 Points ∼98% +47%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2720 Points ∼99% +49%
Honor 8X
2645 Points ∼97% +45%
BQ Aquaris X2
2338 Points ∼86% +28%
Sony Xperia XA2
1737 Points ∼64% -5%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1829 - 1946, n=2)
1888 Points ∼69% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼56% -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
845 Points ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
879 Points ∼11% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
1895 Points ∼23% +124%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1891 Points ∼23% +124%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8261 Points ∼100% +878%
Honor 8X
1280 Points ∼15% +51%
BQ Aquaris X2
1337 Points ∼16% +58%
Sony Xperia XA2
1251 Points ∼15% +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (845 - 879, n=2)
862 Points ∼10% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% +93%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
960 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1001 Points ∼18% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
2035 Points ∼36% +112%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2023 Points ∼36% +111%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5687 Points ∼100% +492%
Honor 8X
1445 Points ∼25% +51%
BQ Aquaris X2
1478 Points ∼26% +54%
Sony Xperia XA2
1334 Points ∼23% +39%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (960 - 1001, n=2)
981 Points ∼17% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼24% +44%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
13914 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
13306 Points ∼38% -4%
Nokia 7 Plus
20085 Points ∼58% +44%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
21016 Points ∼60% +51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
34928 Points ∼100% +151%
Honor 8X
17450 Points ∼50% +25%
BQ Aquaris X2
16747 Points ∼48% +20%
Sony Xperia XA2
13112 Points ∼38% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (13306 - 13914, n=2)
13610 Points ∼39% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼37% -7%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
15567 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
15262 Points ∼19% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus
29333 Points ∼36% +88%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
28984 Points ∼35% +86%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
82125 Points ∼100% +428%
Honor 8X
21533 Points ∼26% +38%
BQ Aquaris X2
20806 Points ∼25% +34%
Sony Xperia XA2
18534 Points ∼23% +19%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (15262 - 15567, n=2)
15415 Points ∼19% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼22% +16%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
15167 Points ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
14779 Points ∼23% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus
26610 Points ∼42% +75%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
26731 Points ∼42% +76%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
63159 Points ∼100% +316%
Honor 8X
20468 Points ∼32% +35%
BQ Aquaris X2
19743 Points ∼31% +30%
Sony Xperia XA2
16974 Points ∼27% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (14779 - 15167, n=2)
14973 Points ∼24% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼24% 0%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
34 fps ∼23%
Nokia 7 Plus
50 fps ∼33%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
50 fps ∼33%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
150 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
39 fps ∼26%
BQ Aquaris X2
36 fps ∼24%
Sony Xperia XA2
30 fps ∼20%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
34 fps ∼23%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼21%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
31 fps ∼52%
Nokia 7 Plus
48 fps ∼80%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
48 fps ∼80%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
60 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
36 fps ∼60%
BQ Aquaris X2
34 fps ∼57%
Sony Xperia XA2
31 fps ∼52%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
31 fps ∼52%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼42%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
16 fps ∼23%
Nokia 7 Plus
23 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
23 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
71 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
21 fps ∼30%
BQ Aquaris X2
16 fps ∼23%
Sony Xperia XA2
14 fps ∼20%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
16 fps ∼23%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼24%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
15 fps ∼26%
Nokia 7 Plus
22 fps ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
21 fps ∼36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
58 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
19 fps ∼33%
BQ Aquaris X2
15 fps ∼26%
Sony Xperia XA2
15 fps ∼26%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
15 fps ∼26%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼28%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
9.9 fps ∼28%
Nokia 7 Plus
14 fps ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
15 fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
14 fps ∼40%
BQ Aquaris X2
10 fps ∼29%
Sony Xperia XA2
9.7 fps ∼28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
9.9 fps ∼28%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼41%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
9.6 fps ∼18%
Nokia 7 Plus
15 fps ∼28%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
14 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
54 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
13 fps ∼24%
BQ Aquaris X2
9.8 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2
10 fps ∼19%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
9.6 fps ∼18%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼26%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus
5.2 fps ∼24%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
22 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
4.1 fps ∼19%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼46%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus
3.2 fps ∼23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
2.6 fps ∼19%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼46%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus
8.2 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
31 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
5.2 fps ∼17%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼46%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus
8.6 fps ∼27%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
32 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
4.6 fps ∼14%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼49%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
6 fps ∼17%
Nokia 7 Plus
8.3 fps ∼24%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
9 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
7.6 fps ∼22%
BQ Aquaris X2
6.3 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2
5.5 fps ∼16%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
6 fps ∼17%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼28%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
5.8 fps ∼18%
Nokia 7 Plus
9.1 fps ∼28%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
8.6 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
33 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X
6.4 fps ∼19%
BQ Aquaris X2
6 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2
6 fps ∼18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
5.8 fps ∼18%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼27%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
122826 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
116746 Points ∼44% -5%
Nokia 7 Plus
141701 Points ∼54% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
140714 Points ∼53% +15%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
263165 Points ∼100% +114%
Honor 8X
140188 Points ∼53% +14%
BQ Aquaris X2
116748 Points ∼44% -5%
Sony Xperia XA2
89228 Points ∼34% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (116746 - 122826, n=2)
119786 Points ∼46% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼45% -4%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
87728 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
83284 Points ∼37% -5%
Nokia 7 Plus
117165 Points ∼52% +34%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
110680 Points ∼49% +26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
227026 Points ∼100% +159%
Honor 8X
112870 Points ∼50% +29%
BQ Aquaris X2
96430 Points ∼42% +10%
Sony Xperia XA2
71552 Points ∼32% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (83284 - 87728, n=2)
85506 Points ∼38% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=387)
75990 Points ∼33% -13%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1090 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1195 Points ∼92% +10%
Nokia 7 Plus
1101 Points ∼85% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
1108 Points ∼85% +2%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
1296 Points ∼100% +19%
Honor 8X
1207 Points ∼93% +11%
BQ Aquaris X2
1059 Points ∼82% -3%
Sony Xperia XA2
921 Points ∼71% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1090 - 1195, n=2)
1143 Points ∼88% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼54% -36%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
1356 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1331 Points ∼17% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus
2298 Points ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2295 Points ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
7945 Points ∼100% +486%
Honor 8X
1456 Points ∼18% +7%
BQ Aquaris X2
1597 Points ∼20% +18%
Sony Xperia XA2
1500 Points ∼19% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1331 - 1356, n=2)
1344 Points ∼17% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼22% +28%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
2445 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
2275 Points ∼52% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus
2503 Points ∼57% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2470 Points ∼57% +1%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3239 Points ∼74% +32%
Honor 8X
4360 Points ∼100% +78%
BQ Aquaris X2
2016 Points ∼46% -18%
Sony Xperia XA2
1328 Points ∼30% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (2275 - 2445, n=2)
2360 Points ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼29% -49%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
4506 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
4358 Points ∼67% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus
4976 Points ∼76% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
4797 Points ∼74% +6%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6506 Points ∼100% +44%
Honor 8X
5529 Points ∼85% +23%
BQ Aquaris X2
4434 Points ∼68% -2%
Sony Xperia XA2
3256 Points ∼50% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4358 - 4506, n=2)
4432 Points ∼68% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼39% -44%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
2009 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
1993 Points ∼52% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
2369 Points ∼62% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 6X
2343 Points ∼61% +17%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3838 Points ∼100% +91%
Honor 8X
2410 Points ∼63% +20%
BQ Aquaris X2
1972 Points ∼51% -2%
Sony Xperia XA2
1563 Points ∼41% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1993 - 2009, n=2)
2001 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼33% -38%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 6X Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Honor 8X HiSilicon Kirin 710, ARM Mali-G51 MP4, 128 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris X2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Qualcomm Adreno 509, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Sony Xperia XA2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 32 GB eMMC Flash

