Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarSamsung Galaxy A90 5G Smartphone Review - Cutting corners for 5G
Samsung's Galaxy A series contains everything from budget to high-end smartphones. The Galaxy A90 5G is the new flagship and likely one of the cheapest ways to take advantage of the new 5G network. It also offers other features that users expect from a smartphone at this price point such as a good camera with multiple optics, fast storage and good performance. In this review, we try to determine whether it is able to compete with other top smartphones.
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84.2 % | 12/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G SD 855, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.5 % | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
| 87.2 % | 07/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A80 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 220 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.9 % | 11/2019 | OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 3120x1440 | |
| 85.7 % | 11/2019 | Google Pixel 4 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 162 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.70" | 2280x1080 |
Case - Large and Ergonomic
At 206 grams, the Galaxy A90 is not very heavy for being such a large smartphone: The 6.7-inch display and the small waterdrop notch allow for a lot of screen space. The faintly shimmering stripes on the back create light reflections that make the case, which is available in black or white, look more interesting.
While the Galaxy A90 5G lies well in the hand, it is fairly impractical for small hands due to its size. Knocking on the back of the Galaxy A90 produces a dull sound, which does not exactly add to the otherwise high-quality impression of the device. Similarly, the back of the device can be depressed slightly. However, the Samsung phone is well-built overall and has nicely rounded-off edges and small clearances.
Connectivity - Galaxy A90 with MicroSD
With 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB, the memory configuration is okay for this price point, although the OnePlus 7T Pro offers more in both regards and even the Galaxy A80, which has dropped significantly in price, at least offers more RAM. This shows that Samsung cut some corners in order to fit the 5G modem into the budget. Still, there is UFS 3.0 memory, which guarantees fast read and write speeds.
Furthermore, the microSD card reader supports ExFAT-formatted cards, although inserting a microSD card reduces the number of available SIM card slots to one.
There is a DRM certification as well, which enables the smartphone to stream content in Full HD. Samsung also includes the Knox package, which contains hardware and software mechanisms for protecting user data on the smartphone from unauthorized access.
Software - OneUI and Promotional Apps
The device uses Samsung's OneUI as its user interface. The software is well-organized, modern and rather intuitive to use. Version 1.5 is based on Android 9 and the security patches date back to October 1st 2019, which at the time of testing is fairly recent.
The Galaxy A90 5G comes with different apps, some of which cannot be uninstalled, depending on the provider. While Samsung does not include a lot of its own apps, third party apps such as Facebook and Netflix are preinstalled. They cannot be completely removed from the storage either and may only be hidden.
Communication and GPS - 5G as Trump Card
The highlight of the Galaxy A90 is, of course, its Qualcomm modem, which allows for 5G network access with download speeds of up to 5 Gb/s. Naturally, users will also need an appropriate internet plan from their carrier and a nearby 5G radio tower; in many countries, 5G is not yet available region-wide. CNET reports very impressive 5G data transfer rates in the US, although it should be noted that there are not yet very many users who have to share the bandwidth of the network.
With the Galaxy A90, the reception inside of 4G networks in urban areas is good, even indoors. While here, the device is theoretically capable of download speeds of up to 2 Gb/s, this also depends on the number of users who are active in the network at any given time.
The Galaxy A90 does not support Wi-Fi 6 and the Wi-Fi speeds with our reference router Linksys Nighthawk AX12 are on a level not unlike that of other, similarly priced smartphones.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=69, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=70, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
While the smartphone has a hard time locating us indoors, it quickly locates us outdoors with an accuracy of within three meters. Determining our position on Google maps works well and the compass is fairly accurate.
Our real-world test, a bike ride with the Galaxy A90 and the professional navi Garmin Edge 520, shows that the Galaxy A90 is very precise and while it does slightly stray away from the actual route in the small alleys in the old town, it returns to it at the bridge passage, which it accurately traces. Thus, the Galaxy A90 is a good choice for navigation purposes, even if relatively accurate data is required.
