The Oppo A52 and Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW represent compelling options in the mid-range smartphone market, but cater to slightly different priorities. The A52, with its Snapdragon 665, focuses on efficiency, while the A51 5G UW leverages the more powerful Snapdragon 765G and 5G connectivity. This comparison dissects their key differences to determine which device delivers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing performance and future-proofing with 5G, the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW is the better choice. Its Snapdragon 765G chipset provides a noticeable performance uplift over the Oppo A52’s Snapdragon 665, justifying the potential price difference. However, the A52 remains a viable option for those on a tighter budget.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 - Version 1 | 2, 4, 5, 13, 66 |
| 5G bands | - | 260, 261 mmWave |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | 1, 3, 5, 8, 34, 38, 40, 41 - China | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020, April 20. Released 2020, April 20 | 2020, August 14 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, August 14 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 162 x 75.5 x 8.9 mm (6.38 x 2.97 x 0.35 in) | 158.8 x 73.4 x 8.6 mm (6.25 x 2.89 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM (pre-installed) |
| Weight | 192 g (6.77 oz) | 188.8 g (6.67 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~83.4% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~87.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 480 nits (typ) | Super AMOLED |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6125 Snapdragon 665 (11 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 610 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, ColorOS 7.1 | Android 10, One UI 2 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 12 MP, f/1.7, (wide), 1/2.8", 1.25µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | 48 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide)
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | - | 5 MP, AF |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm - Global
or
8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) - China only | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes |
| | 24-bit/192kHz audio | - |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio, RDS, recording |
| 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, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| | - | ANT+ |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 15W wired |
| Stand-by | - | Up to 672 h |
| Talk time | - | Up to 5 h |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Twilight Black, Stream White | Prism Bricks Blue |
| Models | CPH2061, CPH2069, PADM00, PDAM10 | SM-A516V |
| Price | About 240 EUR | About 470 EUR |
| SAR | - | 0.70 W/kg (head) 1.25 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.59 W/kg (head) 1.32 W/kg (body) |
Oppo A52
- More affordable price point
- Faster wired charging (18W)
- Sufficient for basic smartphone tasks
- Less powerful Snapdragon 665 chipset
- Limited performance for demanding apps
- No 5G connectivity
Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW
- More powerful Snapdragon 765G chipset
- 5G connectivity for faster data speeds
- Improved image processing capabilities
- Slower wired charging (15W)
- Potentially higher price
- May experience slightly more heat under heavy load
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. While specific panel details (like peak brightness or color gamut coverage) are unavailable, the focus here is on the underlying performance. Both likely utilize LCD panels common in this price bracket. The real differentiator lies in the processing power driving the UI, which impacts perceived smoothness. The A51 5G UW’s more powerful chipset will contribute to a more responsive user experience when navigating the interface.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed sensor specifications, a direct camera comparison is challenging. However, the chipset plays a crucial role in image processing. The Snapdragon 765G in the A51 5G UW includes a more advanced Image Signal Processor (ISP) capable of faster processing and improved noise reduction. This will result in better image quality, particularly in low-light conditions. While both phones likely feature a multi-camera system, the A51 5G UW’s ISP will likely extract more detail and dynamic range from its sensors. The A52's image processing will be adequate for casual use, but won't match the A51 5G UW's capabilities.
Performance
The core difference between these phones is the chipset. The Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW’s Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G (7nm) is a significant step up from the Oppo A52’s SM6125 Snapdragon 665 (11nm). The 7nm process node allows for greater transistor density and improved power efficiency, translating to better sustained performance and less heat generation. The CPU configuration further highlights this: the A51 5G UW features a Kryo 475 Prime core at 2.4GHz, alongside a Kryo 475 Gold core at 2.2GHz, and six Kryo 475 Silver cores at 1.8GHz. This contrasts with the A52’s quad-core Kryo 260 Gold (2.0GHz) and quad-core Kryo 260 Silver (1.8GHz) setup. This means the A51 5G UW will handle demanding tasks like gaming and video editing with greater ease.
Battery Life
The Oppo A52 supports 18W wired charging, while the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW is limited to 15W. While the A52 charges slightly faster on paper, the overall battery experience is more nuanced. The Snapdragon 765G in the A51 5G UW, despite being more powerful, is also more power-efficient due to its 7nm process. This means the A51 5G UW can deliver comparable, if not better, real-world battery life despite the potentially lower charging speed. The efficiency gains of the 7nm node offset the charging wattage difference.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo A52 if you need a reliable, everyday smartphone with a focus on battery efficiency and a lower price point. It’s ideal for users who primarily browse the web, use social media, and make calls. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW if you prioritize smoother multitasking, faster app loading times, and the benefits of 5G connectivity, especially if you plan to play mobile games or stream high-resolution video.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 765G in the A51 5G UW handle graphically intensive games like PUBG or Call of Duty Mobile smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 765G is capable of running PUBG and Call of Duty Mobile at medium to high settings with playable frame rates. While it won't match the performance of flagship chipsets, it provides a significantly smoother gaming experience compared to the Snapdragon 665 in the Oppo A52.
❓ Does the 5G connectivity on the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW actually make a noticeable difference in everyday use?
The benefit of 5G depends on your location and carrier coverage. If you live in an area with robust 5G infrastructure, you'll experience significantly faster download and upload speeds, especially when streaming video or downloading large files. However, if 5G coverage is limited, you'll primarily connect to 4G LTE, diminishing the advantage.
❓ Is the difference in charging speed (18W vs 15W) between the Oppo A52 and Samsung A51 5G UW significant?
While the Oppo A52 charges slightly faster on paper, the difference in real-world charging time is unlikely to be substantial. The A51 5G UW's more efficient chipset and power management can mitigate the impact of the slower charging speed, resulting in comparable overall battery usage.
