x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016 edition) display and CPU performance benchmark test results: mid-range to the bone

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016 edition) display and CPU performance benchmark test results: mid-range to the bone

Posted: , by Victor H.

Tags:

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016 edition) display and CPU performance benchmark test results: mid-range to the bone

The 5.5-inch Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016 edition), aka Galaxy A7 6 as Samsung has labelled it on the box, is a very stylish and extremely well constructed phone: it features a sturdy metal frame and a beautiful glass back, all coming together in an exquisite design that you usually expect to see in more expensive phones.

If it was all roses, though, the Galaxy A7 (2016) could have threatened Samsung very best: the Galaxy S6 and Galaxy Note 5, so where are the compromises? Yesterday, we showed you that the Galaxy A7 (2016) and its smaller, 5.2-inch cousing, the Galaxy A5 (2016) - both of which share the same camera - have good performance, but are noticeably behind when compared against higher-end phones like the iPhone 6s.

Today, we take a look at the benchmarks to understand the Galaxy A7 (2016) better. First, let's take a look at the CPU and GPU performance benchmark tests and their results on the new A7.

While in daily use, our initial impressions are that the phone performs well (with no major stutters), it is the more demanding tasks that benchmarks measure. 

And there, the Galaxy A7 (2016) ranks sub-par. 

Benchmarking the Snapdragon 615-power Galaxy A7 (2016)


Our model uses the Snapdragon 615 (MSM 8939) octa-core system chip with four Cortex A53 cores running at up to 1.5GHz and four more, battery-savvy A53s clocked to run at up to 1.2GHz. The chip is made on the 28nm manufacturing node (top-end phones like the Galaxy S6 have their chips made on more power efficient nodes, like the 16nm FinFET). There is 3GB of RAM on board, 16GB of internal storage and a hybrid dual SIM card slot (supporting either two nano SIM slots or a nano SIM and microSD card slot).

Keep in mind that in some markets, the phone is said to ship with the Samsung Exynos 7580 octa-core system chip and performance might differ slightly (but not by much).

CPU performance is below that of even the $200 honor 5X and it falls behind mid-range phones like the OnePlus X and HTC One A9.

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) performance benchmarks

AnTuTu
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 67207
Apple iPhone 6s 59075
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 52201
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 51822
Sony Xperia Z5 51012.33
LG G4 50330
LG V10 46905.33
HTC One A9 40632
OnePlus X 40173
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 35638.33
honor 5X 35183
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 34395.33
Geekbench 3 single-core
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 1431
Apple iPhone 6s 2539
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 1043
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 650
Sony Xperia Z5 1318.6
LG G4 1112
LG V10 870
HTC One A9 738
OnePlus X 910.33
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 684.33
honor 5X 696
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 676.3
Geekbench 3 multi-core
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 4717
Apple iPhone 6s 4421
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 4194
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 2075
Sony Xperia Z5 4167.3
LG G4 3559
LG V10 3361.33
HTC One A9 3063
OnePlus X 2415.33
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 3023
honor 5X 3028
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 3013
Vellamo Metal
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 2532
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 2124
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 2657
Sony Xperia Z5 1667.33
LG G4 2369
LG V10 2216
HTC One A9 1078
OnePlus X 1542
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1115
honor 5X 1108
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1094.66
Vellamo Browser
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 5476
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 3714
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 4424
Sony Xperia Z5 4301.66
LG G4 3948
LG V10 3571.33
HTC One A9 2331
OnePlus X 2661
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1944
honor 5X 2327
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1982
Sunspider
Lower is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 677.7
Apple iPhone 6s 217.7
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 867.2
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 1529.1
Sony Xperia Z5 675.3
LG G4 730.2
LG V10 1047.16
HTC One A9 1712
OnePlus X 1285.5
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1961.86
honor 5X 1171.7
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1941.6
GFXBench T-Rex HD on-screen
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 37
Apple iPhone 6s 59.1
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 16
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 24
Sony Xperia Z5 53
LG G4 25
LG V10 25
HTC One A9 16
OnePlus X 23
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 14
honor 5X 15
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 14
GFXBench Manhattan on-screen
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 15
Apple iPhone 6s 56.1
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 40
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 9.3
Sony Xperia Z5 18.3
LG G4 9.4
LG V10 5.7
HTC One A9 6.6
OnePlus X 10
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 5.6
honor 5X 6
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 5.76
Basemark OS II
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 1765
Apple iPhone 6s 2139
Motorola DROID Turbo 2 1426
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 1214
Sony Xperia Z5 1575
LG G4 1549
LG V10 1148.33
HTC One A9 957
OnePlus X 1185.66
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 763.33
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 827.66
View all

In graphics tests, the Galaxy A7 (2016) uses its Adreno 405 GPU. The results are again rather mediocre and if you are playing more intense games, the phone might drop some frames and might not be perfect for gamers.

