Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy A80 Smartphone Review – A winner with a rotating camera?

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Mark Riege), 07/19/2019

Camera magic. 650 Euros (~$730) is a lot of money. With the Galaxy A80, Samsung delivers a high-end smartphone with a rotating camera and a front without a notch for this amount. Let's see whether the A80 offers sufficient value for the high price.

Samsung Galaxy A80

Last year, the Galaxy A9 (2018) was Samsung's largest and most expensive representative of the A series. This year's Galaxy A80 is even 50 Euros (~$56) more expensive, and there are already detailed rumors about a Galaxy A90 that might (at least optionally) include the next 5G mobile standard. So the A series might still grow significantly towards the top end. The Galaxy A80 already offers some high-class flair: The display in front is completely unmarred by a notch and has slim bezels, and there are also the fingerprint sensor below the display and the rotating camera in the back, which can also be used as the front camera.

Fans of smaller and more compact devices will have to look elsewhere, since the Samsung Galaxy A80 is the largest and most hefty device of the Galaxy-A series until now. Another thing that is interesting for our test is that for the first time Samsung's new quick-charge technology is used in the Galaxy A80. Let's see how it fares in everyday operation.

As comparison devices, high-end smartphones such as the LG G8S, the Honor View 20, the OnePlus 7, and the Nokia 9 offer themselves.

Samsung Galaxy A80 (Galaxy A Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.7 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 393 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, AMOLED, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 106 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: Audio output via USB-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: acceleration sensor, gyroscope, proximity sensor, brightness sensor, compass
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B4/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B2/​B3/​B4/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B12/​B13/​B17/​B20/​B26/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41/​B66), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.3 x 165.2 x 76.5 ( = 0.37 x 6.5 x 3.01 in)
Battery
3700 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix f/​2.0, phase comparison AF, LED flash, videos @2160p/​30fps (camera 1); 8.0MP, f/​2.2, wide angle lens (camera 2); f/​1.2, ToF (camera 3); rotating
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker at the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, charger, charging cable, headset, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat. 12/6 (600 Mbps download, 50 Mbps upload); SAR values: 0.22 W/kg (head), 1.43 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
220 g ( = 7.76 oz / 0.49 pounds), Power Supply: 75 g ( = 2.65 oz / 0.17 pounds)
Price
650 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case – Almost only display

The case of the Galaxy A80 goes completely with the spirit of the times: The front consists almost entirely of the display with small bezels. This means that the front camera also had to go. In the Galaxy smartphone, the main camera in the back just moves up and turns around when it is needed, allowing you to also use the high-quality camera modules for selfies. If you grab the extended camera module with a little too much force, or if the smartphone detects a fall, the camera module immediately retreats to avoid getting damaged.

The back is smooth and reflective, and the camera module sticks out considerably. The color variants of the smartphone are White, Rosé, and Black, with our black test unit appearing as more of a dark gray. The Galaxy A80 is a large, and at 220 grams also quite heavy, smartphone that, thanks to its rounded corners, fits into the hand very well.

The stability of the case with its metal frame and glass surfaces is basically good. However, you can press the back of the case slightly inwards, which marginally decreases our impression of the quality. On the other hand, the smartphone can only be warped to a very minimal extent and also does not creak.

Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80
Samsung Galaxy A80

Size Comparison

165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 76.5 mm / 3.01 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 220 g0.485 lbs162.5 mm / 6.4 inch 77 mm / 3.03 inch 7.8 mm / 0.3071 inch 183 g0.4034 lbs157.7 mm / 6.21 inch 74.8 mm / 2.94 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 182 g0.4012 lbs156.9 mm / 6.18 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 8.1 mm / 0.3189 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs155.3 mm / 6.11 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 7.99 mm / 0.3146 inch 181 g0.399 lbs155 mm / 6.1 inch 75 mm / 2.95 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs

Equipment – No microSD on board

8 GB RAM is not unusual in this price segment anymore but is a nice upgrade compared to the Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018). The 128 GB of storage is also standard at this point, and only the OnePlus 7 stands out here, bringing 256 GB of data storage for less money.

Unfortunately, if you would like to expand the storage with an additional microSD card, this is not planned for in the Galaxy A80. However, you could use two SIM cards at the same time, if you purchase the dual-SIM version of the smartphone.

Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC are on board, just like a USB-C port, although it is internally only connected with the slower USB-2.0 standard. In terms of a wired connection, headphones or speakers can also only be connected to the USB-C port, since there is no 3.5-mm audio port.

Right: standby button
Right: standby button
Left: volume rocker
Left: volume rocker
Top: microphone
Top: microphone
Bottom: SIM slot, USB-C port, microphone, speaker
Bottom: SIM slot, USB-C port, microphone, speaker

Software – A modern OneUI in the Samsung smartphone

Samsung's OneUI looks elegant and clean. In the Galaxy A80, it is based on the current Android 9.0, and the security patches are on the level of May 1, 2019, so they should get an update soon.

At this point, Samsung has also created its own world of apps and many of them are preinstalled on the Galaxy A80. For example, there is Smart Things to control intelligent devices, and with the Fast Measurements app you can determine distances and sizes in your surroundings with the help of the ToF camera. We tried it, and the measurements are indeed fairly accurate.

