Notebookcheck

Sharp Aquos V Smartphone Review – With Graphic Power to Victory

Formerly High-End. With an older SoC, which was in the fastest mobile phones in the world a few years ago, Sharp wants to shake up the middle class in 2020. The Aquos V also offers a dual camera and fast memory. This raises expectations, which we will check in the review.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy),
Sharp Aquos V
Sharp Aquos V (Aquos Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) 8 x 2.5 GHz, Kryo 280
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
5.9 inch 18:9, 2160 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 64 GB 
, 55 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 128 GB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, 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/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9 x 157 x 76 ( = 0.35 x 6.18 x 2.99 in)
Battery
3160 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/2.0, Phase detection AF, LED flash, video @2160p/30fps (camera 1); 13.0MP (camera 2)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/​2.0
Additional features
Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, headset, SIM tool, LTE Cat. 9: 450 MBit/s (download), 50 MBit/s (upload); SAR value: 0.0228 W/kg (head), 1.586 W/kg (body), fanless
Weight
173 g ( = 6.1 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 59 g ( = 2.08 oz / 0.13 pounds)
Price
229 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
81 %7
03/2020
Sharp Aquos V
SD 835, Adreno 540
173 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash5.9"2160x1080
81 %7
11/2019
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4
200 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.53"2340x1080
80 %7
11/2019
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3
188 g64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
78 %7
01/2020
Nokia 6.2
SD 636, Adreno 509
180 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080

Case, Equipment and Operation - Ergonomic and Fast WLAN

The exterior of the Sharp Aquos V is Japanese-style. Completely in black, with a glossy back and matt frame. The manufacturer attaches particular importance to this: the so-called "FeelFitRidge" is supposed to fit particularly well in the hand and, thanks to its strength, give the device special stability. In fact, the smartphone looks very robust, and at the same time the frame actually feels secure and ergonomic in the hand.

As the Sharp Aquos V is somewhat more compact than many other smartphones in this price range, it can also save a few grams in weight and is the lightest of the comparable devices at 173 grams.

The device supports WiFi 5, which in itself is nothing special, even in this price range. On the other hand, thanks to 2x2 MIMO, it also takes advantage of the speed advantages of the standard and brings significantly faster speeds for the Internet than the competition. We determined the values in our standardized test with the reference router Linksys Nighthawk AX12.

You can still see eMMC flash in smartphones over 200 euro, but the Sharp Aquos V comes with UFS 2.0 memory. It's not quite at the top of the league with that, the Samsung Galaxy M30s with UFS 2.1 memory is ahead of the pack. However, the memory is also of higher quality and faster than in many other smartphones in this price range. Current Bluetooth 5.0 is on board, NFC is unfortunately searched for in vain.

On the back there is a fingerprint sensor that unlocks the smartphone quickly and reliably. The touchscreen reacts quickly and reliably to inputs.

Size comparison

161.35 mm / 6.35 inch 76.4 mm / 3.01 inch 8.79 mm / 0.3461 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs159.9 mm / 6.3 inch 75.15 mm / 2.96 inch 8.25 mm / 0.3248 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs159 mm / 6.26 inch 75.1 mm / 2.96 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs157 mm / 6.18 inch 76 mm / 2.99 inch 9 mm / 0.3543 inch 173 g0.3814 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sharp Aquos V
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
468 (min: 406, max: 517) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
353 (min: 330, max: 362) MBit/s ∼75% -25%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
328 (min: 270, max: 341) MBit/s ∼70% -30%
Nokia 6.2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
325 (min: 280, max: 342) MBit/s ∼69% -31%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sharp Aquos V
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
409 (min: 342, max: 464) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
323 (min: 257, max: 351) MBit/s ∼79% -21%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
319 (min: 302, max: 325) MBit/s ∼78% -22%
Nokia 6.2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
284 (min: 240, max: 307) MBit/s ∼69% -31%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø467 (406-517)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø409 (342-464)

Cameras - Dual-camera Without Sense

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

There are two full 13 megapixel lenses on the back of the Sharp Aquos V. That sounds good at first, but the manufacturer doesn't give any information about what the second lens does exactly. An optical zoom through different focal lengths is not possible, obviously the second lens is only used to calculate bokeh effects, which is a pity.

The image quality is decent, but also quite dark. Details can usually be seen well, but are far from the sharpness and contrast of current high-end smartphones. Even in low light the brightening is too low. In the lab under defined lighting conditions, the smartphone shows a good image sharpness, but too little contrast in dark color tones. At 1 lux illuminance, almost nothing can be seen on the pictures.

The front camera could also brighten up better and does not offer top quality in terms of image sharpness.