Telephony and Call Quality - Somewhat Muffled
The OneUI includes Samsung's own telephony app, which is neatly arranged into multiple tabs containing recent calls, contacts on the phone, a classic dial pad and favorite places, which can be contacted directly as well.
The call quality with the earpiece is somewhat muffled and while voices are captured well, users will have to make sure they do not speak too quietly. The same holds true for the microphone when using the speakerphone in hands-free mode, although here, our conversational partner sounds much better.
Cameras - No Infinitely Variable Zoom
The main camera with a resolution of 48 megapixels sits on the back and combines four pixels into one, which improves the amount of captured light and results in 12-megapixel pictures. It is also possible to capture 48-megapixel images. Furthermore, there is a wide-angle lens with a resolution of 8 megapixels that does not allow for an infinitely variable optical zoom; instead, the camera app directly switches between the optics. The third sensor serves the calculation of depth of field effects in portraits.
Landscape pictures shine with decently sharp details and good image brightening, although the plant image shows a noticeable lack of sharpness, which could have been prevented by an image stabilizer. Still, this image is also well-brightened. In low-light situations, images have great dynamic range and sharp details. While the camera performs well, a few features such as an infinitely variable zoom and an optical image stabilizer are missing.
While videos can be recorded at 4K resolution, they are limited to 30 frames per second. The optics also has to be chosen in advance, since switching between the lenses while recording is not supported. The lighting and the autofocus are reliable and relatively seamless. The image quality as well as the level of detail is satisfyingly high.
The front camera has a generous resolution of 32 megapixels and captures pictures at 8 megapixels by default, although the maximum settings are also available. We were pleased with the image quality and the lighting.
In our test laboratory and under controlled lighting conditions, the camera again proves its ability to capture a lot of details, even in very dark environments. The center of the fully illuminated test chart looks fairly good as well, although the image becomes less sharp and less vivid towards the edges.
Accessories and Warranty - Safe for 24 Months
Aside from the quick charger and a USB cable with two USB Type-C connectors, the package also includes a headset. Furthermore, there is a SIM tool and all of the required smartphone paperwork.
Samsung offers up to a 24-month warranty, depending on the country.
Input Devices & Handling - Good In-Screen Fingerprint Sensor
Using the large touchscreen of the Samsung Galaxy A90 5G feels very smooth and responsive. The buttons to the right of the case, which control the volume level and activate standby mode, are very comfortable to use while also having a distinct actuation point.
The fingerprint sensor sits below the display. Even while the screen is not on, a finger can be placed on it to wake up and unlock the smartphone. This works fairly well after some practice and the sensor is quite reliable and responsive overall. Software-based facial recognition is also available and works relatively reliably as well.
Display - Galaxy A90 with Bright Screen
While the slightly-above Full HD resolution is not uncommon for this device class, buyers of the OnePlus 7T Pro get a lot more pixels. Nonetheless, the SuperAMOLED screen of our test device looks great and offers both vivid colors and a high contrast ratio. Samsung does not list an HDR certification.
The display can reach a fairly good maximum brightness level of 601 cd/m², although this requires the ambient light sensor to be enabled.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 581 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.44 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
117.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.118
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.10 | Samsung Galaxy A80 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67 | Google Pixel 4 OLED, 2280x1080, 5.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 45% | 12% | 26% | 39% | |
| Brightness middle | 581 | 679 17% | 478 -18% | 606 4% | 554 -5% |
| Brightness | 581 | 671 15% | 486 -16% | 611 5% | 550 -5% |
| Brightness Distribution | 94 | 93 -1% | 96 2% | 95 1% | 94 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.68 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.44 | 0.8 85% | 2.97 45% | 3.46 36% | 0.8 85% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 13.05 | 2.4 82% | 10.18 22% | 5.64 57% | 1.4 89% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4 | 1.1 72% | 2.5 37% | 2 50% | 1.3 67% |
| Gamma | 2.118 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.031 108% | 2.258 97% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 5882 111% | 6610 98% | 6533 99% | 6779 96% | 6213 105% |
| Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 223 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 223 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 223 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19046 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Thanks to the AMOLED screen, users do not have to worry about the black value or contrast ratio, since they are nearly perfect. We detect the commonly relied-upon PWM flickering, which is used to reduce the display's brightness. Sensitive users may want to try the smartphone before making a purchase.