There are also third-party apps, such as the Microsoft Office suite and the Netflix app. While some of them can be uninstalled, others can only be deactivated and continue to use up storage space.

Samsung Galaxy A80 software
Samsung Galaxy A80 software
Samsung Galaxy A80 software

Communication and GPS – Locating could be more accurate

There are smartphones with faster WLAN in this price range, as we find out in the tests with our Linksys EA8500 reference router. Even though the Samsung Galaxy A80 also brings all the currently used WLAN standards up to 802.11ac, in our sending and receiving test with iperf, it does not achieve the transfer rates of the LG G8S ThinQ or the Nokia 9. Overall, our test unit places in the middle of the field and subjectively does not feel slow either.

In terms of LTE frequency bands, a large amount is supported, so that you can also take the Galaxy A80 with you on trips abroad. In our tests, the LTE reception is always good, and we mostly get at least half of the bars even indoors.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Nokia 9 PureView
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
638 (min: 561, max: 664) MBit/s ∼100% +49%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Adreno 512, 660, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
584 (min: 557, max: 605) MBit/s ∼92% +36%
LG G8s ThinQ
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
578 (min: 474, max: 617) MBit/s ∼91% +35%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
428 (min: 360, max: 501) MBit/s ∼67%
OnePlus 7
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
388 (min: 361, max: 421) MBit/s ∼61% -9%
Honor View 20
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
339 (min: 325, max: 351) MBit/s ∼53% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=434)
226 MBit/s ∼35% -47%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Nokia 9 PureView
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 (min: 421, max: 559) MBit/s ∼100% +85%
LG G8s ThinQ
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
502 (min: 465, max: 517) MBit/s ∼96% +78%
OnePlus 7
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
330 (min: 232, max: 365) MBit/s ∼63% +17%
Honor View 20
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
298 (min: 278, max: 319) MBit/s ∼57% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Adreno 512, 660, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
285 (min: 249, max: 304) MBit/s ∼54% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
282 (min: 249, max: 327) MBit/s ∼54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=434)
216 MBit/s ∼41% -23%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø427 (360-501)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø282 (249-327)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test near the window
GPS Test near the window
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

Indoors, locating is not possible. However outdoors, it is fairly accurate at four meters, and a sufficiently strong signal is also reached quickly.

In order to prove its navigation prowess in practice, the Samsung Galaxy A80 has to go on a bike ride with us, together with the Garmin Edge 520 professional navigation device. Already when crossing the bridge in one direction, the Galaxy A80 shows some inaccuracies, and overall its accuracy is also rather mediocre when it should record our route exactly. Sometimes the recorded route is beside the road or looks like it runs through the buildings. While the Garmin navigation device is not perfect either, it is significantly more accurate. In our recent test, the LG G8S ThinQ has proven that accurate navigation is also quite possible in a smartphone of this price range.

While the Galaxy A80 is in practice quite suited for navigation, those who want very accurate locating should better look elsewhere.

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – junction
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – junction
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – junction
GPS Samsung Galaxy A80 – junction

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality – Sound from the display

Samsung has developed the Telephone app in-house. It initially shows the dial pad, and you can access the last calls and contacts via menu items at the bottom edge of the screen. There is also a "Places" item, which shows restaurants and shopping options nearby when needed. 

There is no classic earpiece for listening to phone calls in the Samsung Galaxy A80 anymore. In this way, the display can take up most of the space of the front. But when making a phone call, where does the sound of our conversation partner come from? It is simple: The display is also used for sound output. A piezoelectric module vibrates the screen, which transfers the vibration to your ear. 

While this works, the sound quality is rather mediocre: The voice of our conversation partner sounds far away and has little presence, and at high volume a lot of the sound is also transmitted to the surroundings, so that anyone can listen in to the conversation. In addition, the microphone tends to record even lower volume voices with a significant booming. The sound reproduction via the built-in speaker in the hands-free mode is better and the voice of our conversation partner sounds clearer. However, the problems of the microphone also continue here.

Cameras – All is turning...

Image taken with front camera
Image taken with front camera
AR Emoji
AR Emoji

In the back of the Galaxy A80 is a triple camera module, consisting of two conventional cameras and one ToF camera. The latter can measure the time that an infrared or laser beam takes to reach an object and back to the camera, and then calculate the distance. For this reason, it is called ToF, which means Time of Flight. While you cannot record images in the classic sense with this, it merely serves to improve the depth effects.

As the conventional main camera, a 48-megapixel lens is used that combines four pixels into one by default and thus records more light per pixel. As a result, this leads to an image size of only 12 megapixels. However optionally, you can also record real 48-megapixel images.

Under normal light conditions, the images appear very bright, so that in particularly bright areas you often cannot see any details anymore. Here the iPhone XS Max, for example, chooses a better exposure. On the other hand, we really like the image sharpness of the main camera in the Galaxy A80, which reproduces many details. However, with high contrasts such as an overcast sky with the sunlight shining through, the Galaxy A80 has a hard time with image sharpness. 

In low-light conditions, the Galaxy A80 automatically decides for a good reproduction of the light source, but then loses brightness in the background. Overall, the low-light performance of the Galaxy A80 is mediocre.

The second lens in the back is a wide angle lens. A smooth change between the two lenses, meaning an optical zoom, is not possible, and you have to use either one or the other lens. Similarly, there is no optical image stabilizer either.