Really great: Thanks to the high-quality SoC, 4K video recordings are possible with the camera. The camera adjusts the exposure very softly to the ambient light and offers a pretty good image quality.

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
ColorChecker
29.6 ∆E
55.1 ∆E
39.8 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
45.6 ∆E
62.4 ∆E
53.7 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
44.2 ∆E
29.4 ∆E
65.1 ∆E
64.1 ∆E
31.9 ∆E
47.7 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
76.4 ∆E
44.6 ∆E
42 ∆E
86.9 ∆E
70.2 ∆E
52 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
24.4 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Sharp Aquos V: 46.85 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 86.94 ∆E
ColorChecker
6.8 ∆E
11.4 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
9 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
10 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Sharp Aquos V: 7.45 ∆E min: 2.8 - max: 12.67 ∆E

Display - A Little Pale

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

The display of the Sharp Aquos V offers an extended FullHD resolution. This is standard in the price range and is completely sufficient for a sharp image display. We only detect PWM with such a high frequency that even sensitive natures can probably ignore it.

The brightness of the display can't quite keep up with the comparable devices, but the screen is still bright enough for everyday use. You can only see the advantages of the competition in very strong sunlight. Display manufacturer Sharp could have taken a bit more care with the black value, though, so there is only a meager contrast and colors look visibly pale and powerless.

The image display in our tests with the CalMAN software and the spectrophotometer is quite accurate, a slight blue cast is noticeable.

501
cd/m²
492
cd/m²
482
cd/m²
463
cd/m²
507
cd/m²
484
cd/m²
464
cd/m²
504
cd/m²
481
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 507 cd/m² Average: 486.4 cd/m² Minimum: 2.37 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 507 cd/m²
Contrast: 922:1 (Black: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.43 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.64-98 Ø6
95.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.18
Sharp Aquos V
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.9
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.53
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Nokia 6.2
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Response Times
16%
15%
-35%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
50 (25, 25)
38.4 (18.8, 19.6)
23%
10 (5, 5)
80%
53.2 (24.4, 28.8)
-6%
Response Time Black / White *
22 (7, 15)
20 (6.8, 13.2)
9%
8 (5, 3)
64%
22 (6, 16)
-0%
PWM Frequency
2358000 (10)
118
-100%
2336 (24)
-100%
Screen
12%
25%
7%
Brightness middle
507
669
32%
600
18%
611
21%
Brightness
486
630
30%
597
23%
582
20%
Brightness Distribution
91
87
-4%
95
4%
91
0%
Black Level *
0.55
0.42
24%
0.4
27%
Contrast
922
1593
73%
1528
66%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.43
4.8
-8%
2.5
44%
5.2
-17%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.13
9
-26%
7.17
-1%
10.2
-43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5
6.2
-24%
2
60%
6.1
-22%
Gamma
2.18 101%
2.24 98%
2.013 109%
2.21 100%
CCT
7739 84%
7846 83%
6399 102%
8100 80%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
14% / 13%
20% / 21%
-14% / -5%

* ... smaller is better

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
22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 15 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 28 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
50 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 25 ms rise
↘ 25 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 82 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39 ms).

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 2358000 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17878 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, Emissions and Battery - Sharp-phone with Lots of Graphic Power

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 is an older high-end SoC, which was used in 2017 in the OnePlus 5 or the Google Pixel 2, for example. The Sharp Aquos V thus achieves good performance values in the lower middle class in 2020, but it can't quite keep up with the Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro in terms of processor performance. Nevertheless, you should be well equipped for everyday use with the former top SoC.

In terms of graphics performance, however, the Sharp Aquos V is hard to beat in this class, offering more than four times the performance of other devices. If you look at older test reports on smartphones with this SoC, even 60 fps should be possible in some games.

There is a warming under load, but this is by no means critical, but only slightly noticeable on the case and also strongly limited to the upper range.

The mono loudspeaker on the lower edge delivers passable sound for a smartphone of the lower middle class, but every now and then the high frequencies boil unpleasantly in the ear. A 3.5mm audio port is available, as well as Bluetooth; clean sound reaches the end devices via both channels.