Galaxy A7 (2016)'s Super AMOLED put to the test


After testing the system chip, it's time to take a look at the quality of the display.

We have a 5.5-inch Super AMOLED display on the Galaxy A7 (2016) with a resolution of 1080 x 1920 pixels. This is sufficiently sharp for everyone, but pixel maniacs and it's hard to notice any pixelization.

All Samsung phones with AMOLED screens have different color modes that you can change from Settings -> Display -> Screen mode. The default Adaptive mode is very saturated and changes depending on the content, then you have AMOLED Cinema and AMOLED Photo that also are traditionally more saturated than the Internet's de facto accepted sRGB color standard.

Put simply, if you want to see colors the way photographs and video creators have tried to capture them, your display has to be calibrated to that sRGB standard. For the Galaxy A7 (2016) the 'Basic' screen mode is closest to that. And it's overall a good looking screen when you use that mode. Brighntess is enough for most occasions (but you might have some trouble reading the screen in direct sunlight) and at night it can drop to just 1 nit, which is easy on the eyes. Typically for AMOLED, blacks are real, pitch black which creates nice contrast to displayed images.

Take a look at our full display measurements for the Galaxy A7 (2016) right below.

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) display quality measurements

The CIE 1931 xy color gamut chart represents the set (area) of colors that a display can reproduce, with the sRGB colorspace (the highlighted triangle) serving as reference. The chart also provides a visual representation of a display's color accuracy. The small squares across the boundaries of the triangle are the reference points for the various colors, while the small dots are the actual measurements. Ideally, each dot should be positioned on top of its respective square. The 'x: CIE31' and 'y: CIE31' values in the table below the chart indicate the position of each measurement on the chart. 'Y' shows the luminance (in nits) of each measured color, while 'Target Y' is the desired luminance level for that color. Finally, 'ΔE 2000' is the Delta E value of the measured color. Delta E values of below 2 are ideal.

This measurements are made using SpectraCal's CalMAN calibration software.

View all


Finally, stay tuned for our full Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) review coming up next week. There, we will give you our final conclusion about the phone and how good it really is.

37 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 29 Jan 2016, 10:29

1. zeeBomb (Posts: 1834; Member since: 14 Aug 2014)


Decent to say the least

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 11:09 4

7. neela_akaash (Posts: 1117; Member since: 05 Aug 2014)


Galaxy A7 is literally crushed by the Redmi Note 3 pro (with SD650)...

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 11:39 5

8. Sidewinder (Posts: 411; Member since: 15 Jan 2015)


But the A7 trumps the redmi note 3 in terms of looks and aesthetics.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 13:46 7

12. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2193; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Camera And Battery As Well.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 22:51 3

23. Powerballs (Posts: 1; Member since: 29 Jan 2016)


How can you say that? Redmi Note 3 pro is not yet released. It has a 4050 mAh battery compared to A7's 3300. Agree that A7 has an amoled screen, but first it has to be tested out. Note 3 pro also has an 16 MP Phase Detection Auto Focus camera (from Samsung). Again, no conclusion before testing. Finally, price is about half of A7's.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 10:03

29. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2193; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


I can say it because know it will be true that's how. The image processing of cheap phones always suck so even with 16mp I doubt the camera will be that good and chinese companies have proven time and time again that their large battery phones don't necessarily have a long lasting life.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:13

37. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2193; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


I know***

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:03

30. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


Redmi Note 3 has big battery but awful optimization. MIUI is a very heavy and power hungry skin. Samsung J5 with SD615 and 000mAh battery runs longer than RN3 with over 4000mAh.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 00:55

24. medtxa (Posts: 1126; Member since: 02 Jun 2014)


Aesthetics is definitely the priority. who cares about cpu benchmarks you can't notice the difference in real life?

