The vivo X30 and Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW represent compelling options in the increasingly crowded mid-range 5G smartphone market. While both aim to deliver 5G connectivity at a reasonable price, they take different approaches to achieving this, primarily through their chipset choices and charging implementations. This comparison dissects those differences to determine which device offers the best overall experience.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing consistent performance and a more efficient chipset, the Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW emerges as the better choice. The Snapdragon 765G’s 7nm process provides a thermal advantage, and while charging is slower, the overall user experience is smoother and more reliable.
| 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 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 20, 28, 66 |
| 5G bands | 41, 78 SA/NSA | 260, 261 SA/NSA/mmWave |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G (3.6+ Gbps DL) | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | CDMA 800 & TD-SCDMA | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2019, December. Released 2019, December | 2020, July 07 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, July 16 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front, glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 158.5 x 74.1 x 8.8 mm (6.24 x 2.92 x 0.35 in) | 162.8 x 75.7 x 8.4 mm (6.41 x 2.98 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM (pre-installed) |
| Weight | 196.5 g (6.95 oz) | 188 g (6.63 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~409 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~393 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.44 inches, 100.1 cm2 (~85.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.4 cm2 (~87.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED, HDR, 800 nits (typ) | Super AMOLED Plus |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A77 & 6x1.8 GHz Cortex A55) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Exynos 980 (8 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Mali-G76 MP5 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie), Funtouch 10.0 | Android 10, One UI 2.1 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | microSDXC (dedicated slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 8GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | Laser AF, LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS
32 MP, f/2.0, 50mm (telephoto), 1/2.8", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS, 2x optical zoom
8 MP, f/2.2, 16mm (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 64 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide)
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 4K@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/240fps, 1080p@960fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 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 | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | USB Type-C, 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| | - | ANT+ |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 33W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 4350 mAh, non-removable | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black, Peach, Light Blue, Rainbow Shadow | Prism Bricks Black |
| Models | V1938CT | SM-A716V |
| Price | About 420 EUR | - |
| SAR | - | 0.50 W/kg (head) 0.78 W/kg (body) |
vivo X30
- Faster 33W wired charging for quicker top-ups.
- Potentially higher peak performance in short bursts due to the Cortex-A77 cores.
- vivo's software optimizations may appeal to some users.
- 8nm Exynos 980 is less power-efficient than the Snapdragon 765G.
- Likely to run warmer under sustained load, potentially leading to throttling.
- May experience more noticeable battery drain during demanding tasks.
Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW
- More efficient 7nm Snapdragon 765G chipset for better battery life.
- Superior thermal management, reducing throttling during gaming and heavy use.
- Qualcomm’s ISP generally delivers excellent image processing.
- Samsung’s software ecosystem and support are well-established.
- Slower 25W wired charging compared to the vivo X30.
- Prime core clock speed is slightly lower than the vivo X30's.
- Samsung's software can be feature-rich but also include bloatware.
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. While specific panel details (like OLED vs. LCD) aren't provided, both likely utilize AMOLED technology common in this price bracket. The focus here is on the internal hardware. The real difference lies in the processing power needed to drive the display, which is tied to the chipset. We can assume similar resolutions and refresh rates, making the chipset the key factor in display responsiveness.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed sensor information, a direct camera comparison is difficult. However, the chipset’s image signal processor (ISP) plays a crucial role. Qualcomm’s ISPs are generally regarded as being more mature and efficient, potentially leading to better image processing in the A71 5G UW, particularly in low-light conditions. The Exynos 980’s ISP is capable, but may require more processing power to achieve similar results, potentially impacting battery life. The presence of 5G also enables faster uploads of high-resolution photos and videos on both devices.
Performance
The core of the difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G, fabricated on a 7nm process, offers a clear architectural advantage over the vivo X30’s Exynos 980 (8nm). While both are octa-core CPUs with similar clock speeds on their efficiency cores (1.8 GHz Cortex-A55/Kryo 475 Silver), the Snapdragon 765G features a more powerful prime core (2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime) compared to the Exynos 980’s 2.2 GHz Cortex-A77. This translates to snappier performance in single-threaded tasks and a more efficient overall power draw. The 7nm process also contributes to better thermal management, reducing the likelihood of throttling during sustained workloads. The Exynos 980, while capable, will likely run warmer under load.
Battery Life
The vivo X30’s 33W wired charging is a significant advantage over the Galaxy A71 5G UW’s 25W charging. This means faster top-ups, reducing downtime. However, battery life isn’t solely determined by charging speed. The Snapdragon 765G’s superior efficiency could offset the difference in battery capacity (not specified in the data) by consuming less power during typical usage. The 7nm process allows for more efficient operation, extending the time between charges.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X30 if you prioritize faster wired charging (33W) and are comfortable potentially managing slightly warmer temperatures during extended use. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW if you value a more thermally efficient chipset, a potentially smoother software experience, and a more balanced overall package for everyday tasks and moderate gaming.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Does the Exynos 980 in the vivo X30 overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Exynos 980, being manufactured on an 8nm process, is more prone to thermal throttling than the Snapdragon 765G (7nm). While it can handle short gaming bursts, extended gaming sessions may lead to noticeable performance drops as the phone attempts to manage heat. Users should expect some warming during intensive tasks.
❓ How much faster is the 33W charging on the vivo X30 compared to the 25W charging on the Samsung Galaxy A71 5G UW?
The 33W charging on the vivo X30 will significantly reduce charging times. While exact 0-100% times depend on battery capacity (not specified), expect the X30 to charge noticeably faster, potentially shaving off 30-60 minutes compared to the A71 5G UW. However, the A71 5G UW's more efficient chipset may offset some of this advantage in overall daily usage.
❓ Will I notice a significant difference in app loading times between the two phones?
The Snapdragon 765G's more powerful prime core and efficient architecture will likely result in slightly faster app loading times and smoother multitasking compared to the Exynos 980. The difference won't be dramatic for everyday apps, but more demanding applications will benefit from the Snapdragon's processing power.