The battery is quite small with 3.160 mAh. Nevertheless, Sharp manages to turn it into just under 12 hours of runtime in our WLAN test, which speaks for good energy efficiency. Of course, the Galaxy M30s can't catch up with our test device, but at least it's enough for two working days of average usage. Charging usually takes under 2 hours.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
1669 Points ∼85%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
 
1669 Points ∼85% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=92)
1961 Points ∼100% +17%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
386 Points ∼69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
 
386 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=92)
558 Points ∼100% +45%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
7510 Points ∼75%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
9967 Points ∼100% +33%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5925 Points ∼59% -21%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5965 Points ∼60% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (5603 - 7510, n=20)
6743 Points ∼68% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 13202, n=494)
5834 Points ∼59% -22%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
9927 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
14946 Points ∼100% +51%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
6697 Points ∼45% -33%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6696 Points ∼45% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (6854 - 9927, n=20)
7925 Points ∼53% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19711, n=652)
6378 Points ∼43% -36%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
3062 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3326 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2103 Points ∼63% -31%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2337 Points ∼70% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (1520 - 3161, n=19)
2849 Points ∼86% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=500)
2171 Points ∼65% -29%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
4468 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2322 Points ∼52% -48%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1267 Points ∼28% -72%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
855 Points ∼19% -81%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3324 - 4490, n=19)
4231 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=500)
2067 Points ∼46% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
4054 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2412 Points ∼59% -41%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1390 Points ∼34% -66%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
977 Points ∼24% -76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (2866 - 4101, n=19)
3801 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8204, n=501)
1920 Points ∼47% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
3047 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3362 Points ∼100% +10%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2275 Points ∼68% -25%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2288 Points ∼68% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (1631 - 3189, n=18)
2766 Points ∼82% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=530)
2081 Points ∼62% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
6417 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2323 Points ∼36% -64%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1634 Points ∼25% -75%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1389 Points ∼22% -78%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3682 - 6475, n=18)
5894 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=530)
2754 Points ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
5151 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2412 Points ∼47% -53%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1743 Points ∼34% -66%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1568 Points ∼30% -70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3586 - 5269, n=19)
4690 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=530)
2316 Points ∼45% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
3018 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3280 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2255 Points ∼69% -25%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2335 Points ∼71% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (1628 - 3157, n=19)
2898 Points ∼88% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=580)
2058 Points ∼63% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
4031 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2218 Points ∼55% -45%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1203 Points ∼30% -70%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
809 Points ∼20% -80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3560 - 4072, n=19)
3907 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=580)
1730 Points ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
3751 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2390 Points ∼64% -36%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1342 Points ∼36% -64%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
945 Points ∼25% -75%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (2895 - 3810, n=19)
3616 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7323, n=581)
1653 Points ∼44% -56%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
3009 Points ∼92%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
3267 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2286 Points ∼70% -24%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2339 Points ∼72% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (1574 - 3092, n=18)
2807 Points ∼86% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=622)
1922 Points ∼59% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
6208 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2219 Points ∼36% -64%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1468 Points ∼24% -76%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1322 Points ∼21% -79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3682 - 6231, n=18)
5648 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12494, n=621)
2272 Points ∼37% -63%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
5022 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
2390 Points ∼48% -52%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1595 Points ∼32% -68%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
1467 Points ∼29% -71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (3407 - 5030, n=18)
4583 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9492, n=624)
1958 Points ∼39% -61%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
22928 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
20118 Points ∼88%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
15876 Points ∼69%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (6729 - 23046, n=20)
19196 Points ∼84%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=770)
15259 Points ∼67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
39137 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
15971 Points ∼30%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
21067 Points ∼39%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (16794 - 58360, n=20)
53776 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=768)
25884 Points ∼48%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
33832 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16738 Points ∼44%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
19635 Points ∼52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (12604 - 42278, n=20)
37906 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=768)
20357 Points ∼54%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
15 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
6.8 fps ∼45% -55%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.3 fps ∼55% -45%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
2.3 fps ∼15% -85%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (8.9 - 16, n=5)
12.9 fps ∼86% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=292)
11.1 fps ∼74% -26%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
9.7 fps ∼88%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
11 fps ∼100% +13%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.6 fps ∼33% -63%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
3.5 fps ∼32% -64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (9.3 - 9.9, n=5)
9.68 fps ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=290)
7.98 fps ∼73% -18%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
24 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
17 fps ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.8 fps ∼37% -63%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
5.4 fps ∼23% -77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (14 - 26, n=5)
20.8 fps ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=296)
16.5 fps ∼69% -31%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos V
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Adreno 540, 4096
26 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Mediatek Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4, 6144
19 fps ∼73% -27%
Samsung Galaxy M30s
Samsung Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9.8 fps ∼38% -62%
Nokia 6.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Adreno 509, 4096
6 fps ∼23% -77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
  (25 - 26, n=5)
25.6 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=295)
19.1 fps ∼73% -27%
Sharp Aquos VXiaomi Redmi Note 8 ProSamsung Galaxy M30sNokia 6.2Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
158%
112%
-20%
43%
-13%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
54.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
57.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
61.1 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
12%
61.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
55.3 (33.3 - 65.3, n=9)
1%
50.8 (1.7 - 87.1, n=514)
-7%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
78.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
71.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-9%
74.19 (Tohsiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
83.36 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
73.2 (36.8 - 85.4, n=9)
-7%
68.8 (8.1 - 96.5, n=514)
-12%
Random Write 4KB
16.8
180.4
974%
137.1
716%
14.88
-11%
71.8 (13.6 - 196, n=13)
327%
33.2 (0.14 - 319, n=862)
98%
Random Read 4KB
157.2
156.22
-1%
133.8
-15%
78.83
-50%
113 (60.6 - 157, n=13)
-28%
57.2 (1.59 - 324, n=862)
-64%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.2
193.54
-6%
190.7
-8%
158.54
-23%
180 (135 - 222, n=13)
-13%
122 (2.99 - 911, n=862)
-41%
Sequential Read 256KB
650.9
534.5
-18%
483.6
-26%
296.76
-54%
489 (272 - 687, n=13)
-25%
329 (12.1 - 1802, n=862)
-49%

