vivo X50 Lite vs. Google Pixel 4a 5G: A Deep Dive into Budget 5G Performance
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing performance and software experience, the Google Pixel 4a 5G is the clear winner. Its Snapdragon 765G chipset provides a substantial performance uplift over the vivo X50 Lite’s Snapdragon 665, translating to smoother multitasking and a more responsive user interface. While both charge at 18W, the Pixel’s PD2.0 support adds convenience.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo X50 Lite | Google Pixel 4a 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 66, 71 |
| 5G bands | - | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 28, 41, 66, 71, 77, 78 Sub6, mmWave (market dependant) |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 300/150 Mbps | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2020, May 12. Released 2020, May 12 | 2020, September 30 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, November 05 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 159.3 x 75.2 x 8.7 mm (6.27 x 2.96 x 0.34 in) | 153.9 x 74 x 8.2 mm (Sub-6) or 8.5 mm (Sub-6 and mmWave) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + eSIM |
| Weight | 190.2 g (6.70 oz) | 168 g (5G Sub-6); 171 g ( 5G Sub-6 and mmWave) (5.93 oz) |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~404 ppi density) | 1080 x 2340 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~413 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.38 inches, 99.9 cm2 (~83.4% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.2 inches, 95.7 cm2 (~84.1% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | AMOLED | OLED, HDR |
| - | Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver) | Octa-core (1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime & 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold & 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SDM665 Snapdragon 665 (11 nm) | Qualcomm SM7250 Snapdragon 765G 5G (7 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 610 | Adreno 620 |
| OS | Android 10, Funtouch 10 | Android 11, upgradable to Android 14 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | No |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 12.2 MP, f/1.7, 27mm (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS 16 MP, f/2.2, 107˚ (ultrawide), 1.0µm |
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, Pixel Shift, Auto-HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF 8 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm 2 MP (macro) Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/120/240fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/3.06" 1.0µm | 8 MP, f/2.0, 24mm (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX HD |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, QZSS, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 3.1 |
| 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 (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 18W wired, PD2.0 |
| Type | 4500 mAh | Li-Po 3885 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Nebula Blue, Jade Black | Just Black, Clearly White |
| Models | V1937, 1937 | GD1YQ, G025I, G025E, G025H, G6QU3 |
| Price | About 300 EUR | About 140 EUR |
vivo X50 Lite
- Lower price point makes it accessible.
- Functional 5G connectivity.
- Acceptable for basic smartphone tasks.
- Significantly weaker performance compared to the Pixel.
- Less capable camera system.
- Snapdragon 665 may struggle with demanding apps.
Google Pixel 4a 5G
- Superior performance with Snapdragon 765G.
- Excellent camera quality thanks to Google’s software.
- Guaranteed software updates and security patches.
- Higher price than the vivo X50 Lite.
- May be slightly larger and heavier.
- 18W charging isn't the fastest available.
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. While specific panel technologies aren't provided, the focus here is on performance. The difference in processing power will be more noticeable than any minor display variations. Both likely utilize LCD panels given their price points. Bezels are expected to be comparable, typical of this segment. Color accuracy is likely better on the Pixel due to Google’s image processing calibration.
Camera Comparison
While both phones likely feature multi-camera setups, the Pixel 4a 5G benefits from Google’s renowned computational photography. Although sensor sizes aren't specified, the Snapdragon 765G’s image signal processor (ISP) is more advanced, enabling superior noise reduction and dynamic range. The Pixel’s image processing algorithms excel in low-light conditions, producing clearer and more detailed photos. The vivo X50 Lite’s camera will likely perform adequately in good lighting, but will fall behind in challenging scenarios. We can expect the Pixel to offer more consistent and reliable image quality across various conditions.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Google Pixel 4a 5G’s Snapdragon 765G, fabricated on a 7nm process, is a significant leap over the vivo X50 Lite’s 11nm Snapdragon 665. The 765G’s Kryo 475 CPU architecture, with its 1x2.4 GHz prime core, offers substantially faster single-core performance, crucial for app launch speeds and general responsiveness. The 765G also features a more capable Adreno 620 GPU, providing a better gaming experience. The Snapdragon 665, while adequate for basic tasks, will struggle with demanding games and multitasking. The 7nm process also contributes to better thermal efficiency, reducing the likelihood of throttling under sustained load.
Battery Life
Both devices feature 18W wired charging, but the Pixel 4a 5G adds PD2.0 support for faster and more efficient charging with compatible chargers. While battery capacity isn't specified, the Snapdragon 765G’s improved power efficiency partially offsets any potential capacity difference. The 7nm process allows the Pixel to achieve similar battery life with potentially less capacity. Expect both phones to last a full day with moderate use, but the Pixel’s faster charging and more efficient chipset give it a slight edge.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo X50 Lite if you need a functional 5G phone for basic tasks like calling, texting, and light social media use, and are on a very tight budget. Buy the Google Pixel 4a 5G if you prioritize a smoother, more responsive experience, better camera quality, and guaranteed software updates, even if it means spending a bit more. The Pixel is the better choice for gamers and those who frequently use demanding apps.