Videos can be recorded in UHD, but there is also only a digital zoom and you have to choose the lens you want to use beforehand. The exposure reacts quickly and almost without any steps to changing light conditions. Overall, you can record good videos with the Galaxy A80.

If you swipe your finger upwards in the Photo app or press the button to switch to the front camera, the camera module moves upwards and then turns around. There are three fixed zoom levels and you can suddenly not use the integrated flash anymore. We can only speculate why: Either it is configured to be too strong for selfies since it is usually used for objects that are further away, or the screen that lights up instead will simply lead to a better result.

In this way, you can use the high-quality main lenses also for selfies, so of course you might ask about the quality of the results. It is not surprising that they have a similar quality as the images taken from the back. As selfies are high resolution and rich in detail, the elaborate construction is definitely worth it. 

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

Our lab tests show a sharp reproduction of the test chart, but color areas appear slightly unclean. Towards the edges, the sharpness also decreases considerably. Colors are generally reproduced slightly too bright.

Image of test chart
Image of test chart
Test chart detail
Test chart detail
ColorChecker: The target color is displayed in the bottom half of each field.
ColorChecker: The target color is displayed in the bottom half of each field.

Accessories and Warranty – Quick charger included

In addition to the smartphone, the box also includes a quick charger and a USB-C-to-USB-C cable. A wired headset is also included. On its website, Samsung also advertises a standing cover for the Galaxy A80 that can be placed with two different feet in landscape orientation at a 60° or 45° angle to watch movies, for example. Samsung charges almost 35 Euros (~$39) for this, and it is available in white or black.

The warranty for the smartphone is 24 months.

Input Devices and Operation – No face recognition

The giant screen is a challenge even for large hands, and you often have to stretch your thumbs quite far to reach the farthest corners. However, the screen offers a good, smooth surface and can be operated very accurately.

The hardware buttons on the left and right sides of the case control the volume and standby. They can be felt easily and have a clear pressure point but appear only of an average quality.

The fingerprint sensor is under the display. In the past we had mixed experiences of this design choice. While this worked well in some devices, in others the sensor was still not accurate enough. Unfortunately, we often had to struggle in the Galaxy A80 with the recognition process taking too long and not being as accurate as a fingerprint sensor built into the case. Other manufacturers such as Sony have also demonstrated for a long time that the sensor can easily be hidden in the standby button, if it would otherwise mar the design.

While the Samsung Galaxy A80 has a ToF camera that can read depth information, Samsung has not integrated face recognition as an unlocking method into its smartphone.

Keyboard portrait
Keyboard portrait
Keyboard landscape
Keyboard landscape

Display – Not quite as bright

Subpixel grid
Subpixel grid

Samsung engineers have always been big fans of AMOLED displays, and such a display is also used in the Galaxy A80. The resolution corresponds to the class standard and represents a stretched Full HD format. The Nokia 9 can shine even with 1440p here but is the exception in this price class. As usual for Samsung, the Galaxy A80 is brighter with an activated brightness sensor than the maximum manual setting: We measure 499 cd/m² as the maximum and 485.7 cd/m² on average.

This is at the class level but only at the bottom edge. The OnePlus 7 and Nokia 9 easily reach more than 600 cd/m². The brightness distribution is very even at 96%.

484
cd/m²
482
cd/m²
499
cd/m²
483
cd/m²
478
cd/m²
487
cd/m²
485
cd/m²
481
cd/m²
492
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 499 cd/m² Average: 485.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2.85 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 478 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.97 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
98.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.031
Samsung Galaxy A80
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7
LG G8s ThinQ
P-OLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Honor View 20
LTPS, 2310x1080, 6.4
OnePlus 7
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Nokia 9 PureView
P-OLED, 2880x1440, 5.99
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
OLED, 2220x1080, 6.3
Screen
6%
7%
8%
25%
23%
Brightness middle
478
539
13%
492
3%
603
26%
648
36%
553
16%
Brightness
486
556
14%
475
-2%
605
24%
641
32%
553
14%
Brightness Distribution
96
88
-8%
94
-2%
94
-2%
92
-4%
96
0%
Black Level *
0.4
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.97
3.78
-27%
2.4
19%
3.5
-18%
2.3
23%
2.2
26%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.18
6.95
32%
5.2
49%
7.7
24%
5.2
49%
5.1
50%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.5
2.2
12%
3.2
-28%
2.7
-8%
2.2
12%
1.7
32%
Gamma
2.031 108%
2.274 97%
2.06 107%
2.266 97%
2.3 96%
2.06 107%
CCT
6533 99%
6013 108%
7125 91%
6775 96%
6592 99%
6434 101%
Contrast
1230

* ... 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 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 240 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 240 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 9365 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The Samsung display brings the vibrant color reproduction that is also typical for the manufacturer. It can be modified via two display modes: Vivid and Natural. You can also adjust the white balance manually. The grayscales and color reproduction are basically quite accurate and without a colored tint. Only green color tones are reproduced slightly too saturated.

As usual, the OLED display uses PWM and flickers at about 240 Hz over the whole brightness range of the display. So those who are sensitive should try the display before buying the smartphone. The response times are less than 10 milliseconds, which makes the display also suitable for fast games.

CalMAN Grayscales
CalMAN Grayscales
CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Accuracy
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Color Space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 5 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.7 ms).

