Oppo Reno8 vs Samsung Galaxy A53 5G: Which Mid-Range Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing raw performance and incredibly fast charging, the Oppo Reno8 emerges as the winner. Its Dimensity 1300 chipset and 80W SuperVOOC charging significantly outperform the Galaxy A53’s Exynos 1280 and 25W charging. However, the Galaxy A53 offers slightly better battery endurance and a brighter display.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Oppo Reno8 | Samsung Galaxy A53 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 66 - SM-A536U |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| - | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, July 18 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, July 25 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 160.6 x 73.4 x 7.7 mm (6.32 x 2.89 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 | 179 g (6.31 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | 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 (~411 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.4 inches, 98.9 cm2 (~83.9% 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 (1x3.0 GHz Cortex-A78 & 3x2.6 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 1300 (6 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G77 MC9 | 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 | No | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| UFS 3.1 | - | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Dual-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, 23mm (wide), 1/2.74", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, 23mm (wide), 1/1.56", 1.0µm, multi-directional PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm, 112˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Panorama, HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 23mm (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 | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.3, A2DP, LE, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | 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/6, 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 | 80W wired, 50% in 11 min, 100% in 28 min Reverse wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 4500 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Shimmer Gold, Shimmer Black | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | CPH2359 | 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 | £ 279.99 / € 158.14 / ₹ 24,999 | $ 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 105h | Endurance rating 113h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | -28.7 LUFS (Average) | -26.5 LUFS (Good) |
| Performance | AnTuTu: 619610a (v9) GeekBench: 2694 (v5.1) GFXBench: 42fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 329802 (v8), 379313 (v9) GeekBench: 1891 (v5.1) GFXBench: 19fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Oppo Reno8
- Significantly faster charging (80W SuperVOOC)
- More powerful processor (Dimensity 1300)
- Potentially better thermal management
- Lower peak display brightness
- Slightly shorter battery endurance
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter display for outdoor visibility
- Slightly longer battery life
- Established Samsung ecosystem
- Slower processor (Exynos 1280)
- Significantly slower charging (25W)
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching 830 nits compared to the Oppo Reno8’s 633 nits. This translates to superior visibility under direct sunlight. Both displays share an 'Infinite' (nominal) contrast ratio, suggesting excellent black levels. While both are likely OLED panels, the Reno8’s lower peak brightness may be noticeable for users accustomed to vibrant, outdoor viewing. The A53’s larger screen size (not specified in data, but typical for the A53) also contributes to a more immersive viewing experience.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature capable photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is lacking. Without specifics on sensor size or aperture, it’s difficult to definitively declare a winner. However, the inclusion of OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) on either device (assumed based on market segment) would be a significant advantage for low-light photography and video recording. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on the A53 is likely a marketing feature with limited real-world utility, as image quality is often compromised by the small sensor size. Image processing styles will likely differ, with Samsung typically favoring more saturated colors and Oppo aiming for a more natural look.
Performance
The Oppo Reno8’s Mediatek Dimensity 1300, fabricated on a 6nm process, holds a clear architectural advantage over the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s Exynos 1280 (5nm). The Dimensity 1300 features a more powerful CPU configuration with a 3.0 GHz Cortex-A78 core, alongside three additional Cortex-A78 cores, versus the A53’s two 2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 cores. This translates to faster application loading times and smoother multitasking. The 6nm node of the Dimensity 1300 also suggests potentially better thermal efficiency, reducing the likelihood of performance throttling during extended gaming sessions. While the Exynos 1280 is a capable chip, the Reno8 offers a noticeable performance uplift.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G edges out the Oppo Reno8 in endurance, achieving 113 hours in our tests versus the Reno8’s 105 hours. This suggests slightly more efficient power management or a larger battery capacity (not specified). However, the Reno8’s 80W wired charging is a game-changer, replenishing 50% of the battery in just 11 minutes and achieving a full charge in 28 minutes. The A53’s 25W charging is considerably slower, making the Reno8 the clear choice for users who frequently need to top up their battery quickly. The Reno8 also offers reverse wired charging, a feature absent on the A53.
Buying Guide
Buy the Oppo Reno8 if you need a phone that can handle demanding tasks like gaming and video editing with ease, and if minimizing charging downtime is a priority. Its faster processor and charging capabilities cater to power users. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a slightly longer-lasting battery, a brighter screen for outdoor visibility, and the established Samsung ecosystem, even if it means sacrificing some processing power and charging speed.