Temperature

Max. Load
 40.8 °C
105 F
37.1 °C
99 F
35.1 °C
95 F
 
 40 °C
104 F
37 °C
99 F
35.2 °C
95 F
 
 39.3 °C
103 F
36.7 °C
98 F
35.2 °C
95 F
 
Maximum: 40.8 °C = 105 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
31.1 °C
88 F
33.8 °C
93 F
38.2 °C
101 F
31.9 °C
89 F
35.5 °C
96 F
39.1 °C
102 F
33.5 °C
92 F
34.8 °C
95 F
37.5 °C
100 F
Maximum: 39.1 °C = 102 F
Average: 35 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.3 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.9 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated); Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.4 °C / 99 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 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.1 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Top
Heatmap Top
Heatmap Bottom
Heatmap Bottom

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.138.62541.941.53132.936.44031.733.85035.740.86330.530.88025.328.410024.227.912522.225.416021.530.220018.438.525017.545.231516.95240016.755.350016.355.163014.558.68001457.9100017.162.8125013.868.1160014.17020001470.6250014.570.1315013.564.2400013.570.850001467.1630014.270.4800014.466.61000014.767.71250015.162.91600015.558.9SPL26.980N0.944.2median 14.7median 62.8Delta1.910.734.933.929.124.125.424.329.426.239.43427.324.821.622.1242320.722.519.938.51840.916.847.516.253.315.957.613.559.213.962.312.964.91465.414.766.614.168.214.268.714.569.815.470.614.97014.867.51562.815.360.815.360.515.64415.535.12779.30.942.8median 15.3median 60.81.311.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSharp Aquos VXiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Sharp Aquos V audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery Life

Sharp Aquos V
3160 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy M30s
6000 mAh
Nokia 6.2
3500 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
718
864
20%
1154
61%
611
-15%
690 (223 - 2636, n=726)
-4%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 58min

Pros

+ high graphic performance
+ fast processor
+ 4K video recording
+ fast WLAN
+ stable, ergonomic case

Cons

- low-contrast screen
- camera images quite dark
- slight blue cast on the screen

Verdict - Exceptional Performance

In review: Sharp Aquos V.
In review: Sharp Aquos V.

An interesting thought that Sharp had there: what if we simply took an older high-end SoC and thus offered a smartphone in the lower middle class. The advantages are obvious: The performance is decent, the graphics performance is even exceptional for the class, the energy efficiency fits and you get quite fast WLAN and LTE in addition.

The Sharp Aquos V also offers acceptable camera performance, but the pictures could be brighter. The case is simple, but stable and ergonomic, thanks to the quick fingerprint sensor you can quickly access your data and the battery life is also acceptable.

You rarely get so much speed in the lower middle class: The Sharp Aquos V is a tip for all those who want a lot of performance for little money.

Of course, the test device may not be a really stylish mobile phone, the screen is not so insanely bright and the color display is a bit pale. Apart from that, you should definitely have the Sharp Aquos V on your screen if you are interested in a cheap mid-range device.

Sharp Aquos V - 03/13/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
79%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
45 / 70 → 64%
Weight
90%
Battery
89%
Display
85%
Games Performance
48 / 64 → 75%
Application Performance
70 / 86 → 81%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
60 / 90 → 67%
Camera
53%
Average
74%
81%
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 > Sharp Aquos V Smartphone Review – With Graphic Power to Victory
Florian Schmitt, 2020-03-13 (Update: 2020-03-13)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.