During cloudy days, using the smartphone outdoors poses no problem, particularly if the brightness sensor is activated. Only when the surrounding light is very bright will there be some problems.

We detect a slight colored tint in our pictures of the viewing angles when looking from the sides, but the image always remains easily recognizable.

Outdoor use – brightness sensor
Outdoor use – brightness sensor
Outdoor use – maximum brightness
Outdoor use – maximum brightness
Outdoor use – medium brightness
Outdoor use – medium brightness
Outdoor use – low brightness
Outdoor use – low brightness
Viewing angles
Viewing angles
 
 
 

Performance – High-class power in the Galaxy A80

The Snapdragon 730, which was only introduced this year, is supposed to be the SoC bridging the high-end and mid-range. It brings a total of eight cores, two of which run at 2.2 GHz and six at 1.8 GHz. While you get a fast smartphone with the Galaxy A80, it still cannot quite keep up with the top models that have the Snapdragon 855. However, in practice you only notice the difference in very demanding applications or when several apps are running at the same time. Otherwise the Galaxy smartphone is very fast and operates smoothly.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
7881 Points ∼59%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7442 Points ∼56% -6%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9028 Points ∼68% +15%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7372 Points ∼56% -6%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13272 Points ∼100% +68%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
5542 Points ∼42% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (7795 - 7881, n=2)
7838 Points ∼59% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=321)
4685 Points ∼35% -41%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6826 Points ∼60%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10274 Points ∼90% +51%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9868 Points ∼87% +45%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
11388 Points ∼100% +67%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8909 Points ∼78% +31%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
5826 Points ∼51% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (6826 - 6871, n=2)
6849 Points ∼60% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=380)
4703 Points ∼41% -31%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2436 Points ∼69%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3406 Points ∼97% +40%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3314 Points ∼94% +36%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3510 Points ∼100% +44%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2421 Points ∼69% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1601 Points ∼46% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2436 - 2527, n=2)
2482 Points ∼71% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=380)
1420 Points ∼40% -42%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
7177 Points ∼78%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9125 Points ∼99% +27%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
9243 Points ∼100% +29%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9205 Points ∼100% +28%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8415 Points ∼91% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
5789 Points ∼63% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (7177 - 7533, n=2)
7355 Points ∼80% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=372)
5257 Points ∼57% -27%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
8626 Points ∼68%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
11890 Points ∼93% +38%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
12778 Points ∼100% +48%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
12095 Points ∼95% +40%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
9917 Points ∼78% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
6338 Points ∼50% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (8626 - 9049, n=2)
8838 Points ∼69% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14439, n=543)
5690 Points ∼45% -34%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2708 Points ∼81%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2794 Points ∼84% +3%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3324 Points ∼100% +23%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
2857 Points ∼86% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2708 - 2786, n=2)
2747 Points ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=58)
2695 Points ∼81% 0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2160 Points ∼37%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4236 Points ∼72% +96%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5862 Points ∼100% +171%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4978 Points ∼85% +130%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (1917 - 2160, n=2)
2039 Points ∼35% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=58)
2763 Points ∼47% +28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2262 Points ∼45%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3800 Points ∼76% +68%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5012 Points ∼100% +122%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4273 Points ∼85% +89%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2060 - 2262, n=2)
2161 Points ∼43% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=58)
2512 Points ∼50% +11%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3160 Points ∼72%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3309 Points ∼75% +5%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4381 Points ∼99% +39%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4416 Points ∼100% +40%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3456 Points ∼78% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2774 Points ∼63% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3160 - 3241, n=2)
3201 Points ∼72% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4635, n=380)
1959 Points ∼44% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2438 Points ∼34%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5184 Points ∼73% +113%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3718 Points ∼52% +53%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7089 Points ∼100% +191%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5828 Points ∼82% +139%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1268 Points ∼18% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2176 - 2438, n=2)
2307 Points ∼33% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=380)
1759 Points ∼25% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2568 Points ∼41%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4604 Points ∼74% +79%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
3847 Points ∼62% +50%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6249 Points ∼100% +143%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5057 Points ∼81% +97%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1433 Points ∼23% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2347 - 2568, n=2)
2458 Points ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6875, n=381)
1633 Points ∼26% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3025 Points ∼69%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3293 Points ∼75% +9%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4393 Points ∼100% +45%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4405 Points ∼100% +46%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3368 Points ∼76% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2645 Points ∼60% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3025 - 3296, n=2)
3161 Points ∼72% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=409)
1869 Points ∼42% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3635 Points ∼35%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6358 Points ∼62% +75%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5327 Points ∼52% +47%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10302 Points ∼100% +183%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8435 Points ∼82% +132%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1757 Points ∼17% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3316 - 3635, n=2)
3476 Points ∼34% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=409)
2338 Points ∼23% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3479 Points ∼44%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5268 Points ∼66% +51%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5087 Points ∼64% +46%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7940 Points ∼100% +128%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6322 Points ∼80% +82%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1898 Points ∼24% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3312 - 3479, n=2)
3396 Points ∼43% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=409)
1966 Points ∼25% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3215 Points ∼77%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3242 Points ∼78% +1%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4175 Points ∼100% +30%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4093 Points ∼98% +27%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3418 Points ∼82% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2073 Points ∼50% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3215 - 3227, n=2)
3221 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4492, n=460)
1866 Points ∼45% -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2244 Points ∼35%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6040 Points ∼95% +169%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4256 Points ∼67% +90%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6336 Points ∼100% +182%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
5123 Points ∼81% +128%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1185 Points ∼19% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2008 - 2244, n=2)
2126 Points ∼34% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=460)
1451 Points ∼23% -35%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2405 Points ∼43%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5068 Points ∼90% +111%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4238 Points ∼75% +76%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5648 Points ∼100% +135%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4612 Points ∼82% +92%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1354 Points ∼24% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (2192 - 2405, n=2)
2299 Points ∼41% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=461)
1398 Points ∼25% -42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3211 Points ∼76%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3505 Points ∼83% +9%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4214 Points ∼100% +31%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4068 Points ∼97% +27%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
3179 Points ∼75% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2741 Points ∼65% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3211 - 3239, n=2)
3225 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4454, n=501)
1730 Points ∼41% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3478 Points ∼35%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6122 Points ∼61% +76%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5252 Points ∼52% +51%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10008 Points ∼100% +188%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
8053 Points ∼80% +132%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1918 Points ∼19% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3184 - 3478, n=2)
3331 Points ∼33% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=500)