The browser speed is very decent using the preinstalled Chrome browser. The device loads complex websites quickly and navigation is smooth for the most part. The Samsung smartphone also did a good job in our browser benchmarks. The performance difference between the Mozilla Kraken 1.1 benchmark and the other benchmarks is striking.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
75.959 Points ∼100% +58%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
53.89 Points ∼71% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)
52.139 Points ∼69% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)
49.07 Points ∼65% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (48 - 49.1, n=2)
48.5 Points ∼64% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)
47.986 Points ∼63%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)
47.012 Points ∼62% -2%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)
44.245 Points ∼58% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼48% -24%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)
27.368 Points ∼36% -43%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
14514 Points ∼100% +58%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
10945 Points ∼75% +19%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)
9995 Points ∼69% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)
9350 Points ∼64% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (9165 - 9350, n=2)
9258 Points ∼64% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)
9165 Points ∼63%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)
9095 Points ∼63% -1%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)
9004 Points ∼62% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=557)
5556 Points ∼38% -39%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)
4771 Points ∼33% -48%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -178%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)
10235.7 ms * ∼89% -148%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)
4768.9 ms * ∼42% -16%
BQ Aquaris X2
4733 ms * ∼41% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)
4275.2 ms * ∼37% -4%
Honor 8X
4247.7 ms * ∼37% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4123 - 4275, n=2)
4199 ms * ∼37% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)
4122.8 ms * ∼36%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
3937.3 ms * ∼34% +4%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
2713.6 ms * ∼24% +34%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼100% +12%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
63 Points ∼99% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)
61 Points ∼96% +7%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)
58 Points ∼91% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)
57 Points ∼90%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
57 Points ∼90% 0%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)
54 Points ∼85% -5%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
223 Points ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)
173 Points ∼78% +3%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
168 Points ∼75% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)
168 Points ∼75%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)
164 Points ∼74% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (156 - 168, n=2)
162 Points ∼73% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)
156 Points ∼70% -7%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)
147 Points ∼66% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼50% -34%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)
106 Points ∼48% -37%

