Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Smartphone Review - Cutting corners for 5G

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Marius S.), 12/09/2019

Super-fast internet for everyone? The Samsung Galaxy A90 5G's vision is making 5G-enabled smartphones cheaper. At an MSRP of 749 Euros (~$831), it is far from a budget smartphone, however. In our review, we determine whether or not the price is justified.

Samsung Galaxy A90 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.

Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Graphics adapter
Memory
6144 MB 
Display
6.7 inch 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 393 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, Super AMOLED, Waterdrop notch, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 115 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: USB Type-C, Card Reader: microSD up to 512GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C
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), 5G (n78), Dual SIM, LTE, 5G, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.4 x 164.8 x 76.4 ( = 0.33 x 6.49 x 3.01 in)
Battery
4500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix f/​2.0, phase detection AF, LED flash, Video @2160p/​30FPS, rotable (camera 1); 8.0MP, f/​2.2, wide-angle lens (camera 2); 5.0MP, f/​2.2, depth of field (camera 3)
Secondary Camera: 32 MPix f/2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the bottom edge, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, quick charger, USB type-C cable, headset, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0,377W/​kg (head), 1,547W/​kg (body); Download LTE: up to 2 Gbit/s, Upload LTE: up to 316 Mbit/s; Download 5G: up to 5 Gbit/s , fanless
Weight
206 g ( = 7.27 oz / 0.45 pounds), Power Supply: 72 g ( = 2.54 oz / 0.16 pounds)
Price
749 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Competing Devices

RatingDateModelWeightDriveSizeResolutionBest Price
84%12/2019Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
855, Adreno 640
206 g128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.7"2400x1080
87%09/2019Apple iPhone 11
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
194 g64 GB SSD6.1"1792x828
87%07/2019Samsung Galaxy A80
730, Adreno 618
220 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.7"2400x1080
87%11/2019OnePlus 7T Pro
855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
86%11/2019Google Pixel 4
855, Adreno 640
162 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash5.7"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.

Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G

Size Comparison

165.2 mm / 6.5 inch 76.5 mm / 3.01 inch 9.3 mm / 0.3661 inch 220 g0.485 lbs164.8 mm / 6.49 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 75.9 mm / 2.99 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs150.9 mm / 5.94 inch 75.7 mm / 2.98 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 194 g0.4277 lbs147.1 mm / 5.79 inch 68.8 mm / 2.71 inch 8.2 mm / 0.3228 inch 162 g0.3571 lbs

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.

Bottom: USB Type-C, microphone, speaker
Bottom: USB Type-C, microphone, speaker
Top: microphone, SIM tray
Top: microphone, SIM tray
Left: No ports
Left: No ports
Right: standby button, volume control
Right: standby button, volume control

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.

Software Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Software Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Software Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Software Samsung Galaxy A90 5G

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 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 11
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
563 (min: 490, max: 597) MBit/s ∼100% +10%
Google Pixel 4
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
526 (min: 413, max: 655) MBit/s ∼93% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
513 (min: 457, max: 532) MBit/s ∼91%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (min: 347, max: 505) MBit/s ∼84% -8%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
428 (min: 360, max: 501) MBit/s ∼76% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 1014, n=489)
235 MBit/s ∼42% -54%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel 4
Adreno 640, 855, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
591 (min: 564, max: 609) MBit/s ∼100% +18%
Apple iPhone 11
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
529 (min: 204, max: 603) MBit/s ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
501 (min: 479, max: 554) MBit/s ∼85%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (min: 311, max: 375) MBit/s ∼60% -30%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Adreno 618, 730, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
282 (min: 249, max: 327) MBit/s ∼48% -44%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 966, n=489)
221 MBit/s ∼37% -56%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø513 (457-532)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø501 (479-554)
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

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.

GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Turn
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Turn
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Turn
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy A90 – Bridge

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

Picture front camera
Picture front camera

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.

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

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.

