TCL 30 5G vs Samsung Galaxy A53 5G: Which Budget 5G Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and a more refined software experience, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the better choice. However, the TCL 30 5G offers a surprisingly capable performance profile for its price, making it a strong contender for budget-conscious buyers.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | TCL 30 5G | Samsung Galaxy A53 5G |
| 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, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 26, 28, 32, 38, 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, 40, 41, 78 SA/NSA | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/11.5 Mbps, LTE Cat13 390/150 Mbps, 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, February 27 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, April 11 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic frame, plastic back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 164.5 x 75.2 x 7.7 mm (6.48 x 2.96 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 + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 184 g (6.49 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~87.6% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED, 650 nits (typ), 900 nits (peak) | Super AMOLED, 120Hz, 800 nits (HBM) |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (2x2.4 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55) |
| Chipset | Mediatek Dimensity 700 (7 nm) | Exynos 1280 (5 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G57 MC2 | Mali-G68 |
| OS | Android 12, TCL UI 4.0 | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| eMMC 5.1 | - | |
| 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 | 13 MP, f/2.3, 19mm (ultrawide), 1/3", 1.12µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Triple | 50 MP, f/1.8, 28mm (wide), 1/2.76", 0.64µm, PDAF 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 13 MP, f/2.3, 19mm (ultrawide), 1/3", 1.12µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 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 | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | Unspecified | 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, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 5010 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Tech Black, Dreamy Blue | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | T776H | 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 250 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) |
TCL 30 5G
- More affordable price point
- Competent 5G performance for basic tasks
- Decent battery endurance
- Less powerful chipset compared to the A53 5G
- Likely lower display quality
- Slower charging speed
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter and more vibrant display
- More powerful Exynos 1280 chipset
- Faster 25W charging
- Higher price tag
- Potential for thermal throttling under heavy load
- Software bloatware (typical for Samsung)
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significantly brighter display, reaching a measured peak of 830 nits, compared to an unspecified brightness for the TCL 30 5G. This higher brightness translates to better outdoor visibility. While both displays have an 'infinite' contrast ratio (nominal for the Samsung), the A53’s superior brightness is a clear advantage. The TCL 30 5G’s display specifications are less detailed, suggesting a potentially lower-quality panel, impacting color accuracy and viewing angles. The lack of LTPO technology on either device means refresh rates are likely fixed, impacting smoothness compared to higher-end phones.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is limited. The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G likely benefits from Samsung’s established image processing algorithms, potentially delivering more consistent and visually appealing results. The TCL 30 5G, while capable, likely relies on less sophisticated software. The presence of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the A53 5G (assumed based on Samsung’s typical implementation) would provide a significant advantage in low-light photography and video recording, reducing blur and improving stability. The usefulness of a 2MP macro camera on either device is questionable, as image quality is typically low.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s Exynos 1280 (5nm) chipset offers a performance advantage over the TCL 30 5G’s MediaTek Dimensity 700 (7nm). The Exynos 1280 utilizes Cortex-A78 cores, which are architecturally superior to the A76 cores in the Dimensity 700, resulting in faster single-core performance. While both CPUs feature a 2x2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cluster for efficiency, the 5nm fabrication process of the Exynos 1280 provides better power efficiency and potentially less thermal throttling under sustained loads. The TCL 30 5G will handle everyday tasks adequately, but the A53 5G will offer a smoother experience with demanding applications and games.
Battery Life
Both the TCL 30 5G and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G achieve an endurance rating of 113 hours, suggesting comparable overall battery life. However, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G supports 25W wired charging, significantly faster than the TCL 30 5G’s 18W charging. This faster charging speed translates to quicker top-ups, reducing downtime. While battery capacity isn’t specified, the faster charging of the A53 5G provides a practical advantage for users who frequently need to recharge their devices.
Buying Guide
Buy the TCL 30 5G if you need a reliable 5G connection and prioritize value above all else, and are comfortable with a less polished software experience. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prefer a brighter, more vibrant display, a more established brand reputation, and a smoother, feature-rich user interface, even if it comes at a slightly higher cost.