* ... smaller is better

The storage device used in the Galaxy A7 (2018) is not the fastest. Samsung has given its mid-range smartphone an eMMC flash storage instead of the more modern UFS variant. The AndroBench benchmark shows that it has a particular weakness when writing data.

The integrated microSD card slot is comparable to its competition. We measured its speed with our reference card, the Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 (max read: 270 MB/s, max write: 150 MB/s). The card reader's performance is average at 78 MB/s (reading) and 64 MB/s (writing).

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Galaxy A8 2018Nokia 7 PlusXiaomi Mi 6XXiaomi Pocophone F1Honor 8XBQ Aquaris X2Sony Xperia XA2Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-2%
15%
5%
39%
51%
3%
-6%
3%
-24%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
64.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.29 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
62.31
-3%
65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
68.12 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
62.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
64.75 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
54.3 (14.1 - 74.7, n=68)
-16%
45.5 (3.4 - 87.1, n=317)
-29%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
78.15 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.92 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
82.21
5%
85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
9%
75.24 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
82.91 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
86.01 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
73.2 (21.1 - 86.9, n=68)
-6%
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=317)
-18%
Random Write 4KB
15.45
14.69
-5%
19.62
27%
6.89
-55%
17.81
15%
59.87
288%
14.4
-7%
13.82
-11%
19.8 (3.4 - 87.1, n=77)
28%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
4%
Random Read 4KB
83.98
82.62
-2%
54.65
-35%
72.98
-13%
101.01
20%
49.54
-41%
43.9
-48%
43.07
-49%
50.4 (11.4 - 149, n=77)
-40%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-54%
Sequential Write 256KB
104.87
104.2
-1%
211.6
102%
203.7
94%
155.57
48%
169.98
62%
188.7
80%
127.38
21%
165 (40 - 246, n=77)
57%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-24%
Sequential Read 256KB
295.76
299.94
1%
283.12
-4%
271.98
-8%
705.38
138%
283.87
-4%
270.5
-9%
271.46
-8%
271 (115 - 704, n=77)
-8%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-22%

Games - Mali-G71 manages current games

The ARM Mali-G71 is an entry-level GPU. Its MP2 version, which is used in the Galaxy A7 (2018), only has two of the 32 possible graphics cores available. The GPU is based on Bifrost architecture and supports OpenGL ES 3.2, Vulkan 1.0, OpenCL 2.0 and RenderScript.

GPU performance is good enough to display current games in native 1080p resolution. Using the GameBench app, we measured 29 fps during the racing game Asphalt 9 at high settings. The rather demanding ego shooter PUBG Mobile can also be displayed at an average of 29 fps at maximum graphics settings, although we did notice occasional drops in the frame rate here.

