The Oppo A95 5G and Samsung Galaxy M52 5G represent compelling options in the increasingly competitive mid-range 5G smartphone market. While both aim to deliver 5G connectivity at accessible price points, they diverge significantly in their core hardware choices, particularly in their respective chipsets. This comparison dissects these differences to determine which device offers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Samsung Galaxy M52 5G emerges as the stronger choice. Its Snapdragon 778G chipset, built on a more efficient 6nm process, provides a noticeable performance advantage over the Oppo A95 5G’s Dimensity 800U, while the brighter 777 nit display enhances usability in outdoor conditions. The similar battery endurance ratings mean you aren't sacrificing longevity for performance.
| 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, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 28, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | CDMA2000 1x | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2021, April 27 | 2021, September 24 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, May 08 | Available. Released 2021, October 03 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 160.1 x 73.4 x 7.8 mm (6.30 x 2.89 x 0.31 in) | 164.2 x 76.4 x 7.4 mm (6.46 x 3.01 x 0.29 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 173 g (6.10 oz) | 173 g (6.10 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~84.9% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~86.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 430 nits (typ), 800 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED Plus, 120Hz |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x1.9 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 800U (7 nm) | Qualcomm SM7325 Snapdragon 778G 5G (6 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC3 | Adreno 642L |
| OS | Android 11, ColorOS 11.1 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/3.09", 1.0µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide) |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.7, 25mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro) | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.97", 0.7um, PDAF
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚, (ultrawide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm
5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/3.09", 1.0µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | No |
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | No | Unspecified |
| 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/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 30W wired, 100% in 48 min | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4310 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Fluid Black, Cosmo Blue, Silver | Icy Blue, Blazing Black, White |
| Models | PELM00 | SM-M526BR, SM-M526BR/DS, SM-M526B, SM-M526B/DS |
| Price | - | About 300 EUR |
| SAR EU | - | 0.79 W/kg (head) 1.40 W/kg (body) |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | - |
Endurance rating 123h
|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-30.0 LUFS (Average)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 504424 (v9)
GeekBench: 2796 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 28fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo A95 5G
- Faster 30W charging
- Potentially lower price point
- Decent 5G connectivity
- Less powerful Dimensity 800U chipset
- Likely inferior display brightness
- Older chipset architecture
Samsung Galaxy M52 5G
- More powerful Snapdragon 778G chipset
- Brighter 777 nit display
- More efficient 6nm process
- Slower 25W charging
- Potentially higher price
- Similar battery endurance to A95 5G
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy M52 5G boasts a clear advantage in display quality, achieving a measured peak brightness of 777 nits. This is a substantial improvement over what we’d expect from the Oppo A95 5G, making the M52 5G far more usable under direct sunlight. While both displays are described as having an 'infinite' contrast ratio (typical for OLED/AMOLED panels), the higher brightness of the M52 5G translates to a more impactful viewing experience. Details regarding the panel technology (e.g., refresh rate, PWM dimming) are missing for the A95 5G, but the M52 5G’s superior brightness is a definitive win.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed as having 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack specific details regarding sensor size, aperture, or optical image stabilization (OIS). Given Samsung’s generally stronger camera software processing, the M52 5G likely holds an advantage, but without concrete sensor specifications, it’s difficult to quantify. The presence or absence of OIS would be a critical differentiator, and the Snapdragon 778G’s image signal processor (ISP) is generally more capable than the Dimensity 800U’s. We can assume both phones will offer acceptable image quality in good lighting conditions, but the M52 5G is likely to perform better in low-light scenarios.
Performance
The core difference between these two phones lies in their chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy M52 5G utilizes the Qualcomm SM7325 Snapdragon 778G 5G, fabricated on a 6nm process. This chipset features a prime Cortex-A78 core clocked at 2.4 GHz, alongside three additional A78 cores at 2.2 GHz, and four efficiency cores. In contrast, the Oppo A95 5G is powered by the Mediatek Dimensity 800U, built on a 7nm process. While both have an octa-core configuration, the Snapdragon 778G’s newer architecture and more efficient node provide a significant performance edge, particularly in sustained workloads and gaming. The 6nm process of the Snapdragon 778G also implies better thermal efficiency, reducing the likelihood of throttling during extended gaming sessions.
Battery Life
Interestingly, both the Oppo A95 5G and Samsung Galaxy M52 5G share an endurance rating of 123 hours. However, this doesn’t tell the whole story. The Oppo A95 5G supports 30W wired charging, promising a full charge in 48 minutes, while the M52 5G is limited to 25W. While the M52 5G’s charging is slower, the Snapdragon 778G’s superior efficiency may offset the slightly slower charging speed in real-world usage, as it consumes less power during typical tasks. The similar endurance ratings suggest comparable battery capacity, but the chipset efficiency gives the M52 5G a subtle advantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo A95 5G if you prioritize a slightly faster charging speed (30W vs 25W) and are looking for the most affordable 5G option. Buy the Samsung Galaxy M52 5G if you value superior processing power for gaming and multitasking, a significantly brighter and more vibrant display, and a more modern chipset architecture that promises better long-term software support.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 778G in the Samsung Galaxy M52 5G handle demanding games like PUBG or Genshin Impact smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 778G is a capable chipset for gaming. Its Adreno 642L GPU and efficient architecture will allow you to play PUBG and Genshin Impact at medium to high settings with stable frame rates. The 6nm process also helps prevent overheating and throttling during extended gaming sessions, providing a more consistent experience than the Oppo A95 5G.
❓ How significant is the difference in display quality between the Oppo A95 5G and the Samsung Galaxy M52 5G for everyday use?
The difference is quite noticeable. The Samsung Galaxy M52 5G’s 777 nit peak brightness makes it significantly easier to view content outdoors or in brightly lit environments. The Oppo A95 5G’s display, lacking a specified brightness level, will likely appear washed out in comparison. This impacts everything from browsing the web to watching videos.
❓ Does the faster charging speed of the Oppo A95 5G make a substantial difference in daily use?
While 30W charging is faster than the M52 5G’s 25W, both phones offer sufficient charging speeds for most users. The 48-minute full charge time for the A95 5G is respectable, but the Snapdragon 778G’s efficiency in the M52 5G means you may not need to charge as frequently, mitigating the slower charging speed.