1890 Points ∼19% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3415 Points ∼45%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5251 Points ∼69% +54%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4979 Points ∼66% +46%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7556 Points ∼100% +121%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
6007 Points ∼79% +76%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2054 Points ∼27% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3196 - 3415, n=2)
3306 Points ∼44% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8136, n=503)
1635 Points ∼22% -52%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
19389 Points ∼52%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
30972 Points ∼83% +60%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
37164 Points ∼100% +92%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
36069 Points ∼97% +86%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
18523 Points ∼50% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (19389 - 19433, n=2)
19411 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=662)
14069 Points ∼38% -27%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
51091 Points ∼52%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
97354 Points ∼100% +91%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
67388 Points ∼69% +32%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
83854 Points ∼86% +64%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
29065 Points ∼30% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (46605 - 51091, n=2)
48848 Points ∼50% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=660)
21672 Points ∼22% -58%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
37475 Points ∼57%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
65945 Points ∼100% +76%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
57073 Points ∼87% +52%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
64782 Points ∼98% +73%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
25783 Points ∼39% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (35557 - 37475, n=2)
36516 Points ∼55% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=660)
17599 Points ∼27% -53%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
84 fps ∼50%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
85 fps ∼51% +1%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
118 fps ∼71% +40%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
167 fps ∼100% +99%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
151 fps ∼90% +80%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
46 fps ∼28% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (77 - 84, n=2)
80.5 fps ∼48% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=683)
37.5 fps ∼22% -55%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
59 fps ∼98%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
50 fps ∼83% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (58 - 59, n=2)
58.5 fps ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=692)
27.9 fps ∼47% -53%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
42 fps ∼42%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
50 fps ∼50% +19%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
67 fps ∼67% +60%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
100 fps ∼100% +138%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
83 fps ∼83% +98%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
23 fps ∼23% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (38 - 42, n=2)
40 fps ∼40% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=589)
21.6 fps ∼22% -49%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
36 fps ∼60%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51 fps ∼85% +42%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
59 fps ∼98% +64%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +67%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
50 fps ∼83% +39%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
21 fps ∼35% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (34 - 36, n=2)
35 fps ∼58% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=598)
19.2 fps ∼32% -47%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
30 fps ∼45%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
35 fps ∼52% +17%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
50 fps ∼75% +67%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
67 fps ∼100% +123%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
60 fps ∼90% +100%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
15 fps ∼22% -50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (27 - 30, n=2)
28.5 fps ∼43% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=455)
17.7 fps ∼26% -41%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
26 fps ∼46%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼63% +38%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
48 fps ∼84% +85%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼100% +119%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
32 fps ∼56% +23%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
14 fps ∼25% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (24 - 26, n=2)
25 fps ∼44% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=457)
16.6 fps ∼29% -36%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
10 fps ∼38%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
14 fps ∼54% +40%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
20 fps ∼77% +100%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼100% +160%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
13 fps ∼50% +30%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
3 fps ∼12% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (9.3 - 10, n=2)
9.65 fps ∼37% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=173)
10.2 fps ∼39% +2%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6.8 fps ∼40%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8.5 fps ∼50% +25%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
14 fps ∼82% +106%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼100% +150%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
14 fps ∼82% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
4.8 fps ∼28% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (6.1 - 6.8, n=2)
6.45 fps ∼38% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=172)
7.03 fps ∼41% +3%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼42%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼58% +38%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
31 fps ∼82% +94%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
38 fps ∼100% +138%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
21 fps ∼55% +31%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
7.5 fps ∼20% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (15 - 16, n=2)
15.5 fps ∼41% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=177)
14.8 fps ∼39% -7%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼42%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼51% +22%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
34 fps ∼79% +89%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
43 fps ∼100% +139%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
37 fps ∼86% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
8.6 fps ∼20% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (16 - 18, n=2)
17 fps ∼40% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=177)
16.5 fps ∼38% -8%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼40%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
22 fps ∼52% +29%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
32 fps ∼76% +88%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
42 fps ∼100% +147%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
35 fps ∼83% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
9.1 fps ∼22% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (16 - 17, n=2)
16.5 fps ∼39% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=380)
12.1 fps ∼29% -29%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
15 fps ∼41%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
21 fps ∼57% +40%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
28 fps ∼76% +87%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
37 fps ∼100% +147%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
19 fps ∼51% +27%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
8.3 fps ∼22% -45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (13 - 15, n=2)
14 fps ∼38% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=384)
10.8 fps ∼29% -28%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
202586 Points ∼55%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
321145 Points ∼87% +59%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
306296 Points ∼83% +51%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
370908 Points ∼100% +83%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
287123 Points ∼77% +42%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
140878 Points ∼38% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (202586 - 210836, n=2)
206711 Points ∼56% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=291)
141726 Points ∼38% -30%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
1117 Points ∼79%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1171 Points ∼83% +5%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
1404 Points ∼100% +26%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
1407 Points ∼100% +26%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
1317 Points ∼94% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
1105 Points ∼79% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (1099 - 1117, n=2)
1108 Points ∼79% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=627)
755 Points ∼54% -32%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3855 Points ∼41%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8414 Points ∼89% +118%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
7484 Points ∼79% +94%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9477 Points ∼100% +146%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7918 Points ∼84% +105%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2332 Points ∼25% -40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3559 - 3855, n=2)
3707 Points ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=627)
2034 Points ∼21% -47%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3435 Points ∼61%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4324 Points ∼77% +26%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
5616 Points ∼100% +63%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5610 Points ∼100% +63%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4072 Points ∼73% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2393 Points ∼43% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3435 - 4646, n=2)
4041 Points ∼72% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=627)
1505 Points ∼27% -56%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6484 Points ∼72%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8718 Points ∼97% +34%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
8594 Points ∼96% +33%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8986 Points ∼100% +39%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
7940 Points ∼88% +22%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
5063 Points ∼56% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (6484 - 6760, n=2)
6622 Points ∼74% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=627)
2953 Points ∼33% -54%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3129 Points ∼61%
LG G8s ThinQ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4389 Points ∼86% +40%
Honor View 20
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 8192
4746 Points ∼93% +52%
OnePlus 7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5089 Points ∼100% +63%
Nokia 9 PureView
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Adreno 630, 6144
4285 Points ∼84% +37%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 6144
2364 Points ∼46% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
  (3129 - 3329, n=2)
3229 Points ∼63% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=627)
1479 Points ∼29% -53%

