The Samsung Galaxy A06 and Oppo A3x 4G represent compelling options in the ultra-budget smartphone segment. While both aim to deliver essential smartphone functionality at an accessible price, they take different approaches to achieving this. The A06 prioritizes sustained battery life, while the A3x 4G focuses on quicker replenishment through faster charging technology. This comparison will dissect their key specifications to determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing longevity, the Samsung Galaxy A06 is the better choice, offering a substantial 13:50h active use battery life. However, if minimizing downtime is critical, the Oppo A3x 4G’s 45W charging, capable of 50% charge in 30 minutes, provides a significant advantage.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 800 / 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - version 1 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 - version 1 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2024, August 16 | 2024, August 20 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, August 22 | Available. Released 2024, August 20 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | - |
| Dimensions | 167.3 x 77.3 x 8 mm (6.59 x 3.04 x 0.31 in) | 165.8 x 76.1 x 7.7 mm (6.53 x 3.00 x 0.30 in) |
| SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 189 g (6.67 oz) | 186 g (6.56 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Panda glass |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~262 ppi density) | 720 x 1604 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~264 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~83.8% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.67 inches, 107.2 cm2 (~85.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | PLS LCD | IPS LCD, 90Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.1 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Helio G85 (12 nm) | Qualcomm SM-6115 Snapdragon 6s 4G Gen1 (11 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G52 MC2 | Adreno 610 |
| OS | Android 14, up to 2 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 | Android 14, upgradable to Android 15, ColorOS 15 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF
Auxiliary lens | 8 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/3.94", PDAF
Auxiliary lens |
| Features | LED flash | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Video | 1080p@30/60fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 5 MP, f/2.2, 27mm (wide), 1/4.96" |
| Video | Yes | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.3, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | FM radio | Unspecified |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | 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 |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 25W wired | 45W wired, PD2.0, PPS, 50% in 30 min |
| Type | Li-Po 5000 mAh | 5100 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Blue, Gold, White | Nebula Red, Ocean Blue, Starry Purple |
| Models | SM-A065F, SM-A065F/DS, SM-A065M, SM-A065M/DS | CPH2641 |
| Price | € 81.90 / $ 99.99 / £ 66.89 / ₹ 7,749 | - |
| SAR EU | 0.44 W/kg (head) 1.08 W/kg (body) | - |
Samsung Galaxy A06
- Exceptional battery life (13:50h active use)
- Decent peak brightness for outdoor visibility (564 nits)
- Potentially better multitasking due to CPU core count
- Slower charging speed (25W)
- Limited camera specification details
Oppo A3x 4G
- Ultra-fast 45W charging with PD2.0/PPS
- 50% charge in 30 minutes
- Potentially more power-efficient chipset (Snapdragon 6s Gen 1)
- Likely shorter battery life compared to A06
- Limited camera specification details
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A06 features a display capable of reaching 564 nits of peak brightness, providing adequate visibility outdoors. Its 1484:1 contrast ratio suggests decent black levels, though the panel technology isn't specified, likely being a standard IPS LCD. The Oppo A3x 4G’s display specifications are not provided, making a direct comparison difficult. However, given its price point, it likely utilizes a similar IPS LCD panel, potentially with slightly lower peak brightness. The A06’s measured brightness gives it an edge for outdoor usability.
Camera Comparison
Detailed camera specifications for both devices are limited. Without information on sensor sizes or aperture values, a meaningful comparison is challenging. Both phones likely feature a primary camera accompanied by auxiliary lenses (often 2MP macro or depth sensors, which offer limited utility). Image processing will likely be the differentiating factor, with Samsung typically favoring vibrant, saturated colors and Oppo leaning towards more natural tones. The absence of OIS on either device suggests reliance on software stabilization.
Performance
The Oppo A3x 4G utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 6s Gen 1 (11nm), featuring a CPU configuration of 4x2.1 GHz Cortex-A73 and 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This architecture, built on an 11nm process, aims for a balance of performance and efficiency. The Samsung Galaxy A06, on the other hand, is powered by the Mediatek Helio G85 (12nm) with a CPU layout of 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 and 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. While the A3x 4G’s Cortex-A73 cores have a slightly higher clock speed, the Helio G85’s two Cortex-A75 cores offer a performance boost in single-core tasks. The 11nm process of the Snapdragon 6s Gen 1 should provide better power efficiency, but the A06’s larger core count may offer better multitasking capabilities.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A06 shines with a reported 13:50h active use battery life, indicating excellent endurance. It supports 25W wired charging. Conversely, the Oppo A3x 4G, while battery capacity is unknown, compensates with a significantly faster 45W wired charging solution, incorporating PD2.0 and PPS standards, achieving a 50% charge in just 30 minutes. This faster charging is a major advantage for users who prioritize quick top-ups, even if the overall battery life is slightly less than the A06.
Buying Guide
Buy the Samsung Galaxy A06 if you need a phone that will reliably last through a full day of moderate to heavy use, and you aren't overly concerned with the fastest possible charging speeds. Buy the Oppo A3x 4G if you frequently find yourself needing to quickly top up your battery and value the convenience of rapid charging, even if it means slightly less overall runtime.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Mediatek Helio G85 in the Galaxy A06 struggle with demanding games like PUBG?
The Helio G85 is a capable chipset for casual gaming, but demanding titles like PUBG may require reduced graphics settings for a smooth experience. The CPU's Cortex-A75 cores provide a performance boost, but the GPU is the limiting factor. Expect playable frame rates at medium settings.
❓ How much faster is the 45W charging on the Oppo A3x 4G compared to the Galaxy A06's 25W charging?
The Oppo A3x 4G's 45W charging is significantly faster. It can reach 50% charge in just 30 minutes, while the Galaxy A06 will take considerably longer to achieve the same level. This difference is crucial for users who frequently need to quickly top up their battery.
❓ Is the lack of detailed camera specs a concern for both phones?
Yes, the limited camera information makes it difficult to assess their image quality. Both phones likely feature a primary camera paired with auxiliary sensors of limited utility. Expect adequate performance in good lighting conditions, but image quality may suffer in low-light scenarios.
