vivo Y52t vs Samsung Galaxy A53 5G: Which Mid-Range 5G Phone Reigns Supreme?
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user prioritizing display quality and sustained performance, the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G is the better choice. Its Exynos 1280 chipset and 830 nit display offer a smoother experience and better visibility. However, the vivo Y52t provides a compelling option for budget-conscious buyers who primarily need 5G access.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | vivo Y52t | Samsung Galaxy A53 5G |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 28, 34, 38, 39, 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, 5, 8, 28, 41, 77, 78 SA/NSA | 2, 5, 41, 66, 77, 78 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536U |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / CDMA2000 / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| CDMA2000 1x | 2, 5, 48, 66, 77, 78, 260, 261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - SM-A536V | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2022, September 18 | 2022, March 17 |
| Status | Available. Released 2022, September 19 | Available. Released 2022, March 24 |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | Glass front, plastic frame, plastic back | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame, plastic back |
| Dimensions | 164 x 75.9 x 8.5 mm (6.46 x 2.99 x 0.33 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 |
| Weight | 198 g (6.98 oz) | 189 g (6.67 oz) |
| - | IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | - | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~270 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.51 inches, 102.3 cm2 (~82.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~85.4% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | 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, OriginOS Ocean | Android 12, up to 4 major Android upgrades, One UI 8 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | 13 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), PDAF 2 MP (macro) | - |
| 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 | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 32 MP, f/2.2, 26mm (wide), 1/2.8", 0.8µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | - | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide) | 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, aptX HD | 5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | 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 (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, barometer (market/region dependent) |
| - | Virtual proximity sensing | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 10W wired | 25W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Black, Blue, Silver | Black, White, Blue, Peach |
| Models | V2166A | 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 200 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) |
vivo Y52t
- Affordable price point
- 5G connectivity
- Decent battery endurance
- Slow 10W charging
- Less powerful chipset
- Likely inferior display quality
Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
- Brighter, higher-quality display
- More powerful Exynos 1280 chipset
- Faster 25W charging
- Higher price
- Potential for thermal throttling under heavy load
- Software bloat (typical for Samsung)
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G boasts a significant advantage in display technology, achieving a measured peak brightness of 830 nits. This is crucial for outdoor visibility, a scenario where the Y52t’s display specifications are not available, but likely falls considerably short. While the A53’s contrast ratio is listed as 'Infinite (nominal)', this suggests a typical AMOLED panel offering deep blacks and vibrant colors. The Y52t’s display details are absent, implying a more basic LCD panel, potentially impacting color accuracy and viewing angles. The A53’s larger display size (assumed, based on market positioning) also contributes to a more immersive viewing experience.
Camera Comparison
Both devices offer photo and video capabilities, but detailed sensor information is limited. The A53 5G, positioned as a more premium device, likely features a larger main sensor and more sophisticated image processing algorithms. While the Y52t may suffice for casual photography, the A53 5G is expected to deliver superior image quality, particularly in low-light conditions. The inclusion of Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) on the A53 5G (likely, based on Samsung’s typical implementation) further enhances image clarity and video stability, a feature likely absent on the Y52t. The presence of a 2MP macro camera on the Y52t is unlikely to provide significant photographic value.
Performance
The Samsung Galaxy A53 5G’s Exynos 1280 (5nm) chipset represents a clear step up in processing power compared to the vivo Y52t’s MediaTek Dimensity 700 (7nm). The Exynos 1280 utilizes Cortex-A78 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz, offering superior single-core performance for responsive app launches and smoother multitasking, compared to the Y52t’s Cortex-A76 cores at 2.2 GHz. While both utilize Cortex-A55 efficiency cores at 2.0 GHz, the 5nm fabrication process of the Exynos 1280 translates to better power efficiency and potentially less thermal throttling under sustained load. This makes the A53 5G the better choice for gamers and power users.
Battery Life
Both the vivo Y52t and Samsung Galaxy A53 5G achieve an endurance rating of 113 hours, suggesting comparable overall battery life. However, the charging speeds differ significantly. The A53 5G supports 25W wired charging, allowing for a much faster 0-100% charge time compared to the Y52t’s slow 10W charging. This faster charging capability is a significant convenience factor for users who frequently need to top up their battery quickly. While the mAh capacity isn't specified for either device, the A53's faster charging mitigates any potential disadvantage from a slightly smaller battery.
Buying Guide
Buy the vivo Y52t if you need a reliably connected 5G device on a tight budget and aren't demanding in terms of gaming or intensive multitasking. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A53 5G if you prioritize a vibrant, bright display, smoother application performance, and a more refined camera experience, even if it means spending a bit more.