While the color accuracy and the color-space coverage are good, other smartphones around this price point achieve even better results. The response times are fairly fast, which also makes the display suitable for gamers.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.1 ms). | ||
Due to the screen's high brightness level and a surface that is not susceptible to reflections, the smartphone is well-suited to outdoor use. However, remaining in the shade is still advisable on very bright days. Thanks to AMOLED, the viewing angles leave nothing to be desired.
Performance - Fast, but Not the Fastest
The Galaxy A90 5G is equipped with the Snapdragon 855 SoC. While it is still very fast and sufficient for all current apps, it is no longer the fastest model in Qualcomm's processor lineup and smartphones with its successor are expected to be released soon.
The OnePlus 7T Pro, which relies on an 855+ processor, outperforms our test device by a significant margin in our benchmarks and the performance level of an iPhone 11 is even further out of reach. However, other high-end smartphones with the Snapdragon 855 perform similarly and in practice, the Galaxy A90 is blazing-fast anyway.
| Geekbench 5.0 | |
| 5.0 Single-Core (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (725 - 750, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (363 - 1668, n=12, last 2 years) | |
| 5.0 Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2441 - 2852, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1257 - 4233, n=12, last 2 years) | |
| OpenCL Score 5.0 (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2218 - 2395, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1175 - 9123, n=8, last 2 years) | |
| Vulkan Score 5.0 (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1849 - 2154, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (779 - 7988, n=8, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (59 - 91, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (85 - 167, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (46 - 85, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (50 - 102, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Apple iPhone 11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 | |
| Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (376698 - 451559, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (101336 - 725649, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| CPU (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (114777 - 140166, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38092 - 191947, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| GPU (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (158097 - 175532, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14011 - 320795, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| MEM (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (52596 - 75544, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (20787 - 118523, n=39, last 2 years) | |
| UX (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro | |
| Google Pixel 4 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (51228 - 72343, n=8) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (23028 - 119537, n=39, last 2 years) | |
The Galaxy A90 5G is on par with the competition in terms of browsing the web and often even above average when it comes to the web browser rendering speed. In practice, web pages load quickly and users will only occasionally have to wait for pictures to load.
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (17.3 - 282, n=164, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (27.5 - 414, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.3 - 375, n=153, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (34 - 292, n=144, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=193, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 25640, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10031, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
* ... smaller is better
Many devices in this price category do not offer a microSD card reader at all, which gives the Galaxy A90 a leg up on the competition in this regard. Our reference card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 is read from and written to at fairly fast speeds.
Thanks to UFS 3.0, the internal storage is very fast as well and even the OnePlus 7T Pro, which integrates the same memory technology, cannot keep up.
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | Samsung Galaxy A80 | OnePlus 7T Pro | Google Pixel 4 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -64% | -28% | -39% | 3% | 16% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1418 | 502 -65% | 1489 5% | 655 -54% | 1520 ? 7% | 1183 ? -17% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 522 | 190.4 -64% | 405 -22% | 247.7 -53% | 546 ? 5% | 743 ? 42% |
| Random Read 4KB | 190.5 | 117.5 -38% | 169 -11% | 122.4 -36% | 206 ? 8% | 208 ? 9% |
| Random Write 4KB | 168.5 | 21.6 -87% | 26 -85% | 146.6 -13% | 193.9 ? 15% | 217 ? 29% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 75.1 ? | 67.3 ? -10% | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 55.7 ? -6% |
Gaming - 60 Hz Is No Problem
All in all, 60-Hz gaming should not be a problem for the Samsung Galaxy A90 5G: As the app GameBench shows, both Arena of Valor and Shadow Fight 3 run with consistently high frame rates at maximum quality settings.