Both the touchscreen and the sensors in the Samsung phone work well. However, the mono speaker is slightly covered when holding the device in landscape mode. 

Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends
PUBG Mobile
PUBG Mobile
010203040Tooltip
; Balanced: Ø29.3 (22-31)
; HD: Ø28.7 (19-31)
010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.4 (21-31)

Emissions - the Galaxy A7 2018 produces little excess heat

Temperature

The back of the Galaxy A7 (2018) has a rather uneven heat pattern. While we measured average temperatures way under 30 °C while idling, the back reached a maximum surface temperature of 35.8 °C under load.

The heat development on the front of the device is higher but quite heterogenic. Waste heat should not pose a problem during everyday use, but you can feel some heat when running more-demanding applications.

We ran the battery test of the GFXBench app in order to check the behavior of the Samsung smartphone under continuous load. The Manhattan 3.1 tests show that increasing load causes the temperature to rise significantly while the frame rate drops after round 16 out of 30 runs. The fluctuations are within a range of about 25%. This means that it is quite possible for the performance to drop under load and confirms that the performance capacities of our Galaxy A7 (2018) is variable.

Galaxy A7 (2018)
Galaxy A7 (2018)
Galaxy A7 (2018)
Galaxy A7 (2018)
Max. Load
 34.7 °C
94 F
34.7 °C
94 F
29.4 °C
85 F
 
 33.9 °C
93 F
34.8 °C
95 F
29.4 °C
85 F
 
 33.4 °C
92 F
33.2 °C
92 F
29.5 °C
85 F
 
Maximum: 34.8 °C = 95 F
Average: 32.6 °C = 91 F
28.3 °C
83 F
30.5 °C
87 F
34.5 °C
94 F
26.9 °C
80 F
29.5 °C
85 F
35.8 °C
96 F
27.6 °C
82 F
29.7 °C
85 F
33.2 °C
92 F
Maximum: 35.8 °C = 96 F
Average: 30.7 °C = 87 F
Power Supply (max.)  25.5 °C = 78 F | Room Temperature 21.1 °C = 70 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.8 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
Galaxy A7 (2018)
Galaxy A7 (2018)

Speaker

Pink Noise diagram
Pink Noise diagram

As expected, the sound pattern of the Galaxy A7 (2018) consists mostly of middle and high frequencies. The Pink Noise diagram shows that bass tones are hardly audible but that mids and highs are quite linear.

The speaker is decent enough for a mid-range smartphone and reaches a good maximum volume of 85 dB(A). The audio port is also sufficiently loud and produces a clean sound. As the device has a 3.5-mm audio jack, users can use "normal" headphones without having to connect an adapter.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2030.733.8252528.73126.828.44026.328.75029.838.26327.424.7802123.210019.525.812518.825.716019.240.420017.641.325016.947.431515.855.54001556.75001562.863014.766.980014.868100014.666.5125014.369.2160013.471.8200014.472.5250014.473.2315014.876.640001577.7500014.875.3630014.774.380001575.31000014.972.81250015.264.51600015.755.1SPL26.885.5N0.961.4median 15median 66.9Delta1.210.835.240.932.939.937.234.931.740.339.639.128.334.127.332.326.928.726.731.5243920.946.220.948.319.555.718.562.917.565.817.569.615.769.215.87016.675.215.873.715.474.215.573.51671.615.873.11671.616.367.116.367.716.271.816.475.516.459.928.684.11.158.5median 16.4median 69.22.18.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A7 2018 Xiaomi Mi 6X
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Mi 6X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 35% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Runtime - Samsung phone with good runtimes

