The Oppo Reno7 and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G represent compelling options in the increasingly competitive mid-range smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a balanced experience, they take different approaches to achieving it. The Reno7 prioritizes a sleek design and efficient processor, while the A53 5G focuses on a brighter display and 5G connectivity. This comparison dives deep into their specifications to determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display visibility and future-proofing with 5G, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the better choice. However, users seeking a more power-efficient device with a slightly more streamlined experience will find the Oppo Reno7 a compelling alternative.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 900 / 2100 - Indonesia | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 40 - Indonesia | 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 29 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, April 02 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back or eco leather back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 159.9 x 73.2 x 7.5 mm (6.30 x 2.88 x 0.30 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 |
| Weight | 175 g (6.17 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| | IPX4 water resistant
RGB ring light around the camera (notifications, charging progress) | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.43 inches, 99.8 cm2 (~85.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 90Hz, 430 nits (typ), 600 nits (HBM), 800 nits (peak) | 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 12, upgradable to Android 14, ColorOS 14 | 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 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.2 | - |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 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/2.4, 24mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 64 MP, f/1.7, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.7µm, PDAF
2 MP, f/3.3, (microscope)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | Panorama, HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 24mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 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 HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO, QZSS | 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| | - | Virtual proximity sensing |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 33W wired
5W reverse wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4500 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Cosmic Black, Sunset Orange | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | CPH2363 | 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 240 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 127h
|
Endurance rating 113h
|
| Camera |
Photo / Video |
Photo / Video |
| Display |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker |
-29.7 LUFS (Average)
|
-26.5 LUFS (Good)
|
| Performance |
AnTuTu: 289250 (v9)
GeekBench: 1653 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 7.2fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
AnTuTu: 329802 (v8), 379313 (v9)
GeekBench: 1891 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 19fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno7
- Longer battery life (127h endurance)
- Faster 33W charging
- More power-efficient Snapdragon 680 chipset
- Dimmer display (624 nits)
- Lacks 5G connectivity
- Potentially less advanced image processing
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter display (830 nits)
- 5G connectivity for faster data speeds
- More powerful Exynos 1280 chipset
- Shorter battery life (113h endurance)
- Slower 25W charging
- Potentially more thermal throttling
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 830 nits compared to the Oppo Reno7’s 624 nits. This difference is immediately noticeable in outdoor visibility, making the A53 5G the clear winner for users who frequently use their phones in sunlight. Both displays share an 'Infinite' (nominal) contrast ratio, suggesting deep blacks, but the A53’s higher brightness provides a more dynamic and vibrant image overall. While neither specification details refresh rate, the A53 is known to have a 120Hz panel, a feature not confirmed for the Reno7.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature capable camera systems, but detailed sensor information is limited. The focus should be on image processing. Samsung’s image processing tends towards vibrant, saturated colors, while Oppo often aims for a more natural look. The A53’s Exynos 1280 ISP likely offers more advanced computational photography features. Given the market positioning, it’s reasonable to assume the A53 has a more versatile camera setup, despite both being listed as 'Photo / Video' capable. The presence of OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) would be a significant advantage for the A53, but this isn’t confirmed in the provided data.
Performance
Under the hood, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G utilizes the Exynos 1280 (5nm), while the Oppo Reno7 is powered by the Snapdragon 680 (6nm). The 5nm process node of the Exynos 1280 generally translates to better power efficiency and thermal performance compared to the 6nm Snapdragon 680. The A53’s CPU configuration – 2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 – offers a performance edge over the Reno7’s Octa-core (4x2.4 GHz Kryo 265 Gold & 4x1.9 GHz Kryo 265 Silver), particularly in multi-threaded tasks. However, the Reno7’s Snapdragon 680 benefits from Qualcomm’s optimized ISP for image processing.
Battery Life
The Oppo Reno7 edges out the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G in endurance rating, achieving 127 hours versus 113 hours. This suggests better overall battery life despite the A53 having a larger battery capacity (not specified in the data, but typically around 5000mAh). The Reno7’s more efficient Snapdragon 680 chipset and 33W charging contribute to this advantage. The A53 5G supports 25W charging, which is slower, but the larger battery may offset this difference in real-world usage. The Reno7 also offers 5W reverse wired charging, a feature absent on the A53.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno7 if you need a phone that maximizes battery life and prioritizes efficient performance for everyday tasks. It’s ideal for users who don’t heavily rely on 5G or demanding mobile games. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display for media consumption, require 5G connectivity for faster data speeds, and value Samsung’s established software ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A53 5G tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
While the Exynos 1280 is a capable chipset, it has been known to exhibit some thermal throttling under sustained heavy load, such as extended gaming. The 5nm process helps mitigate this, but users engaging in long gaming sessions may experience some performance dips. The Reno7’s Snapdragon 680, while less powerful, is generally more thermally efficient.
❓ Is the 2MP macro camera on either phone actually useful for taking detailed close-up shots?
Generally, 2MP macro cameras on phones in this price range offer limited detail and image quality. They are often included as a marketing feature rather than a genuinely useful camera component. Expect soft images and limited dynamic range from these macro lenses. Focusing can also be challenging.
❓ Does the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G support 90fps or higher frame rates in popular games like PUBG Mobile?
The Galaxy A53 5G can achieve high frame rates in PUBG Mobile, but it's unlikely to consistently maintain 90fps even with graphics settings lowered. Expect a stable 60fps experience with balanced graphics. The Snapdragon 680 in the Reno7 will likely offer a similar, or slightly lower, gaming performance.
❓ How significant is the difference in charging speed between the Oppo Reno7's 33W and the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G's 25W?
The 33W charging on the Reno7 will noticeably reduce charging times compared to the A53’s 25W. Expect a roughly 20-30 minute difference for a full charge, depending on battery level. While not a massive difference, it adds up over time and provides a more convenient charging experience.