ColorChecker Photo
24.7 ∆E
39.8 ∆E
29.8 ∆E
28.7 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
47 ∆E
36.5 ∆E
23.2 ∆E
27.4 ∆E
23.1 ∆E
47.2 ∆E
47.4 ∆E
20 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
23 ∆E
45.4 ∆E
29.5 ∆E
32.9 ∆E
40.2 ∆E
43.2 ∆E
40.5 ∆E
30.7 ∆E
21.1 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A90 5G: 32.58 ∆E min: 11.76 - max: 47.41 ∆E
ColorChecker Photo
7.4 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
5 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
6.2 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
5.9 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
10 ∆E
2.4 ∆E
3 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
1.9 ∆E
1.4 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy A90 5G: 5.59 ∆E min: 1.37 - max: 11.85 ∆E
Test chart – perfectly illuminated
Test chart – perfectly illuminated
Test chart – 1 Lux

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.

Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard portrait mode
Keyboard landscape mode
Keyboard landscape mode

Display - Galaxy A90 with Bright Screen

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

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.

573
cd/m²
581
cd/m²
601
cd/m²
566
cd/m²
581
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
567
cd/m²
574
cd/m²
590
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 601 cd/m² Average: 580.9 cd/m² Minimum: 1.88 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 581 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.44 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
117.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.118
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7
Apple iPhone 11
IPS, 1792x828, 6.1
Samsung Galaxy A80
AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Google Pixel 4
OLED, 2280x1080, 5.7
Screen
45%
12%
26%
32%
Brightness middle
581
679
17%
478
-18%
606
4%
447
-23%
Brightness
581
671
15%
486
-16%
611
5%
439
-24%
Brightness Distribution
94
93
-1%
96
2%
95
1%
93
-1%
Black Level *
0.68
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.44
0.8
85%
2.97
45%
3.46
36%
0.8
85%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
13.05
2.4
82%
10.18
22%
5.64
57%
1.4
89%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)

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 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 13646 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 2500000) 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.

CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN color space sRGB
CalMAN color space sRGB
CalMAN color space AdobeRGB
CalMAN color space AdobeRGB
CalMAN color space DCI P3
CalMAN color space DCI P3
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN color accuracy
CalMAN saturation sweeps
CalMAN saturation sweeps

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
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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.6 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.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles
Outdoor use
Outdoor use

