Best in class? Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017) scores amazing on our battery life test
by Daniel Petrov / Mar 09, 2017, 4:07 AM
We don't know what Samsung is doing with the battery life of its midrange Galaxy A-series trio this year, but those things last. The Galaxy A5 (2017) scored 11 hours of screen-on time on our demanding benchmark with a 3000 mAh battery, and we just had the A7 (2017) finish PhoneArena's battery life test routine. At 3600 mAh battery capacity, it has a 20% larger juicer than the A5 on the same specs (only a larger screen diagonal), so, naturally, it scored about 20% longer in battery endurance, too, or exactly as much as Samsung promises under the most demanding of circumstances, as you can see in the official battery specs list below.
Yep, the Galaxy A7 (2017) just clocked nearly 13 hours of screen-on time while looping our battery testing script (at uniform 200 nits of brightness for all phones), and this shoots it straight to the top of its upper midrange category. Barring a few nondescript phones with 4000-5000 mAh juicers, the only direct competitor of the A7 that scored higher is the Moto Z Play Droid, which, however, doesn't have a waterproof chassis, charges much slower, and fits a 5.5" screen in a chassis almost as large as the 5.7" Galaxy A7 (2017).
A weekend away from the charger? Get the new Galaxy A-series."The marriage of a largish battery and a 1080p or HD display seem to be the winning combinations for battery endurance these days, as the Quad HD flagships are all clustered in the 6-9 hours range of screen-on time in our proprietary script. Samsung, however, being both the producer and the assembler of the screens, chipsets and memory of the new A-series, has managed to optimize them better in terms of power consumption than other brands that don't make everything in-house. Take the Honor 8, for instance - while it still scores nine admirable hours of screen-on time in our test, and has a homebrew Kirin 950 chipset built on a modern 16nm mode, plus a 5.2" 1080p display, just like the A5 (2017), it lasts 20% less than Samsung's midranger with the same size battery pack.
Thus, if you are looking for a phone that can last you a weekend away from the charger, or a day of heavy gaming, pick your favorite size among the 5.7" A7, 5.2" A5 or 4.7" A3, and you will be good to go. On top of that, those charge really fast, too, for about an hour and a half. Granted, at a bit over the A7 money you can now get a Galaxy S7 with Dual Pixel camera tech, but then your screen will be small, and battery life would be nothing short of average instead of excellent bordering on record. Decisions, decisions.
Battery life (hours) Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017) 12h 58 min (Excellent)
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 9h 57 min (Excellent)
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) 11h 9 min (Excellent)
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 9h 55 min (Excellent)
Motorola Moto Z Play Droid 13h 43 min (Excellent)
Honor 8 9h 7 min (Excellent)
Apple iPhone 7 Plus 9h 5 min (Excellent)
Apple iPhone 7 7h 46 min (Good)
Samsung Galaxy S7 edge 7h 18 min (Good)
Samsung Galaxy S7 6h 37 min (Average)
OnePlus 3T 5h 41 min (Average)
Charging time (minutes) Lower is better
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017) 104
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 100
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) 91
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 96
Motorola Moto Z Play Droid 156
Honor 8 98
Apple iPhone 7 Plus 197
Apple iPhone 7 141
Samsung Galaxy S7 edge 99
Samsung Galaxy S7 88
OnePlus 3T 85
If only the S8/S8+ is as good as this is, it will be worth the 800$ price tag.
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 4:35 AM 5
Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015
It won't. Using the high end chips is causing the drop in battery life. Low and slow (relatively speaking) CPU and GPU give great battery when kept in a simple interface. Interestingly enough, the prices isn't as important to the battery life as the architecture is. The A series was topping battery life charts even when they were rocking 28nm Snapdragon 615 chips.
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 9:14 AM 0
That's not true at all. High end chips are usually more efficient. It's just that the SD810 and 820 are outliers due to some tricks decisions. Look at the exynos 8890, Apple A10 or kirin 960. They all have mind blowing efficiency. I expect 835 to be great again.
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 10:28 PM 0
Posts: 2230; Member since: Jan 16, 2011
Will it explode?
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 4:44 AM 0
Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016
"Samsung, however, being both the producer and the assembler of the screens, chipsets and memory of the new A-series, has managed to optimize them better in terms of power consumption than other brands that don't make everything in-house" That's what makes Samsung's handsets great, especially the Exynos variants.
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 7:07 AM 4
Posts: 59; Member since: Nov 29, 2016
Nice comparison, but as everyone said, I would rather take android phone, including the Honor 8. Or I would wait for the Honor 8 Pro / V9 with 3,900 mAh or 4,000 mAh.
posted on Mar 09, 2017, 7:55 AM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):