Controlling games with the touchscreen and gyroscope is enjoyable, since the controls feel smooth and not limiting in any way.
Emissions - Galaxy A90 Becomes Very Warm
Temperature
While the surface temperatures of the smartphone barely increase during idle, the case of the Galaxy A90 becomes very warm under load: We measure up to 44.7 °C, which can be uncomfortable for users, particularly when simultaneously faced with warm ambient temperatures.
We use GFXBench and its battery test to shine a light on the long-term performance of the smartphone. During the test, the frame rate drops by about 20% after the 20th loop. Thus, the maximum performance level of the smartphone is not accessible after prolonged use.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Speaker
The maximum volume level of the mono speaker, which sits on the bottom edge and slightly struggles when it comes to lower mid frequencies, is not particularly high. At maximum volume, the highs are overrepresented and lowering the volume results in a more balanced sound. The audio experience is fairly mediocre for a smartphone this pricey.
The smartphone can also output sounds to external speakers or headphones via USB Type-C or Bluetooth, which we did not encounter any issues with in our tests.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 81% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 12% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 88% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
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
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Battery Life - Marathon Runner
Energy Consumption
Despite its large display, the device achieves good energy consumption results by evidently being rather economical with the energy stored in its battery.
| Off / Standby |   0 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  0.6 / 0.9 / 1.4 Watt |
| Load |
4.5 / 9 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -59% | -5% | -129% | -34% | -31% | -22% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.6 | 0.56 7% | 0.6 -0% | 2.1 -250% | 1.01 -68% | 0.939 ? -57% | 0.883 ? -47% |
| Idle Average * | 0.9 | 2.99 -232% | 1.2 -33% | 3 -233% | 1.63 -81% | 1.506 ? -67% | 1.487 ? -65% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.4 | 3.02 -116% | 1.4 -0% | 3.5 -150% | 1.69 -21% | 1.799 ? -29% | 1.701 ? -22% |
| Load Average * | 4.5 | 4.17 7% | 5 -11% | 5.3 -18% | 4.67 -4% | 4.61 ? -2% | 4.26 ? 5% |
| Load Maximum * | 9 | 5.44 40% | 7.1 21% | 8.3 8% | 8.78 2% | 9.04 ? -0% | 7.1 ? 21% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
Coupled with the generous 4,500 mAh battery, the low consumption results in excellent battery life: The device lasts 15:46 hours in our Wi-Fi test and almost 36 hours during idle. Under load, it still manages to last just above 5 hours. While these results are definitely impressive, Apple's iPhone 11 has even more stamina in certain scenarios.
The included quick charger fully charges the battery in just under 2 hours. Its maximum charging power is 25 watts.
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 7% | -21% | -5% | -45% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2156 | 2765 28% | 1796 -17% | 2015 -7% | 1007 -53% |
| H.264 | 987 | 1147 16% | 902 -9% | 957 -3% | 617 -37% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 946 | 866 -8% | 713 -25% | 912 -4% | 460 -51% |
| Load | 298 | 267 -10% | 200 -33% | 283 -5% | 185 -38% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Good Smartphone for 5G Fans
Currently, users who want 5G at a good price have to give up certain features. This appears to be the core insight from our Samsung Galaxy A90 5G review. On the other hand, the device also offers a few advantages over other high-end smartphones such as particularly long battery life, although we were not yet able to determine the 5G module's impact in this regard, and the presence of a microSD card reader.
Thus, the value of the Samsung A90 5G strongly depends on a user's overall preferences: The camera, speaker, memory configuration and the performance are all rather mediocre for this price class and missing details such as HDR, an IP certification or wireless charging may also maker some users unhappy.
The Samsung Galaxy A90 5G is a solid 5G smartphone with a slightly trimmed feature set.
However, the Galaxy A90 5G is one of the cheapest ways to take advantage of 5G networks aside from using Chinese imports. Since the smartphone makes an overall good impression and even offers a few unique advantages, we can recommend it to price-conscious 5G fans.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
-
09/03/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