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
Vulkan Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2154 Points ∼89%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2430 Points ∼100% +13%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2081 Points ∼86% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1849 - 2154, n=7)
2032 Points ∼84% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (143 - 3794, n=43)
1387 Points ∼57% -36%
OpenCL Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2369 Points ∼87%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2716 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2218 - 2395, n=7)
2302 Points ∼85% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (183 - 4593, n=50)
1786 Points ∼66% -25%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2733 Points ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3463 Points ∼100% +27%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2940 Points ∼85% +8%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
2494 Points ∼72% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2441 - 2852, n=8)
2616 Points ∼76% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=62)
1858 Points ∼54% -32%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
740 Points ∼55%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1343 Points ∼100% +81%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
792 Points ∼59% +7%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
725 Points ∼54% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (725 - 750, n=8)
742 Points ∼55% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (150 - 1344, n=62)
530 Points ∼39% -28%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10251 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
7177 Points ∼69% -30%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼100% +2%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10254 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8342 - 11440, n=17)
9650 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=425)
5426 Points ∼52% -47%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
12747 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
8626 Points ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12645 Points ∼99% -1%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
12190 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (10330 - 14439, n=17)
12152 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=588)
5901 Points ∼46% -54%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3308 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2708 Points ∼76% -18%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3564 Points ∼100% +8%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
3044 Points ∼85% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2104 - 3365, n=18)
3027 Points ∼85% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=96)
2641 Points ∼74% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5703 Points ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2160 Points ∼33% -62%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6527 Points ∼100% +14%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5228 Points ∼80% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4236 - 5884, n=18)
5608 Points ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=96)
2598 Points ∼40% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4913 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2262 Points ∼41% -54%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5509 Points ∼100% +12%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4509 Points ∼82% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3800 - 5012, n=18)
4704 Points ∼85% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=96)
2391 Points ∼43% -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4576 Points ∼98%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3219 Points ∼69% -30%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3160 Points ∼67% -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4683 Points ∼100% +2%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4112 Points ∼88% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1934 - 4576, n=18)
3876 Points ∼83% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=432)
2014 Points ∼43% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6990 Points ∼86%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
8119 Points ∼100% +16%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2438 Points ∼30% -65%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8006 Points ∼99% +15%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6383 Points ∼79% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5184 - 7148, n=18)
6793 Points ∼84% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=432)
1813 Points ∼22% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6257 Points ∼90%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
6067 Points ∼88% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2568 Points ∼37% -59%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼100% +11%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5685 Points ∼82% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3969 - 6312, n=18)
5788 Points ∼84% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=433)
1690 Points ∼24% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4119 Points ∼89%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3411 Points ∼74% -17%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3025 Points ∼66% -27%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4604 Points ∼100% +12%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4072 Points ∼88% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2345 - 4703, n=17)
3847 Points ∼84% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=461)
1925 Points ∼42% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
10024 Points ∼56%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
17853 Points ∼100% +78%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3635 Points ∼20% -64%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11448 Points ∼64% +14%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9217 Points ∼52% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6358 - 10420, n=17)
9544 Points ∼53% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=461)
2420 Points ∼14% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7602 Points ∼83%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
9199 Points ∼100% +21%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3479 Points ∼38% -54%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8605 Points ∼94% +13%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7196 Points ∼78% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5268 - 8141, n=17)
7140 Points ∼78% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=461)
2044 Points ∼22% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4374 Points ∼97%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
2429 Points ∼54% -44%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3215 Points ∼71% -26%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4519 Points ∼100% +3%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4199 Points ∼93% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2705 - 4429, n=18)
3941 Points ∼87% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 4909, n=512)
1923 Points ∼43% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6231 Points ∼88%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5726 Points ∼81% -8%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2244 Points ∼32% -64%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7044 Points ∼100% +13%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6214 Points ∼88% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5663 - 6362, n=18)
6246 Points ∼89% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=512)
1510 Points ∼21% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5694 Points ∼91%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
4400 Points ∼70% -23%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
2405 Points ∼38% -58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼100% +10%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5615 Points ∼90% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (4556 - 5747, n=18)
5510 Points ∼88% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=513)
1457 Points ∼23% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4231 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3211 Points ∼71% -24%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4503 Points ∼99% +6%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4540 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3001 - 4540, n=17)
3884 Points ∼86% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=553)
1789 Points ∼39% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9703 Points ∼91%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3478 Points ∼33% -64%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10637 Points ∼100% +10%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8765 Points ∼82% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (6122 - 10008, n=17)
9279 Points ∼87% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=552)
1989 Points ∼19% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7537 Points ∼92%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3415 Points ∼42% -55%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8165 Points ∼100% +8%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
7263 Points ∼89% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5251 - 7820, n=17)
7066 Points ∼87% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=555)
1724 Points ∼21% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
39293 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33864 Points ∼86% -14%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
19389 Points ∼49% -51%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
30561 Points ∼78% -22%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37641 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (20636 - 45072, n=17)
32285 Points ∼82% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=708)
14454 Points ∼37% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
105631 Points ∼50%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
209204 Points ∼100% +98%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
51091 Points ∼24% -52%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
118129 Points ∼56% +12%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
102168 Points ∼49% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (97354 - 110432, n=16)
105803 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=706)
22753 Points ∼11% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
76813 Points ∼79%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
97276 Points ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
37475 Points ∼39% -51%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
72173 Points ∼74% -6%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
73984 Points ∼76% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (55771 - 83518, n=16)
69395 Points ∼71% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=706)
18376 Points ∼19% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
118 fps ∼37%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
322 fps ∼100% +173%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
84 fps ∼26% -29%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
185 fps ∼57% +57%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
139 fps ∼43% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (85 - 167, n=19)
154 fps ∼48% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=723)
39 fps ∼12% -67%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼68%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
59 fps ∼67% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
88 fps ∼100% +47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (59 - 91, n=19)
63.6 fps ∼72% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=732)
28.7 fps ∼33% -52%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
88 fps ∼50%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
175 fps ∼100% +99%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
42 fps ∼24% -52%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
111 fps ∼63% +26%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
75 fps ∼43% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (50 - 102, n=19)
92.8 fps ∼53% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=627)
22.6 fps ∼13% -74%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
60 fps ∼90%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼90% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
36 fps ∼54% -40%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼85% -5%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
67 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (51 - 85, n=19)
60.3 fps ∼90% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=636)
19.9 fps ∼30% -67%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69 fps ∼59%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
117 fps ∼100% +70%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
30 fps ∼26% -57%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
79 fps ∼68% +14%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
57 fps ∼49% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (35 - 71, n=19)
62.5 fps ∼53% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=492)
18.3 fps ∼16% -73%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
57 fps ∼95%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
26 fps ∼43% -54%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
40 fps ∼67% -30%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51 fps ∼85% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (36 - 58, n=19)
48.8 fps ∼81% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=494)
17.2 fps ∼29% -70%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼40%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼100% +150%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
10 fps ∼17% -58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼28% -29%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
24 fps ∼40% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (14 - 26, n=18)
21.9 fps ∼37% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=224)
9.83 fps ∼16% -59%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
16 fps ∼48%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33 fps ∼100% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6.8 fps ∼21% -57%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
19 fps ∼58% +19%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
13 fps ∼39% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8.5 - 24, n=19)
16.5 fps ∼50% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=222)
6.81 fps ∼21% -57%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
37 fps ∼62%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼100% +62%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
16 fps ∼27% -57%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼43% -30%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
33 fps ∼55% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 38, n=18)
34.1 fps ∼57% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=228)
14.6 fps ∼24% -61%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼47%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
87 fps ∼100% +112%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
18 fps ∼21% -56%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼54% +15%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
32 fps ∼37% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 43, n=19)
40.4 fps ∼46% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=228)
16.2 fps ∼19% -60%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
41 fps ∼56%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
73 fps ∼100% +78%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
17 fps ∼23% -59%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
48 fps ∼66% +17%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
34 fps ∼47% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (22 - 43, n=19)
39.6 fps ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=417)
12.4 fps ∼17% -70%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
36 fps ∼60%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼100% +67%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
15 fps ∼25% -58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼40% -33%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
30 fps ∼50% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (21 - 41, n=19)
32.5 fps ∼54% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=421)
11.2 fps ∼19% -69%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1454 Points ∼91%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
1117 Points ∼70% -23%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1236 Points ∼77% -15%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
1601 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (1076 - 1601, n=17)
1344 Points ∼84% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=656)
770 Points ∼48% -47%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9264 Points ∼87%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3855 Points ∼36% -58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10618 Points ∼100% +15%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
9307 Points ∼88% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (8125 - 9510, n=17)
9197 Points ∼87% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=656)
2134 Points ∼20% -77%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4996 Points ∼77%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3435 Points ∼53% -31%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5091 Points ∼79% +2%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
6458 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (2661 - 7500, n=17)
5010 Points ∼78% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=656)
1584 Points ∼25% -68%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8670 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
6484 Points ∼70% -25%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9294 Points ∼100% +7%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
8058 Points ∼87% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (5993 - 9143, n=17)
8548 Points ∼92% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=656)
3080 Points ∼33% -64%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
4915 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 11
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy A80
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730, Adreno 618, 8192
3129 Points ∼59% -36%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4992 Points ∼95% +2%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
5277 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (3847 - 5397, n=17)
4768 Points ∼90% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=656)
1545 Points ∼29% -69%
AnTuTu v8
UX (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
69801 Points ∼89%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
78191 Points ∼100% +12%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
51228 Points ∼66% -27%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (51228 - 72343, n=6)
62647 Points ∼80% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6969 - 82947, n=41)
43533 Points ∼56% -38%
MEM (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
71045 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
64026 Points ∼90% -10%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
52596 Points ∼74% -26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (52596 - 71045, n=6)
59887 Points ∼84% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (24176 - 100390, n=41)
48115 Points ∼68% -32%
GPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
166593 Points ∼84%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
199051 Points ∼100% +19%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
158097 Points ∼79% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (158097 - 175532, n=6)
168202 Points ∼85% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5938 - 209164, n=41)
81672 Points ∼41% -51%
CPU (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
131120 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
145386 Points ∼100% +11%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
114777 Points ∼79% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (114777 - 140166, n=6)
134137 Points ∼92% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (40620 - 168185, n=41)
89213 Points ∼61% -32%
Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
438559 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
486654 Points ∼100% +11%
Google Pixel 4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 6144
376698 Points ∼77% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855
  (376698 - 450074, n=6)
424873 Points ∼87% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (84645 - 534558, n=41)
262580 Points ∼54% -40%

