Samsung Galaxy A35 vs F15: A Deep Dive into Samsung's Mid-Range Contenders
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Samsung Galaxy A35 is the superior choice. Its Exynos 1380 chipset, built on a 5nm process, provides a noticeable performance uplift over the F15’s Dimensity 6100+, and the brighter 1024 nit display enhances usability in outdoor conditions. While both charge at 25W, the A35’s overall refinement justifies the price difference.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Samsung Galaxy F15 | Samsung Galaxy A35 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| 5G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 26, 28, 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 | 2024, March 04 | 2024, March 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2024, March 11 | Available. Released 2024, March 15 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass Victus+), plastic frame, glass back |
| Dimensions | 160.1 x 76.8 x 9.3 mm (6.30 x 3.02 x 0.37 in) | 161.7 x 78 x 8.2 mm (6.37 x 3.07 x 0.32 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM + eSIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 217 g (7.65 oz) | 209 g (7.37 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass Victus+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~390 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~87.0% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.6 inches, 106.9 cm2 (~84.8% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, 90Hz | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 1000 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 6100+ (6 nm) | Exynos 1380 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G68 MP5 |
| OS | Android 14, One UI 6 | Android 14, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 7 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 12GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), AF 5 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide) 2 MP (macro) | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/1.96", PDAF, OIS 8 MP, f/2.2, 123˚, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 5 MP (macro) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Single | 13 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.3, A2DP, LE | 5.3, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS, BDS, QZSS |
| Radio | No | No |
| 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/6, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 25W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 6000 mAh | Li-Ion 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Ash Black, Groovy Violet, Jazzy Green | Iceblue, Lilac, Navy, Lemon |
| Models | SM-E156B, SM-E156B/DS | SM-A356E, SM-A356E/DS, SM-A356B, SM-A356B/DS, SM-A356U, SM-A356U1 |
| Price | ₹ 15,490 | $ 138.00 / C$ 419.99 / £ 205.99 / € 259.99 / ₹ 18,299 |
| SAR | 0.71 W/kg (head) | 0.81 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.44 W/kg (head) 0.92 W/kg (body) |
Samsung Galaxy F15
- Superior performance with Exynos 1380 chipset
- Brighter and more vibrant display (1024 nits)
- Potentially better camera image processing
- Likely higher price point than the F15
- May not offer significantly longer battery life than the F15
Samsung Galaxy A35
- More affordable price point
- Potentially longer battery life due to less powerful chipset
- Competent performance for basic tasks
- Noticeably slower performance compared to the A35
- Dimmer display, less ideal for outdoor use
- Less refined camera experience
Display Comparison
The Galaxy A35 boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 1024 nits, compared to an assumed lower brightness on the F15 (Samsung doesn't publish this data). This translates to better visibility under direct sunlight. While both likely utilize AMOLED panels, the A35’s higher peak brightness and potentially improved color calibration offer a more immersive viewing experience. The absence of LTPO technology on either device suggests standard refresh rate management, impacting power consumption during dynamic content.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specs, a direct comparison is limited. However, given Samsung’s typical segmentation, the A35 likely benefits from a more sophisticated image signal processor (ISP) within the Exynos 1380, resulting in better image processing and low-light performance. The F15 likely relies on the Dimensity 6100+'s ISP, which is capable but less advanced. It's reasonable to assume the A35 will offer more refined color science and dynamic range. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on both devices is largely a marketing feature with limited practical utility.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Galaxy A35’s Exynos 1380 (5nm) features four Cortex-A78 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz, offering a substantial performance advantage over the F15’s Dimensity 6100+ (6nm) with its two Cortex-A76 cores at 2.2 GHz. The 5nm fabrication process of the Exynos 1380 also contributes to better thermal efficiency, potentially reducing throttling during sustained workloads. While both phones feature octa-core CPUs, the architectural improvements in the A35’s chipset will be noticeable in app loading times and overall system responsiveness.
Battery Life
The Galaxy A35’s active use score of 12:26h demonstrates strong battery endurance. While the F15’s battery capacity isn’t specified, the less powerful Dimensity 6100+ chipset likely contributes to comparable, if not slightly longer, battery life in similar usage scenarios. Both phones support 25W wired charging, meaning 0-100% charge times will be similar, likely around 1.5 to 2 hours. The A35’s more efficient chipset may offset the impact of its brighter display on overall battery drain.
Buying Guide
Buy the Samsung Galaxy F15 if you prioritize maximizing battery life and are primarily focused on basic smartphone tasks like calling, texting, and light social media use. Its more affordable price point makes it ideal for first-time smartphone owners or those on a very tight budget. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A35 if you value smoother performance for multitasking, gaming, and content consumption, and appreciate a brighter, more vibrant display for everyday use. The A35 is the better option for users who want a phone that will last longer and handle more demanding tasks.