Samsung Galaxy A32 vs A52: Is cheap 5G worth it? By PhoneArena

The galaxy a32 is the cheapest 5g phone Samsung offers right now at around 280 dollars, but is it wise to spend the lowest for 5g, which isn't even that fast on the 832, when you can get the much better galaxy a52 for around 500 dollars? Well, that's what I'm trying to find out hello guys. My name is Vic from fan arena here with a comparison between the Samsung Galaxy, a32, 5g and Samsung Galaxy a52, 5g right then, to start off. Both devices are identical in terms of screen size. They both come in at 6.5 inches, but that's where the similarities end. The a32 5g comes with its awesomely dull 60hz 720p IPS panel, which kind of suffers from ghosting. Whilst the a52 comes with a 120hz 1080p AMOLED panel, which, as you've already guessed sports magnificent colors and wipes the floor with the a32 and just to rub more salt in the wound, the galaxy a32 doesn't dim its display enough in the dark, which might be a pain in those tiresome evenings.

So I'm pretty much sure that Samsung made a wrong choice here with the a32 display design. Wise is where it's more up to preference. The a32 comes with its hipster glossy plastic back with protrusions for each camera lens, whereas the a52 tries to mimic what the s21 has going on for it by including a matte plastic back with a kind of natural camera bump. Instead of the sharper bumps, we're used to both devices have their power button and volume rocker on the right side, and you'll notice that the a32 has a side mounted fingerprint scanner, which is pretty nice, whereas the a52 sports, the new optical, under display fingerprint scanner we're all starting to get used to. We should also add that the 832 is heavier than the a52 and thicker than the melted cheese on your pizza.

So, as you can see, both have their ups and downs. I myself am more of a fan of the a52 simply because of the back matte plastic, which is your know, much more scratch and fingerprint resistant once again, though, this is all down to preference. How about performance then? Well, if the higher number of the a52 was not obvious, then let me start by saying that it's faster, but before I make it seem simple, let me also add that the difference should be negligible quickly. Pulling up. The specs of both devices shows us that the a32 is sporting, a lower mid-range MediaTek chip, while the a52 is sporting, a mid-range snapdragon soc.

I didn't notice much of a difference in my day-to-day use, except maybe a bit more in demand in games, so that puts these two devices close, and they're fine for casual games, good for some YouTube and fantastic for everything else. You may notice a stutter here there, but all in all good performing phones just bear in mind. The a52 will feel overall much more smooth thanks to its 120hz panel. In terms of cameras, both devices come with a quad camera setup, where only three cameras are usable, I'll quickly, pull up the specs now, and you'll notice, right off the bat. The da52 has an advantage, and that is its optical image, stabilization, which should help in producing more stable videos and photos.

So, with the interest of finding out which device fares better, I decided to pit them against each other, starting with the main sensor. Most shots on both devices were rather nice. Colors were spot on, except for the occasional over saturation here or there. Now, if I had to point out a flaw here, it would be the lack of detail on the a32 in some shots, for instance on this mechanical chameleon. If you zoom in you'd notice that some details are simply not there, whereas on the a52, they persist moving on to the ultra-wide, then this is where the a52 had clearly more sharpness, but it should tend to over saturate.

Furthermore, the a32 can do wider shots. Dynamic range is also fine, but not the strong suit of either one of these cameras. Then I decided to check out some portrait shots. This is where you can see the benefits of Samsung's processing, but also its limitations, while both devices managed to clearly separate the subject. From the background, the galaxy a32 was simply too far behind in terms of hardware.

In order to bring out the details in the subject which resulted in a bit of blurry images, while the a52 fared much better in that regard, so then I decided to do some close-up shots with the main camera and that just accentuated the difference in sharpness even more, you can see how the details are kept in this flower, but end up missing in the image from the a32. The selfie cameras look as if they're pretty much on par in both devices in terms of dynamic range. I did also notice an image where the subject in the back tends to be less sharp on the a32, while the galaxy a52's front-facing camera keeps more objects in focus. Moving indoors shows us a slightly mixed story. Both devices were doing fine in slightly lower lit conditions, but I did notice the a52's details and sharpness playing into the hands of digital noise, which the a32 manages to escape just fine, since it actually blurred more with computational photography the details themselves.