While surfing the Internet, the Galaxy A80 is significantly faster than its predecessor, but it is also noticeably slower than all of the other comparison devices. However, we are talking about a base level that is very high here. Yet, when loading websites we still notice a minimal delay that often is not there in even more expensive smartphones.

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
63.057 Points ∼100% +58%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 74)
60.893 Points ∼97% +52%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
53.783 Points ∼85% +34%
Nokia 9 PureView (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
44.6 Points ∼71% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (40 - 47.1, n=2)
43.6 Points ∼69% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
40.021 Points ∼63%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=100)
35.5 Points ∼56% -11%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
OnePlus 7 (Chome 74)
67.9 runs/min ∼100% +75%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 74)
67.5 runs/min ∼99% +74%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chome 75)
64.1 runs/min ∼94% +65%
Nokia 9 PureView (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
50.47 runs/min ∼74% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (38.9 - 46.5, n=2)
42.7 runs/min ∼63% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=89)
39.6 runs/min ∼58% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75)
38.9 runs/min ∼57%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
110 Points ∼100% +43%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
107 Points ∼97% +39%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
99 Points ∼90% +29%
Nokia 9 PureView (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
89 Points ∼81% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (77 - 86, n=2)
81.5 Points ∼74% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
77 Points ∼70%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=158)
66.8 Points ∼61% -13%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
59 Points ∼54% -23%
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
25051 Points ∼100% +53%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
23830 Points ∼95% +46%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
22500 Points ∼90% +38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (16358 - 17501, n=2)
16930 Points ∼68% +3%
Nokia 9 PureView (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
16484 Points ∼66% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
16358 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
10145 Points ∼40% -38%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=685)
6706 Points ∼27% -59%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=710)
10594 ms * ∼100% -250%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
3841.8 (min: 1) ms * ∼36% -27%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
3027 ms * ∼29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (2564 - 3027, n=2)
2795 ms * ∼26% +8%
Nokia 9 PureView (Chrome 73.0.3683.90)
2375 ms * ∼22% +22%
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71)
2048.1 ms * ∼19% +32%
LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75)
2036 ms * ∼19% +33%
OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74)
1958 ms * ∼18% +35%

* ... smaller is better

While the UFS 2.1 storage is fast, the OnePlus 7 with UFS 3.0 is again significantly faster. Our test unit also shows a small disadvantage in the read speed compared to the other models with UFS 2.1.