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)
132.886 Points ∼100% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
64.578 Points ∼49%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
62.417 Points ∼47% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16)
58.8 Points ∼44% -9%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
56.678 Points ∼43% -12%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
40.021 Points ∼30% -38%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=124)
36.4 Points ∼27% -44%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0)
293.36 Points ∼100% +158%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
115.44 Points ∼39% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
113.78 Points ∼39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90.8 - 120, n=16)
110 Points ∼37% -3%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
107.51 Points ∼37% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
77.376 Points ∼26% -32%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=554)
43 Points ∼15% -62%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0)
157 runs/min ∼100% +137%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)
66.4 runs/min ∼42% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
66.2 runs/min ∼42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15)
62 runs/min ∼39% -6%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
61.8 runs/min ∼39% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=112)
40 runs/min ∼25% -40%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75)
38.9 runs/min ∼25% -41%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0)
184 Points ∼100% +92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=18)
106 Points ∼58% +10%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
96 Points ∼52%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
94 Points ∼51% -2%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼51% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
77 Points ∼42% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=185)
67.1 Points ∼36% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0)
48819 Points ∼100% +113%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
23999 Points ∼49% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 25640, n=18)
23212 Points ∼48% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
22936 Points ∼47%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
22572 Points ∼46% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
16358 Points ∼34% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=714)
6989 Points ∼14% -70%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=740)
10342 ms * ∼100% -383%
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75)
3027 ms * ∼29% -41%
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78)
2139.4 ms * ∼21%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼21% -0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=18)
2133 ms * ∼21% -0%
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78)
2072.2 ms * ∼20% +3%
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0)
572.8 ms * ∼6% +73%

