Oppo Reno13 F vs. Samsung Galaxy A55: A Deep Dive into Mid-Range Champions
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing sustained performance and faster charging, the Oppo Reno13 F emerges as the winner. Its Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 chipset, coupled with 45W charging, offers a smoother experience and quicker top-ups, despite the Galaxy A55’s brighter display.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno13 F | Samsung Galaxy A55 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - version 1, 2, 3 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 - version 1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA - version 1, 2 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2025, January 04 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, January 11 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), glass back (Gorilla Glass), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 162.2 x 75.1 x 7.8 mm (6.39 x 2.96 x 0.31 in) | 161.1 x 77.4 x 8.2 mm (6.34 x 3.05 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM + eSIM (max 2 at a time) |
| Weight | 192 g (6.77 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Asahi Glass AGC DT-Star2, Mohs level 4 | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~395 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.67 inches, 107.4 cm2 (~88.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~85.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 120Hz, 600 nits (typ), 1200 nits (HMB), 2100 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, HDR10+, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM6450 Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 (4 nm) | Exynos 1480 (4 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 710 | Xclipse 530 |
| OS | Android 15, ColorOS 15 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 6.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM, 512GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm, 112˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS, OIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Panorama | - |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 22mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes, with stereo speakers | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.1, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | Unspecified | 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 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 45W wired, PD, QC, PPS, 44% in 30 min Reverse wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 5800 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Graphite Grey, Plume Purple, Luminous Blue | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | CPH2699 | SM-A556V, SM-A556B, SM-A556B/DS, SM-A556E, SM-A556E/DS, SM-A5560 |
| Price | € 465.16 / $ 399.00 / £ 316.00 | $ 324.99 / £ 251.50 / € 319.99 / ₹ 23,998 |
| SAR EU | - | 0.68 W/kg (head) 1.04 W/kg (body) |
| EU LABEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery | 60:45h endurance, 1600 cycles | - |
| Energy | Class B | - |
| Free fall | Class B (240 falls) | - |
| Repairability | Class B | - |
Oppo Reno13 F
- Faster 45W charging with multiple protocols
- Potentially better sustained performance due to Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 optimization
- Longer battery endurance (60:45h)
- Display brightness likely lower than the A55
- Camera specs are currently unknown
Samsung Galaxy A55
- Brighter 1010 nit display for outdoor visibility
- Samsung’s established software ecosystem
- Potentially superior image processing
- Slower 25W charging
- Exynos 1480 may be prone to more thermal throttling
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A55 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured 1010 nits, making it ideal for outdoor visibility. While the Reno13 F’s display specs are not provided, Samsung’s panel offers a clear advantage in direct sunlight. The A55’s panel technology is likely to be Super AMOLED, known for its vibrant colors and deep blacks, while the Reno13 F likely uses an AMOLED panel. The lack of LTPO on either device means refresh rate scaling isn’t as efficient, impacting battery life during dynamic content viewing.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications for the Reno13 F, a direct comparison is limited. However, Samsung typically excels in image processing, and the A55 likely benefits from its advanced algorithms. The A55’s main sensor size and aperture are unknown, but a larger sensor generally captures more light, resulting in better low-light performance. The Reno13 F’s camera performance will depend heavily on its sensor and software optimization. It’s crucial to note that the inclusion of a 2MP macro camera on either device is largely a marketing tactic, offering minimal practical benefit due to its low resolution and fixed focus.
Performance
The Galaxy A55’s Exynos 1480, with its 4x2.75 GHz Cortex-A78 cores, has a clock speed advantage over the Reno13 F’s Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 (4x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78). However, both chipsets are built on a 4nm process, suggesting comparable efficiency. The Snapdragon 6 Gen 1’s architecture is optimized for sustained performance, potentially leading to less thermal throttling during extended gaming sessions. The A55’s higher clock speeds may translate to faster app loading times, but the Reno13 F’s optimized chipset could provide a smoother overall experience. Both devices likely utilize LPDDR5x RAM, ensuring sufficient memory bandwidth for multitasking.
Battery Life
The Oppo Reno13 F claims an impressive 60:45h endurance, suggesting excellent battery optimization. The Samsung Galaxy A55 achieves 13:27h in active use, a different metric but still indicative of solid battery life. The Reno13 F’s 45W wired charging, supporting PD, QC, and PPS, is significantly faster than the A55’s 25W charging. This translates to a 44% charge in just 30 minutes for the Reno13 F, while the A55 will take considerably longer. The Reno13 F also offers reverse wired charging, a convenient feature for topping up accessories.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno13 F if you need a phone that prioritizes consistent performance for everyday tasks and gaming, and value rapid charging speeds. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A55 if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display for media consumption and are willing to trade some processing power for enhanced visual experience and Samsung’s software ecosystem.