Power Consumption

The Galaxy A7 (2018) is an efficient smartphone. Of all our comparison devices only the Sony Xperia XA2 has significantly better power consumption rates. However, the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2018) can offer slightly better rates with similar hardware. Consumption could be lower under load. 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.22 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.71 / 1.36 / 1.47 Watt
Load midlight 5.13 / 7.89 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
3000 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6X
3010 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
Honor 8X
3750 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2
3100 mAh
Sony Xperia XA2
3300 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 7885
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
21%
-9%
-7%
-15%
-24%
-14%
19%
10%
-8%
Idle Minimum *
0.71
0.67
6%
0.65
8%
0.65
8%
0.65
8%
0.92
-30%
0.65
8%
0.39
45%
0.69 (0.67 - 0.71, n=2)
3%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=635)
-24%
Idle Average *
1.36
1.02
25%
1.76
-29%
1.94
-43%
1.97
-45%
2.3
-69%
2.24
-65%
1.61
-18%
1.19 (1.02 - 1.36, n=2)
12%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=634)
-27%
Idle Maximum *
1.47
1.1
25%
1.78
-21%
1.97
-34%
2.01
-37%
2.32
-58%
2.26
-54%
1.62
-10%
1.285 (1.1 - 1.47, n=2)
13%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=635)
-36%
Load Average *
5.13
3.86
25%
4.47
13%
4.65
9%
4.29
16%
4.37
15%
3.87
25%
3.12
39%
4.5 (3.86 - 5.13, n=2)
12%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=629)
21%
Load Maximum *
7.89
5.97
24%
9.13
-16%
5.93
25%
9.05
-15%
6.13
22%
6.8
14%
4.92
38%
6.93 (5.97 - 7.89, n=2)
12%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=629)
27%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

The Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) has a 3300-mAh battery. The mid-range smartphone reached a battery runtime of 10 hours during our Wi-Fi test with display brightness set to 150 cd/m², which is quite good. The Galaxy A7 (2018) also keeps going quite long under load with a measured runtime of 4.5 hours. The included 7.8-watt power supply recharges the device in about 2.5 hours. The phone recharges to 50% capacity in about an hour.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
24h 27min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 05min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
13h 56min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 33min
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018
3000 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 6X
3010 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
Honor 8X
3750 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2
3100 mAh
Sony Xperia XA2
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
4%
-8%
-26%
17%
41%
2%
30%
Reader / Idle
1467
1546
5%
1703
16%
1046
-29%
2088
42%
2503
71%
H.264
836
908
9%
706
-16%
608
-27%
936
12%
766
-8%
WiFi v1.3
605
646
7%
672
11%
495
-18%
808
34%
852
41%
617
2%
886
46%
Load
273
260
-5%
158
-42%
192
-30%
220
-19%
298
9%

Pros

+ great OLED panel
+ good battery runtimes
+ solid workmanship
+ precise GPS
+ three slots
+ triple camera

Cons

- plastic frame
- SoC not quite up to par
- old USB standard
- slow fingerprint reader

Verdict - display benchmark in the mid-range segment

Review: Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018). Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.com
Review: Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018). Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.com

The Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) excels in our test with its great Super AMOLED panel that can become very bright, has extremely precise color reproduction and it has stable viewing angles. On top of that, it has good contrasts thanks to the perfect black value that is typical for OLED screens. All in all, this is a display that has no equal in this price range.  

We are less impressed by Samsung's own mid-range processor. The Exynos 7885 shows several weaknesses when dealing with everyday workloads during our test. The system performance of the Samsung SoC cannot keep up with its Qualcomm competition. The Honor 8X equipped with the new HiSilicon Kirin 710 can also offer a more consistent everyday performance.

The Galaxy A7 (2018)'s figurehead is its triple camera, which offers great versatility and decent photo quality. The ultra-wide angle and Live Focus function give users interesting options, although the latter function can be a little disappointing sometimes.

Like with the Honor 8X, we are left wondering why Samsung has decided to equip its 2018 model with an old microUSB standard. This does not make sense, particularly considering that the Galaxy A5 from 2017 was already equipped with a USB Type-C port.

Display lovers will not get around the Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) if they are looking for a suitable device in the mid-range price segment.

There are a lot of interesting alternatives in this mid-range segment. For example, the powerful Pocophone F1 or the significantly cheaper price-to-performance champion Xiaomi Mi A2. Should the price for the Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) drop slightly, its great display and wide-angle camera options still make it a worthwhile alternative.

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 - 11/19/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
84%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
44 / 60 → 74%
Weight
91%
Battery
94%
Display
91%
Games Performance
42 / 63 → 66%
Application Performance
58 / 70 → 83%
Temperature
93%
Noise
100%
Audio
67 / 91 → 74%
Camera
70%
Average
76%
86%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) Smartphone Review
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-11-23 (Update: 2018-11-23)