The Xiaomi Mi CC9e and Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW represent different approaches to the mid-range smartphone market. The CC9e, released in 2019, aimed for affordability, while the A51 5G UW, a 2020 model, brought 5G connectivity and a more powerful processor to a wider audience. This comparison dissects their key differences, focusing on performance, battery, and the implications of their respective chipsets.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW is the superior choice. Its Snapdragon 765G chipset delivers a noticeable performance uplift over the Mi CC9e’s Snapdragon 665, and the inclusion of 5G future-proofs the device. While the CC9e offers a lower price point, the A51 5G UW provides a better overall experience.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 2, 4, 5, 13, 66 |
| 5G bands | - | 260, 261 mmWave |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE (2CA) 450/50 Mbps | HSPA, LTE, 5G |
| Technology | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G |
| | CDMA 800 & TD-SCDMA | - |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2019, July. Released 2019, July | 2020, August 14 |
| Status | Discontinued | Available. Released 2020, August 14 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), plastic frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 3), plastic back, aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 153.5 x 71.9 x 8.5 mm (6.04 x 2.83 x 0.33 in) | 158.8 x 73.4 x 8.6 mm (6.25 x 2.89 x 0.34 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM (pre-installed) |
| Weight | 173.8 g (6.14 oz) | 188.8 g (6.67 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass 3 |
| Resolution | 720 x 1560 pixels, 19.5:9 ratio (~286 ppi density) | 1080 x 2400 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~405 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.01 inches, 88.7 cm2 (~80.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~87.5% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 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 9.0 (Pie), MIUI 10 | Android 10, One UI 2 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 64GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM |
| | eMMC 5.1 | UFS 2.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, panorama, HDR |
| Quad | - | 48 MP, f/2.0, 26mm (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
12 MP, f/2.2, 123˚ (ultrawide)
5 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Single | - | 5 MP, AF |
| Triple | 48 MP, f/1.8, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Video | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/60/120fps | 4K@30fps, 1080p@30/120fps; gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 32 MP, f/2.0, 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, aptX HD | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | Yes | - |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio, RDS, recording |
| 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 (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| | - | ANT+ |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 15W wired |
| Stand-by | - | Up to 672 h |
| Talk time | - | Up to 5 h |
| Type | Li-Po 4030 mAh, non-removable | Li-Po 4500 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Black, Blue, White | Prism Bricks Blue |
| Models | - | SM-A516V |
| Price | About 170 EUR | About 470 EUR |
| SAR | - | 0.70 W/kg (head) 1.25 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.59 W/kg (head) 1.32 W/kg (body) |
Xiaomi Mi CC9e
- More affordable price point
- Faster wired charging (18W vs 15W)
- Compact and lightweight design (likely, based on market positioning)
- Significantly weaker performance
- No 5G connectivity
- Less efficient chipset
Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW
- Faster and more efficient Snapdragon 765G chipset
- 5G connectivity for faster data speeds
- Improved image processing capabilities
- Slower wired charging (15W)
- Higher price point
- Potentially larger and heavier design
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a particularly standout display. While specific panel details (like peak brightness or color gamut coverage) are unavailable, the focus here is on the chipset impact on display rendering. The Snapdragon 765G’s more capable GPU in the A51 5G UW will translate to smoother scrolling and faster app loading times, even on a similar resolution display. The CC9e's SD665 will likely exhibit more noticeable lag when navigating complex interfaces.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specs beyond the chipsets, we can infer performance differences. The Snapdragon 765G includes a more advanced Image Signal Processor (ISP) than the 665. This translates to faster image processing, better noise reduction, and improved dynamic range in the A51 5G UW. While both phones likely feature similar sensor resolutions in their main cameras (typical for this segment), the A51 5G UW will produce higher-quality images, especially in challenging lighting conditions. The CC9e will struggle more with detail preservation and noise control.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW’s Snapdragon 765G (7nm) is a significant upgrade over the Xiaomi Mi CC9e’s Snapdragon 665 (11nm). The 7nm process node allows for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency, resulting in better sustained performance and less thermal throttling. The 765G’s CPU configuration – a 1x2.4 GHz Kryo 475 Prime core alongside a 1x2.2 GHz Kryo 475 Gold and 6x1.8 GHz Kryo 475 Silver – provides a clear advantage in multi-core tasks compared to the CC9e’s 4x2.0 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver setup. Gamers and power users will immediately notice the difference.
Battery Life
The Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW’s 15W charging is slower than the Xiaomi Mi CC9e’s 18W charging. However, the Snapdragon 765G’s superior power efficiency partially offsets this. The 7nm process node consumes less power than the 11nm node of the Snapdragon 665. While the CC9e might charge slightly faster initially, the A51 5G UW is likely to offer comparable, if not better, real-world battery life due to its more efficient chipset. The A51 5G UW's 5G capabilities will impact battery life, but the chipset efficiency mitigates this.
Buying Guide
Buy the Xiaomi Mi CC9e if you prioritize extreme budget-friendliness and only need a phone for basic tasks like calling, texting, and light social media. Buy the Samsung Galaxy A51 5G UW if you want a smoother, more responsive experience, 5G connectivity for faster data speeds, and a phone capable of handling more demanding applications and occasional gaming.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 765G in the A51 5G UW handle demanding games like PUBG or Call of Duty Mobile?
Yes, the Snapdragon 765G is capable of running PUBG and Call of Duty Mobile at medium to high settings with playable frame rates. While it won't match the performance of flagship chipsets, it provides a significantly better gaming experience than the Snapdragon 665 in the Mi CC9e.
❓ Does the 5G connectivity on the A51 5G UW significantly impact battery life?
5G connectivity inherently consumes more power than 4G. However, the Snapdragon 765G's 7nm process node is relatively efficient, mitigating the battery drain. You'll likely see a reduction in battery life when actively using 5G, but it shouldn't be drastic, especially with optimized usage.
❓ Is the difference in charging speed (18W vs 15W) between the CC9e and A51 5G UW noticeable in everyday use?
While the CC9e charges slightly faster on paper, the difference isn't massive. Both phones will take over an hour to fully charge. The A51 5G UW's more efficient chipset and potentially larger battery capacity may offset the slower charging speed in terms of overall usability.