* ... 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 5GSamsung Galaxy A80OnePlus 7T ProGoogle Pixel 4Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-64%
-28%
-39%
-9%
-57%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.4 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
56.9 (54.5 - 59.4, n=2)
-4%
49.9 (1.7 - 87.1, n=460)
-16%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
75.1 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
72.8 (70.5 - 75.1, n=2)
-3%
68.2 (8.1 - 96.5, n=460)
-9%
Random Write 4KB
168.5
21.6
-87%
26
-85%
146.64
-13%
123 (29.9 - 170, n=3)
-27%
24.6 (0.14 - 259, n=789)
-85%
Random Read 4KB
190.5
117.5
-38%
169
-11%
122.38
-36%
184 (170 - 192, n=3)
-3%
49.9 (1.59 - 226, n=789)
-74%
Sequential Write 256KB
522.3
190.4
-64%
405
-22%
247.73
-53%
421 (218 - 522, n=3)
-19%
102 (2.99 - 590, n=789)
-80%
Sequential Read 256KB
1418.4
501.5
-65%
1489
5%
655.4
-54%
1413 (1406 - 1418, n=3)
0%
285 (12.1 - 1781, n=789)
-80%

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.

Arena of Valor
Arena of Valor
Shadow Fight 3
Shadow Fight 3
0102030405060Tooltip
; Arena of Valor; min; 1.32.1.2: Ø59.7 (49-60)
; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.32.1.2: Ø59.8 (57-60)
; Shadow Fight 3; high; 1.19.4: Ø59.7 (58-60)
; Shadow Fight 3; minimal; 1.19.4: Ø59.6 (50-60)

Emissions - Galaxy A90 Becomes Very Warm

Temperature

GFXBench battery test
GFXBench battery test

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.

