The Oppo Reno8 4G and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G represent compelling options in the crowded mid-range smartphone market. While both aim to deliver a balanced experience, they take different approaches. The Reno8 4G prioritizes a streamlined experience with a Snapdragon chipset, while the A53 5G boasts 5G connectivity and Samsung’s established software ecosystem. This comparison dives deep into their specifications to determine which device offers the best value.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing consistent performance and faster charging, the Oppo Reno8 4G emerges as the winner. Its Snapdragon 680, built on a 6nm process, offers a more efficient experience than the Exynos 1280, despite the latter’s 5G capability. However, the A53 5G’s brighter display and broader 5G support make it a viable alternative for specific needs.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 40 | 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, August 17 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, August 26 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 159.9 x 73.2 x 7.7 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 | 182 g (6.42 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 | Panda Glass | 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, ColorOS 12.1 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 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 | Dawnlight Gold, Starlight Black | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | CPH2457 | 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 330 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) |
Oppo Reno8 4G
- Faster 33W charging for quicker top-ups
- More power-efficient Snapdragon 680 chipset
- 5W reverse wired charging for accessories
- Lacks 5G connectivity
- Display brightness likely lower than A53 5G
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter 830 nit display for outdoor visibility
- 5G connectivity for future-proofing
- Samsung’s One UI software ecosystem
- Slower 25W charging
- Exynos 1280 may throttle under sustained load
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significant advantage in display brightness, reaching a measured 830 nits. This translates to superior visibility in direct sunlight compared to the Reno8 4G (brightness data unavailable, but typically lower in this segment). While both likely utilize AMOLED panels for vibrant colors, the A53’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio (nominal) suggests deeper blacks. The lack of high refresh rate information for the Reno8 4G suggests the A53’s potential for smoother scrolling, if equipped (data not provided).
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is lacking. The A53 5G likely benefits from Samsung’s established image processing algorithms. Without specific sensor size data, it’s difficult to definitively declare a winner. However, Samsung typically prioritizes camera performance in its A-series, suggesting a potential advantage. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the A53 5G (assumed based on Samsung’s typical implementation) would further enhance image quality, particularly in low-light conditions. The Reno8 4G’s camera system is likely geared towards social media-friendly results, while the A53 5G aims for more versatile photography.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s Exynos 1280 (5nm) features a more modern CPU architecture – Cortex-A78 cores – offering a performance edge over the Oppo Reno8 4G’s Snapdragon 680 (6nm). However, the 6nm fabrication process of the Snapdragon 680 contributes to better power efficiency. The Exynos 1280’s 5G modem adds connectivity, but also increases power consumption. For sustained workloads, the Snapdragon 680 is likely to exhibit less thermal throttling, providing more consistent performance. The Reno8 4G’s CPU configuration (4x2.4 GHz Kryo 265 Gold & 4x1.9 GHz Kryo 265 Silver) is optimized for a balance of power and efficiency, while the A53’s (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) leans towards peak performance.
Battery Life
Both phones share an endurance rating of 113 hours, indicating similar overall battery life. However, the charging speeds differ significantly. The Oppo Reno8 4G’s 33W wired charging is considerably faster than the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s 25W charging. This means the Reno8 4G can replenish its battery from 0-100% in a shorter timeframe. The Reno8 4G also includes 5W reverse wired charging, a feature absent on the A53 5G, allowing it to top up accessories like earbuds.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno8 4G if you need a phone that prioritizes efficient performance for everyday tasks, quick charging, and a generally smoother user experience. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a brighter display for outdoor visibility, require 5G connectivity for future-proofing, and value Samsung’s One UI software and ecosystem integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 1280 in the Galaxy A53 5G tend to overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Exynos 1280, while capable, is known to generate more heat than the Snapdragon 680, particularly under sustained load. This can lead to thermal throttling, reducing performance during extended gaming sessions. The Reno8 4G’s Snapdragon 680, built on a more efficient 6nm process, is less prone to overheating.
❓ 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 for marketing purposes but rarely deliver truly impressive macro photography. Expect soft images and limited dynamic range. Dedicated cameras or using the main sensor in 'close-up' mode will yield better results.
❓ Can the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G reliably maintain 60fps in demanding games like PUBG Mobile?
The Galaxy A53 5G can likely run PUBG Mobile at 60fps with medium graphics settings. However, achieving consistently smooth performance at higher settings may be challenging due to the Exynos 1280’s thermal limitations. Expect some frame drops during intense firefights.
❓ How does the software update policy differ between Oppo and Samsung for these models?
Samsung generally offers a more robust software update policy, promising several years of OS upgrades and security patches for its A-series devices. Oppo’s update commitment is typically shorter, though it has been improving. This means the Galaxy A53 5G is likely to remain supported for a longer period.
