The Honor X9 and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G represent compelling options in the crowded mid-range smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a balanced experience, they take different approaches to achieving it. The X9 prioritizes fast charging and a streamlined experience, while the A53 5G focuses on a brighter display and Samsung’s established software ecosystem. This comparison will dissect their key differences to help you determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing a smooth daily experience and rapid charging, the Honor X9 emerges as the winner. Its 66W charging significantly outperforms the A53’s 25W, and the Snapdragon 680 provides adequate performance for most tasks, all at a potentially lower price point. However, the A53 5G’s brighter display and 5G connectivity remain compelling advantages for specific users.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | LTE | 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 | 2022, March 31 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, April 14 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 166.1 x 75.8 x 8.1 mm (6.54 x 2.98 x 0.32 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 + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 189 g (6.67 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 2388 pixels (~385 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.81 inches, 112.3 cm2 (~89.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.4 GHz Kryo 265 Gold & 4x1.9 GHz Kryo 265 Silver) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6225 Snapdragon 680 4G (6 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 610 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 11, Magic UI 4.2 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide)
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | 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 |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.5 | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| | Virtual proximity sensing | Virtual proximity sensing |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 66W wired, 81% in 30 min | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4800 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Titanium Silver, Ocean Blue, Midnight 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 230 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) |
Honor X9
- Significantly faster 66W charging
- Potentially lower price point
- Efficient Snapdragon 680 chipset
- Limited to 4G connectivity
- Likely less vibrant display compared to A53
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter and more vibrant display
- 5G connectivity for faster data speeds
- Samsung’s One UI software experience
- Slower 25W charging
- Potentially higher price point
- Exynos 1280 may exhibit more thermal throttling under sustained load
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a notably brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 830 nits. This is a significant advantage for outdoor visibility compared to the Honor X9, whose brightness is not specified but is likely lower. While the A53’s contrast ratio is listed as ‘Infinite (nominal)’ – typical for AMOLED panels – the X9’s panel type isn’t specified, suggesting it’s an LCD. This impacts color vibrancy and black levels. The A53’s larger screen real estate also provides a more immersive viewing experience.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is limited. The A53 5G likely benefits from Samsung’s established image processing algorithms, potentially delivering more refined images. Without specific sensor size or aperture details for the X9, it’s difficult to assess its low-light performance. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the A53 would be a significant advantage for video recording and sharper photos in challenging conditions. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on the A53 is unlikely to provide substantial improvements over the main sensor.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the Honor X9 utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 (6nm), while the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G features the Exynos 1280 (5nm). The Exynos 1280, built on a smaller 5nm process, generally offers superior performance and efficiency. Its Cortex-A78 cores provide a performance boost over the Snapdragon 680’s Kryo 265 Gold cores. However, the Snapdragon 680’s 6nm node is still efficient, and for everyday tasks, the difference may not be dramatically noticeable. The A53’s 5G capability is a key advantage for users in areas with 5G coverage, while the X9 is limited to 4G.
Battery Life
Both phones achieve an endurance rating of 113 hours, indicating similar overall battery life. However, the charging speeds are drastically different. The Honor X9’s 66W wired charging can replenish 81% of the battery in just 30 minutes, a massive advantage over the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s 25W charging. This faster charging significantly reduces downtime and offers greater convenience. While the A53’s battery capacity isn’t specified, the similar endurance rating suggests it’s optimized for efficiency.
Buying Guide
Buy the Honor X9 if you need a phone that charges incredibly quickly, and you primarily use your device for everyday tasks like social media, browsing, and light gaming. You’ll appreciate the convenience of topping up your battery in under an hour. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prioritize a brighter, more vibrant display for media consumption, require 5G connectivity for faster data speeds, and value Samsung’s One UI software experience and long-term software support.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A53 5G tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Exynos 1280 is known to exhibit some thermal throttling under sustained heavy loads, such as extended gaming. While it's not a severe issue, users may experience a slight drop in performance after prolonged gameplay. The Snapdragon 680 in the Honor X9, being less powerful, is less prone to overheating.
❓ Is the 2MP macro camera on the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G actually useful for taking detailed close-up photos?
Generally, 2MP macro cameras on smartphones offer limited detail and image quality. They often struggle with sharpness and dynamic range. While they can be fun to experiment with, don't expect professional-level macro photography from the A53's 2MP sensor. The main sensor will likely produce better results even when digitally zoomed in.
❓ Can the Honor X9 handle popular games like PUBG Mobile at high frame rates (90fps)?
The Snapdragon 680 is capable of running PUBG Mobile, but achieving consistently high frame rates (90fps) may be challenging, especially at higher graphics settings. You'll likely need to balance graphics quality and frame rate to achieve a smooth gaming experience. The Exynos 1280 in the A53 5G has a better chance of maintaining higher frame rates.
❓ How long does it realistically take to fully charge the Honor X9 from 0% to 100%?
While the Honor X9 charges to 81% in 30 minutes, a full charge from 0% to 100% will take approximately 45-60 minutes with the 66W charger. This is still significantly faster than the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G, which will take well over an hour with its 25W charging.