Samsung Galaxy A80LG G8s ThinQHonor View 20OnePlus 7Nokia 9 PureViewSamsung Galaxy A9 2018Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
27%
172%
95%
14%
-6%
95%
-39%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
46.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.5 (27.8 - 72.4, n=17)
49.1 (1.7 - 87.1, n=417)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
67.53 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
73.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77 (31.3 - 88.2, n=17)
67.3 (8.1 - 96.5, n=417)
Random Write 4KB
21.6
29.6
37%
138.85
543%
28.7
33%
20.18
-7%
19.79
-8%
86.8 (18.2 - 250, n=39)
302%
21.5 (0.14 - 250, n=735)
0%
Random Read 4KB
117.5
138
17%
168.91
44%
175.3
49%
131.98
12%
116.76
-1%
139 (98.9 - 158, n=39)
18%
46.6 (1.59 - 196, n=735)
-60%
Sequential Write 256KB
190.4
182.4
-4%
250.06
31%
392
106%
200.3
5%
194.65
2%
205 (182 - 503, n=39)
8%
95.5 (2.99 - 590, n=735)
-50%
Sequential Read 256KB
501.5
791.1
58%
847.48
69%
1463
192%
727.97
45%
426.63
-15%
751 (427 - 912, n=39)
50%
269 (12.1 - 1504, n=735)
-46%

Games – Gaming at 60 fps

You can also play games at 60 FPS with the Samsung Galaxy A80, as Arena of Valor proves. While it is perhaps not quite as future proof as high-end smartphones with faster SoCs, there should be sufficient power for most games over the next few years.

The control via touchscreen and position sensor also works flawlessly, as our test with Temple Run 2 shows.

Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9
Asphalt 9
Temple Run 2
Temple Run 2
010203040506070Tooltip
Samsung Galaxy A80 Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Arena of Valor; min; 1.30.2.4: Ø59.3 (1-60)
LG G8s ThinQ Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Arena of Valor; min; 1.29.1.2: Ø60.1 (59-61)
OnePlus 7 Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash; Arena of Valor; min; 1.29.1.2: Ø59.9 (59-60)
Samsung Galaxy A80 Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.30.2.4: Ø59.7 (51-60)
LG G8s ThinQ Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.29.1.2: Ø60.1 (53-61)
OnePlus 7 Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.29.1.2: Ø59.9 (58-60)
Samsung Galaxy A80 Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.6.3a: Ø26.5 (6-29)
LG G8s ThinQ Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.6.3a: Ø27.9 (24-30)
OnePlus 7 Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.5.4a: Ø29.7 (27-31)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 Adreno 512, 660, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality: Ø27.7 (24-30)
Samsung Galaxy A80 Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.6.3a: Ø26.9 (23-29)
LG G8s ThinQ Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.6.3a: Ø28.1 (26-30)
OnePlus 7 Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.5.4a: Ø30 (29-31)

Emissions – No throttling

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

As already with the Galaxy A9 (2018), Samsung also manages this time to keep the temperature development within limits. While at a maximum of 41.4 °C (106.5 °F) the warming is noticeable, it is not critical and also locally limited. During idle operation, the warming is hardly noticeable.

Fortunately, the processor doesn't throttle even under longer load, as our test with the GFXBench battery benchmark proves.

Max. Load
 40.5 °C
105 F
41.4 °C
107 F
37.9 °C
100 F
 
 40.4 °C
105 F
41.4 °C
107 F
37.8 °C
100 F
 
 40.1 °C
104 F
40.3 °C
105 F
37.9 °C
100 F
 
Maximum: 41.4 °C = 107 F
Average: 39.7 °C = 103 F
33.3 °C
92 F
39.6 °C
103 F
38 °C
100 F
33.9 °C
93 F
38.7 °C
102 F
38 °C
100 F
34.3 °C
94 F
37.5 °C
100 F
37.5 °C
100 F
Maximum: 39.6 °C = 103 F
Average: 36.8 °C = 98 F
Power Supply (max.)  37.9 °C = 100 F | Room Temperature 21.9 °C = 71 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.7 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.4 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.8 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.

Speaker

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

The Galaxy smartphone offers a mono speaker at the bottom edge. While the result chart of the speaker test looks very similar for the Galaxy A80 and the Galaxy A9 (2018), we measure slightly lower values for the maximum volume of the Galaxy A80. However, you can still fill a small room with its sound without any problems. The sound is also fairly clear and full, but there are slightly less lower mids than in the Galaxy A9 (2018), which causes the sound image to appear less warm.

Since there is no 3.5-mm audio port anymore, you have to rely on the USB-C port. Samsung includes a headset, but this is not very loud and its sound also does not have much presence. The smartphone is not able to communicate with all USB-C-to-audio adapters, so you might want to try them out first. The connection via Bluetooth works without any problems and delivers a good sound.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2043.948.42543.6423138.338.64038.342.45041.245.96334.139.8802730.110028.629.612527.929.216026.132.220025.141.72502249.431520.557.440020.561.850020.664.463018.666.780018.170.7100018.575.1125017.972.3160018.674.8200017.873.8250017.573.5315016.970.6400016.863.550001768.863001778.1800017.273.41000017.166.81250017.154.91600017.360.9SPL65.174.766.430.384.7N19.134.418.71.460.5median 18.1median 66.7Delta2.711.332.83924.328.518.619.924.330.133.835.221.223.424.82318.525.216.436.617.144.517.941.816.850.714.953.915.158.714.262.913.966.514.86814.269.414.771.214.473.414.372.31475.313.880.214.88114.475.61573.714.773.614.870.514.860.814.75526.787.50.865.9median 14.8median 680.610.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A80Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A80 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 22% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life – Suitable in practice, but not outstanding