Max. Load
 44.5 °C
112 F
40.3 °C
105 F
37.5 °C
100 F
 
 44.7 °C
112 F
40 °C
104 F
37.3 °C
99 F
 
 43.6 °C
110 F
40.1 °C
104 F
37.3 °C
99 F
 
Maximum: 44.7 °C = 112 F
Average: 40.6 °C = 105 F
33 °C
91 F
37.6 °C
100 F
39.7 °C
103 F
34.2 °C
94 F
38.2 °C
101 F
40.5 °C
105 F
35.1 °C
95 F
38.5 °C
101 F
40.1 °C
104 F
Maximum: 40.5 °C = 105 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
Power Supply (max.)  43.5 °C = 110 F | Room Temperature 20.7 °C = 69 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 40.6 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 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 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34 °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 33 °C / 91 F.
Thermal image front
Thermal image front
Thermal image back
Thermal image back

Speaker

Speaker test pink noise
Speaker test pink noise

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.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs204351.22536.842.33132.833.94033.734.85040.136.26331.330.48024.725.810025.624.412522.124.516019.924.520019.333.525017.241.931517.448.240017.150.850017.352.96301556.78001560.4100018.666.3125014.570.2160015.769.9200014.470.1250014.469.6315014.170400014.268.2500014.359.9630014.566.2800014.5681000014.566.61250014.559.21600014.741.9SPL62.464.460.727.579.8N15.51612.9142.9median 15median 59.9Delta1.513.143.948.443.64238.338.638.342.441.245.934.139.82730.128.629.627.929.226.132.225.141.72249.420.557.420.561.820.664.418.666.718.170.718.575.117.972.318.674.817.873.817.573.516.970.616.863.51768.81778.117.273.417.166.817.154.917.360.965.174.766.430.384.719.134.418.71.460.5median 18.1median 66.72.711.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A90 5GSamsung Galaxy A80
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
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
» 71% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 82% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 13% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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%

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.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.6 / 0.9 / 1.4 Watt
Load midlight 4.5 / 9 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
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%
-33%
-29%
Idle Minimum *
0.6
0.56
7%
0.6
-0%
2.1
-250%
1.01
-68%
0.967 (0.6 - 1.96, n=17)
-61%
0.879 (0.2 - 3.4, n=809)
-47%
Idle Average *
0.9
2.99
-232%
1.2
-33%
3
-233%
1.63
-81%
1.519 (0.85 - 2.8, n=17)
-69%
1.742 (0.6 - 6.2, n=808)
-94%
Idle Maximum *
1.4
3.02
-116%
1.4
-0%
3.5
-150%
1.69
-21%
1.841 (1 - 2.9, n=17)
-32%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=809)
-45%
Load Average *
4.5
4.17
7%
5
-11%
5.3
-18%
4.67
-4%
4.6 (3.64 - 5.8, n=17)
-2%
4.08 (0.8 - 10.8, n=803)
9%
Load Maximum *
9
5.44
40%
7.1
21%
8.3
8%
8.78
2%
9.1 (7.49 - 11.9, n=17)
-1%
5.95 (1.2 - 14.2, n=803)
34%

* ... 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.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
35h 56min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
15h 46min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 27min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 58min
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

+ relatively cheap 5G smartphone
+ relatively precise GPS
+ fast storage
+ microSD card reader
+ bright display
+ good performance level
+ long battery life

Cons

- no Wi-Fi 6
- mediocre speaker
- non-HDR display
- significant heat development under load and throttling
- average call quality
- camera without OIS or infinitely variable zoom

Verdict - Good Smartphone for 5G Fans

In review: Samsung Galaxy A90 5G. Test device courtesy of Samsung Germany
In review: Samsung Galaxy A90 5G. Test device courtesy of Samsung Germany

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 - 12/09/2019 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
79%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
96%
Connectivity
48 / 70 → 69%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
83%
Games Performance
57 / 64 → 89%
Application Performance
79 / 86 → 91%
Temperature
87%
Noise
100%
Audio
66 / 90 → 73%
Camera
69%
Average
77%
84%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Smartphone Review - Cutting corners for 5G
Florian Schmitt, 2019-12- 9 (Update: 2019-12-12)