Nokia X100 vs Samsung Galaxy A53 5G: Which Mid-Range 5G Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and overall performance, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the better choice. Its brighter 830-nit display and more powerful Exynos 1280 chipset provide a smoother, more enjoyable experience. However, the Nokia X100 offers a compelling alternative for budget-conscious buyers.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Nokia X100 | Samsung Galaxy A53 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 20, 25, 26, 38, 39, 40, 41, 71 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 66 - SM-A536U |
| 5G bands | 25, 41, 66, 71 SA/NSA | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, November 09 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, November 19 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 171.4 x 79.7 x 9.1 mm (6.75 x 3.14 x 0.36 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 |
| Weight | 217 g (7.65 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 | 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 (~78.6% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Kryo 460 & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 460) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4350 Snapdragon 480 5G (8 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 619 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 11 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Zeiss optics, LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 48 MP, (wide), PDAF 5 MP, (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 | 16 MP, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | Yes | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX Adaptive | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | 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, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, QC3 | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4470 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Midnight Blue | 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 220 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) |
Nokia X100
- More affordable price point
- Clean Android experience
- Reliable 5G connectivity
- Less powerful processor
- Lower display brightness
- Less advanced camera system
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter, more vibrant display
- Faster and more efficient processor
- Faster charging speeds
- Higher price tag
- Samsung’s One UI software (preference-based)
- Potential for bloatware
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 830 nits, compared to the Nokia X100’s unspecified brightness. This difference is crucial for outdoor visibility. While the X100’s display specs are limited in the provided data, the A53’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) suggests a superior viewing experience with deeper blacks. The A53’s Super AMOLED panel likely offers more vibrant colors and wider viewing angles than the X100’s LCD, making it better for media consumption.
Camera Comparison
Both devices feature photo and video capabilities, but the A53 5G is expected to offer a more refined camera experience. While specific sensor details are missing for both, Samsung’s image processing algorithms are generally more advanced. The A53 likely benefits from better dynamic range and low-light performance. The Nokia X100’s camera system, while functional, is likely to be less sophisticated, and the inclusion of a 2MP macro camera suggests a focus on quantity over quality. The A53’s OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) is also a significant advantage for sharper photos and smoother videos.
Performance
The Exynos 1280 (5nm) in the Galaxy A53 5G represents a substantial leap in processing power over the Snapdragon 480 (8nm) found in the Nokia X100. The A53’s CPU configuration – 2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 – provides faster single-core and multi-core performance. The 5nm fabrication process of the Exynos 1280 also translates to improved thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during sustained workloads. While the X100’s Snapdragon 480 is adequate for everyday tasks, the A53 will handle demanding games and applications with greater ease.
Battery Life
Both the Nokia X100 and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G share an endurance rating of 113 hours, indicating similar overall battery life. However, the A53 5G’s 25W wired charging is faster than the X100’s 18W charging with QC3 support. This means the A53 can replenish its battery more quickly, minimizing downtime. While battery capacity isn’t specified, the faster charging speed gives the A53 an edge in convenience.
Buying Guide
Buy the Nokia X100 if you need a reliable 5G connection on a tight budget and prioritize software simplicity. It’s ideal for users who primarily use their phone for calls, texts, and basic social media. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a vibrant display, faster performance for gaming and multitasking, and a more feature-rich camera system, even if it means spending a bit more.