Samsung Galaxy F62 vs. M51: A Deep Dive into Performance and Battery Life
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing raw processing power and occasional gaming, the Samsung Galaxy F62 is the better choice thanks to its Exynos 9825. However, the Galaxy M51’s Snapdragon 730G offers a more balanced experience with consistent performance and excellent battery endurance, making it ideal for everyday tasks and media consumption.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | Samsung Galaxy F62 | Samsung Galaxy M51 |
| 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, 17, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41, 66 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 400/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2021, February 15 | 2020, August 31. Released 2020, September 11 |
| Status | Available. Released 2021, February 22 | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3+), plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 163.9 x 76.3 x 9.5 mm (6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 in) | 163.9 x 76.3 x 9.5 mm (6.45 x 3.00 x 0.37 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 218 g (7.69 oz) | 213 g (7.51 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3+ |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~86.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~86.7% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED Plus, 420 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED Plus |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.73 GHz Exynos M4 & 2x2.40 GHz Cortex-A75 & 4x1.95 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Kryo 470 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 470 Silver) |
| Chipset | Exynos 9825 (7 nm) | Qualcomm SDM730 Snapdragon 730G (8 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G76 MP12 | Adreno 618 |
| OS | Android 11, upgradable to Android 13, One UI 5 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 12, One UI 4.1 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | LED flash, panorama, HDR | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.73", 0.8µm, PDAF 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide) 5 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.73", 0.8µm, PDAF 12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide) 5 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio, recording | FM radio, RDS |
| 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 (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 25W wired 4.5W reverse wired | 25W wired, 100% in 115 min Reverse wired |
| Type | Li-Po 7000 mAh | Li-Po 7000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Laser Green, Laser Gray, Laser Blue | Celestial Black, Electric Blue, White |
| Models | SM-E625F, SM-E625F/DS | SM-M515F, SM-M515F/DSN |
| Price | About 270 EUR | About 470 EUR |
| SAR | 0.74 W/kg (head) | 1.38 W/kg (head) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.61 W/kg (head) 1.45 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Battery life | - | Endurance rating 156h |
| Camera | - | Photo / Video |
| Display | - | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal) |
| Loudspeaker | - | -28.5 LUFS (Average) |
| Performance | - | AnTuTu: 266620 (v8) GeekBench: 1774 (v5.1) GFXBench: 15fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Samsung Galaxy F62
- More powerful Exynos 9825 processor
- Potentially better gaming performance
- Faster charging (potentially)
- Likely shorter battery life
- Potential for thermal throttling
- No specified battery capacity
Samsung Galaxy M51
- Exceptional battery life (156h endurance)
- More efficient Snapdragon 730G processor
- Better thermal management
- Less powerful processor
- Slower performance in demanding tasks
- Longer charging time (115 minutes)
Display Comparison
The Galaxy M51 features a display capable of reaching 677 nits of peak brightness, providing good visibility outdoors. While the F62’s display specifications aren’t provided, it’s reasonable to assume similar brightness levels given its market positioning. Both phones lack high refresh rate panels, focusing instead on maximizing battery life. The M51’s ‘Infinite’ contrast ratio suggests a typical AMOLED panel with deep blacks, but without detailed color accuracy data, it’s difficult to assess which display offers superior color reproduction.
Camera Comparison
Both phones feature photo and video capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are limited. Without sensor size or aperture information, a direct comparison is challenging. However, the focus should be on image processing. Samsung’s image processing algorithms are generally consistent across its range, so image quality will likely be similar in good lighting conditions. The M51’s advantage may lie in its potentially better thermal management, allowing for longer video recording sessions without overheating. The inclusion of a 2MP macro camera on both devices is largely a marketing tactic, offering limited practical benefit.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Galaxy F62’s Exynos 9825 (7nm) utilizes a tri-cluster architecture with powerful Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.40 GHz, promising significantly higher CPU performance than the Snapdragon 730G (8nm) in the M51. The Snapdragon 730G’s Kryo 470 Gold cores, clocked at 2.2 GHz, prioritize efficiency. While the Exynos 9825 offers a theoretical performance advantage, its 7nm process may lead to more heat generation under sustained load, potentially causing throttling. The Snapdragon 730G’s 8nm process and optimized architecture should deliver more consistent performance over extended periods. The F62’s potential for higher frame rates in demanding games is offset by the M51’s smoother, more stable experience.
Battery Life
The Galaxy M51 boasts an endurance rating of 156 hours, indicating exceptional battery life. While the F62’s battery capacity isn’t specified, the more power-hungry Exynos 9825 will likely result in shorter battery life. Both phones support 25W wired charging, with the M51 taking 115 minutes to reach 100%. The F62’s 25W charging, combined with a potentially smaller battery, may offer slightly faster charging times. Both also offer 4.5W reverse wired charging, useful for topping up accessories.
Buying Guide
Buy the Samsung Galaxy F62 if you need a phone capable of handling demanding applications, enjoy mobile gaming, and don't mind potentially shorter battery life. Buy the Samsung Galaxy M51 if you prioritize all-day battery life, consistent performance for everyday tasks, and a more thermally stable experience, even if it means sacrificing some peak processing power.