Cubot X90 vs Samsung Galaxy A53 5G: A Detailed Comparison
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing a reliable brand, software support, and a brighter display, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G remains the safer bet. However, the Cubot X90 delivers surprisingly competitive performance thanks to the Helio G99 and offers faster charging, making it a compelling option for gamers and those seeking maximum value.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Cubot X90 | Samsung Galaxy A53 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 66 - SM-A536U |
| 5G bands | - | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2024, May | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, May | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 162.2 x 74 x 9.4 mm (6.39 x 2.91 x 0.37 in) | 159.6 x 74.8 x 8.1 mm (6.28 x 2.94 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 207 g (7.30 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~89.5% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 1B colors, 120Hz, 1500 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Helio G99 (6 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 14 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 256GB 16GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.7X", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens |
| Single | - | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 100 MP, f/1.9, (wide), 1/1.8", PDAF 16 MP, 117˚ (ultrawide) 5 MP (macro) | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | - | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.2, A2DP | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | No |
| USB | USB Type-C, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 33W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 5100 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Green, Black | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | - | SM-A536B, SM-A536B/DS, SM-A536U, SM-A536U1, SM-A5360, SM-A536E, SM-A536E/DS, SM-A536V, SM-A536W, SM-A536N, SM-S536DL |
| Price | About 290 EUR | $ 151.42 / £ 185.00 / € 169.14 |
| SAR | - | 0.75 W/kg (head) 1.58 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.89 W/kg (head) 1.60 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 113h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -26.5 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 329802 (v8), 379313 (v9) GeekBench: 1891 (v5.1) GFXBench: 19fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Cubot X90
- Faster 33W charging
- Potentially better thermal management for gaming
- More affordable price point
- Less established brand
- Likely lower display brightness and quality
- Camera performance likely inferior to A53
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter and more vibrant display
- Stronger brand reputation and software support
- Potentially better camera performance
- Slower 25W charging
- Higher price
- Exynos 1280 may throttle under sustained load
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 830 nits, crucial for outdoor visibility. While the Cubot X90’s display specs are not provided, it’s likely to be lower, potentially impacting usability in direct sunlight. Samsung’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) suggests a strong AMOLED panel, offering deep blacks and vibrant colors, a contrast to what is expected from the Cubot X90’s likely LCD panel. The A53’s display is a clear advantage for media consumption and general use.
Camera Comparison
Both devices feature photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is lacking for the Cubot X90. The Galaxy A53 5G likely benefits from Samsung’s established image processing algorithms and potentially OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) on its main sensor, resulting in sharper images and smoother videos. The inclusion of a 2MP macro camera on the A53 is largely a marketing gimmick, offering limited practical benefit. Without specific details on the X90’s camera setup, it’s difficult to assess its image quality, but it’s unlikely to match the A53’s overall photographic capabilities.
Performance
The Exynos 1280 (5nm) in the Galaxy A53 5G and the Helio G99 (6nm) in the Cubot X90 represent different approaches to mobile processing. The Exynos 1280, with its Cortex-A78 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz, offers a theoretical CPU performance edge over the G99’s 2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 cores. However, the 6nm process of the G99 may offer better power efficiency. Both CPUs share the same Cortex-A55 efficiency cores clocked at 2.0 GHz. The A53’s advantage in raw processing power will be noticeable in demanding tasks like video editing, while the X90 will likely excel in sustained gaming performance due to potentially better thermal management.
Battery Life
Both the Cubot X90 and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G share an endurance rating of 113 hours, suggesting comparable battery life under similar usage conditions. However, the Cubot X90’s 33W wired charging significantly outpaces the A53’s 25W charging. This translates to faster top-ups, reducing downtime. While the A53’s battery capacity isn’t specified, the similar endurance rating suggests it’s optimized for efficiency, but the X90’s faster charging is a tangible benefit for users who frequently need to recharge.
Buying Guide
Buy the Cubot X90 if you need a phone primarily for gaming on a budget, prioritize fast charging, and are comfortable with a less established brand. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a well-known brand with guaranteed software updates, a brighter and more color-accurate display, and a more refined overall user experience, even if it means sacrificing some raw processing power.