So you know you lose some. You win some in this case, but of course that wasn't always the case in every scenario. So I'd put these two devices really close in performance here. Video quality, though, is where I can't really say much good about the a32. Both devices are doing 4k at 30fps and honestly, the lack of optical stabilization on the a32 shows, I can't say for sure how good the footage looks like when it shakes this much.

Additionally, the galaxy a52 has a super steady, video mode which does a marvelous job, even if it does lower the equality a bit. Furthermore, zooming in showed a lack of detail once again from the a32, and the lack of is does make it rather hard to keep stable low. Lit conditions also showed more noise on it compared to its more expensive sibling. So as a conclusion to the camera testing I'll say the following: the Samsung Galaxy a32 is surprisingly okay, when taking photos, even if it does lag slightly behind the a52, but as with everything more budget from Samsung, its video quality suffers quite a lot. The a52 honestly fared much better in almost every regard, so I wouldn't recommend the a52 to anyone that is planning on taking a lot of videos, but it's perfectly splendid for some photos of your vacation.

What about battery life then? Well, I have to make the a32 a champ here. Not only does it come with a larger five thousand William hour battery versus the four thousand and five hundred million power battery of the a52, but it also lasts a decent amount more than its bigger brother, but before I say the magic numbers, let me just tell you that the a52 was possibly the best battery I've seen in a Samsung phone. So the fact that the former did better is astonishing. In my testing, the a32 lasted me around 18 hours and 40 minutes, while browsing the web at around 16 hertz, whereas the a52 managed only around 16 hours. I also sold the same win in favor of the a32 while watching YouTube at work.

It lasted around 11 hours and 25 minutes versus the eight and a half on the a52. So I don't think there is much room to debate here and now feature wise, it's where it's obvious who's lacking, while both devices do keep their headphone jack and support a micro SD card at the cost of their second sim slot. There are still two important features of the a52 which crush the a32 and those features are dual stereo speakers and an ip67 water resistance rating, meaning that the a32 is stuck with a single bottom firing speaker and is also more likely to die. If you were to drop it in a pool, that's not to say that you should go out and swim with your a52, but it's still a good backup to have that extra. Additionally, those dual speakers on the e52 actually sounds much better and actually more pleasing when you're watching movies, especially compared to that single bottom firing speak with the a32, which you can.

Usually you know kind of mute if you just accidentally press against it. So there you have it otherwise, in terms of software, both sports Samsung's infamous one UI 3.0 and should receive software updates for the foreseeable future. So, to conclude things here: the Samsung Galaxy 832 is the cheapest 5g phone from Samsung, but as we found out, it's also not the best. If you ask me, the a52 did a much better job overall, except in the battery department. That's where the a32 managed to snatch a surprising victory, which is an impressive feat by itself, given how long-lasting the galaxy a52 is.

But of course, when we have to factor in the price, the galaxy a32 did a surprisingly good job. It managed to take decent photos and lasted me more than two days while using it. So this leads me back to my original question: is it okay to spend less on a 5g phone or not? Well, as it turns out, it is, and if you really must have 5g, then the Samsung Galaxy a32 is more than good enough for you. But if you found out that you need more than just a decent phone with 5g, then perhaps the a52 might be more up your alley. Personally, though, I wouldn't go for the a32, I can live with the thick size.

The glossy plastic, okay, cameras, an amazing battery. I just wish Samsung had included a better screen this time around, at least in my head. The a52 covers all the basic needs, so it's kind of a bit of a too much of a con if I were to choose the a32, so as always, if I missed anything, let me know down in the comments below I'm Vic from phone arena. Once again, please subscribe, and I'll see you guys some other time you.

Source : PhoneArena