Power Consumption

Considering its display size, the Samsung Galaxy A80 is actually fairly efficient, and particularly the consumption during idle operation is very low. While the values also remain at a low level under load, the Nokia 9 is even more efficient.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.6 / 1.2 / 1.4 Watt
Load midlight 5 / 7.1 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy A80
3700 mAh
LG G8s ThinQ
3550 mAh
Honor View 20
4000 mAh
OnePlus 7
3700 mAh
Nokia 9 PureView
3320 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
3800 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-43%
-59%
-6%
-67%
-31%
12%
-20%
Idle Minimum *
0.6
1.2
-100%
0.97
-62%
0.6
-0%
1.65
-175%
1.06
-77%
0.57 (0.54 - 0.6, n=2)
5%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=769)
-46%
Idle Average *
1.2
1.6
-33%
2.58
-115%
1.1
8%
2.34
-95%
1.94
-62%
1.075 (0.95 - 1.2, n=2)
10%
1.734 (0.6 - 6.2, n=768)
-45%
Idle Maximum *
1.4
2
-43%
2.63
-88%
2
-43%
2.43
-74%
1.98
-41%
1.24 (1.08 - 1.4, n=2)
11%
2.02 (0.74 - 6.6, n=769)
-44%
Load Average *
5
5
-0%
5.24
-5%
4
20%
5.02
-0%
3.56
29%
3.85 (2.7 - 5, n=2)
23%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=763)
19%
Load Maximum *
7.1
10
-41%
8.73
-23%
8
-13%
6.51
8%
7.49
-5%
6.25 (5.4 - 7.1, n=2)
12%
5.9 (1.2 - 14.2, n=763)
17%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Looking at the battery life of the Samsung Galaxy A80, you notice quickly that with almost 12 hours in our WLAN test scenario, it is quite suitable in practice. Using it constantly, the device should easily last through a workday, and if you only use it occasionally, even two. Compared to its quasi-predecessor, the Galaxy A9, the battery life remained almost the same, while the battery capacity is slightly smaller at 3700 mAh. Only when playing video does the Galaxy A80 remain clearly behind last year's Galaxy A9. So while the smartphone is no battery wonder, it is quite suitable in everyday operation.

For the first time, Samsung also includes its new quick-charge technology in the Samsung Galaxy A80. This uses 25 watts and can completely recharge the smartphone in barely more than one hour. So even if you do not have much time for charging, you can still gain several percentage points within 10 minutes that might get you through the day.  

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
29h 56min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 53min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
15h 02min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 20min
Samsung Galaxy A80
3700 mAh
LG G8s ThinQ
3550 mAh
Honor View 20
4000 mAh
OnePlus 7
3700 mAh
Nokia 9 PureView
3320 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
3800 mAh
Battery Runtime
-6%
14%
20%
-20%
3%
Reader / Idle
1796
1689
-6%
1928
7%
1989
11%
1250
-30%
1780
-1%
H.264
902
753
-17%
932
3%
933
3%
732
-19%
1005
11%
WiFi v1.3
713
693
-3%
969
36%
901
26%
486
-32%
689
-3%
Load
200
203
2%
222
11%
278
39%
202
1%
205
3%

Pros

+ very fast charging
+ almost the whole front is the display
+ great selfie quality
+ solid battery life
+ many LTE frequency bands
+ stable case

Cons

- heavy
- no face recognition
- slightly slow fingerprint sensor
- camera has no optical image stabilizer...
- ...and no variable optical zoom
- fairly inaccurate GPS
- ToF camera is hardly used
- mediocre voice quality

Verdict – Gain at an expensive price

In review: Samsung Galaxy A80. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Samsung Galaxy A80. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de

Samsung's high-class Galaxy A80 smartphone is a quite large and also heavy device that can score with several innovations: The quick-charging technology that uses 25 watts is convincing and up to now has not even been available in the more expensive Galaxy S models. 

At the same time, the front comes completely without any notch and with very slim bezels. This leads to some additional innovations, such as using the screen as an earpiece that delivers a rather mediocre sound quality or the fingerprint sensor below the screen that also does not work as well as a sensor in the case. 

But the most spectacular innovation is surely the rotating main camera that ensures high-quality selfies. However, in actuality the camera is rather average and the built-in ToF camera is also hardly used, neither for face recognition nor for operation gimmicks such as in the LG G8S ThinQ. Only the measurement app even begins to use the innovative camera. There is no optical zoom and no optical image stabilizer, and when the camera is turned around, the flash does not work. All this limits the enthusiasm for this solution.

The Samsung Galaxy A80 is not perfect and a bit too expensive for what it offers, but there are many flashy innovations.

The battery life is solid but no revolution either, and the same goes for the screen. In addition, there are smartphones with more performance and a more accurate GPS for the same price.

Those who fell in love with the rotating camera have to live with some disadvantages but also get a high-quality and, despite all, a fast smartphone with unusual features that hardly warms up.

Samsung Galaxy A80 - 07/18/2019 v6(old)
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
86%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
97%
Connectivity
41 / 60 → 69%
Weight
88%
Battery
95%
Display
87%
Games Performance
60 / 63 → 96%
Application Performance
69 / 70 → 98%
Temperature
88%
Noise
100%
Audio
57 / 91 → 63%
Camera
79%
Average
78%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy A80 Smartphone Review – A winner with a rotating camera?
Florian Schmitt, 2019-07-19 (Update: 2019-07-20)