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 15:33

19. redmd (Posts: 1245; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)


And availability.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 10:42

2. dmh0284 (Posts: 42; Member since: 04 Apr 2014)


I had the Alcatel One Touch Idol 3 and the Snapdragon 615 was very disappointing. So much so that I would actively avoid any phone that uses this processor. If the SD615 is the definition of mid-range then apparently mid-range is not for me. I've never tried it, but I have a feeling the mobile Intel Atom processors are better performers than the SD615.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 12:56

10. Acdc1a (Posts: 128; Member since: 21 Jan 2016)


I didn't find it that bad. Certainly not a gaming processor.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 13:20

11. dmh0284 (Posts: 42; Member since: 04 Apr 2014)


The thing could barely run android smoothly.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 09:42

27. SenorThrottles (Posts: 276; Member since: 23 Dec 2015)


The Idol 3 was know for performance issues though, other S615 phones perform pretty alright.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 14:00

14. muhsen (Posts: 280; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)


I think the problem is due to android 5.0.1(as alactel OT idol 3 is stuck with it) rather than SD615. I have an LG G3(SD801), it was all OK with 4.4 and then came 5.0.1, the phone was deemed obsolete : overheating, constant lagging and rebooting. LG hasn't updated it to 5.1 (supposedly skipping to 6.0), and the phone was and still is (i am still waiting for 6.0) literally unusable. I had to buy another phone (Oneplus X) to get the job done, which ironically runs on the same SD801 but has an amazing performance (thanks to android 5.1 + vanilla android + 3GB ram + constant updates from Oneplus to iron out bugs ). I am in the UK so I don't have to worry about bands.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 15:54

20. marorun (Posts: 3366; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Been using the motorola x play for 2 weeks now.
Play load of game on it and no stutter or lag in any game ( sometime UI stutter a bit but its very small )

Alcatel one touch do stutter a lots on other hand.
So its not only soc but how you use it!

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 10:51 3

3. fonelover (Posts: 194; Member since: 19 Mar 2015)


SD615 is absolutely old soc, very much disappointed to know about A7(2016).

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 10:52 7

4. fonelover (Posts: 194; Member since: 19 Mar 2015)


They should use SD650 for this model.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 14:09

15. true1984 (Posts: 822; Member since: 23 May 2012)


or at least the SD617 like the One A9

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:05

31. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


SD617 is on the same level as SD615. For the price both A5 and A7 2016 should've got the SD650. I'd buy one right away. But not with this crappy processor (Exynos 7580 found in some countries isn't any better).

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 10:56 1

5. jove39 (Posts: 1824; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


I am not into mid-range phones...but if someone is planning on to buy this phone...I'd suggest to wait until samsung release version with S650 or S652...S615 is not meant for phones of 2016.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:05

32. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


It is but for this price.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 11:04

6. rd_nest (Posts: 1591; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


These colours, my eyes hurt! PA, just change how you show benchmarks, even my 7yr neice also doesn't use so many colours in her drawings.
Put the phone under investigation of a different color, and rest all of same colour.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 14:28

17. Victor.H (Posts: 653; Member since: 27 May 2011)


Fair enough! Thanks for the feedback, I will pass the suggestions and hopefully we can do something about this soon!

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 14:56

18. rd_nest (Posts: 1591; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


^^ Good!

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 12:40 7

9. TyrionLannister (unregistered)


615 is trash.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 19:58

22. ibend (Posts: 3758; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)


28nm should extict from new phone by now..
they should only release phone with 20nm or 14nm processor on 2016 -_-

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:06

33. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


Numbers aren't everything. Lower process makes new SoC significantly more expensive.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 13:52

13. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 2193; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Samsung this is unacceptable, Seriously why use the same chipset(sd615) in the 2016 A7 as you did in the 2015 version. This is worse than mid-range because I will not consider mid-range specs from 2015 adequate enough for 2016.#615Trash

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:07

34. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


More - outside US 2015 A7 had Exynos 5430, that's Snapdragon 801 level. 2016 model is a downgrade for more money...

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 14:20 1

16. legiloca (Posts: 1305; Member since: 11 Nov 2014)


Samsung Galaxy A7 2016 a.k.a the beautiful looking trash

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:07

35. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


The same applies to the 2016 A5.

posted on 29 Jan 2016, 19:14

21. WAusJackBauer (Posts: 202; Member since: 22 Mar 2015)


So the question is do you prefer performance or battery life?

Personally battery life. I couldn't care less about performance, I don't play any games on my phone.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 08:43

25. chenski (Posts: 360; Member since: 22 Mar 2015)


Samsung need to make better midrangers, these are the source of a majority of their profits

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 09:44

28. SenorThrottles (Posts: 276; Member since: 23 Dec 2015)


Their midrange phones are decent, they just need to fix their prices. They're (usually) way too expensive.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 13:08

36. may_czos (Posts: 715; Member since: 22 Nov 2014)


They went for the quality over processing power. Quality is expensive.

posted on 30 Jan 2016, 08:50 1

26. shield (Posts: 220; Member since: 12 Sep 2015)


LG G4 best.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories