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

posted by Victor H.

Jan 29, 2016, 10:25 AM

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.

AnTuTu Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 34395.33 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 35638.33 Samsung Galaxy Note5 67207 LG V10 46905.33 HTC One A9 40632 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 51822 Apple iPhone 6s 59075 LG G4 50330 Honor 5X 35183 OnePlus X 40173 Sony Xperia Z5 51012.33 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 52201
Geekbench 3 single-core Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 676.3 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 684.33 Samsung Galaxy Note5 1431 LG V10 870 HTC One A9 738 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 650 Apple iPhone 6s 2539 LG G4 1112 Honor 5X 696 OnePlus X 910.33 Sony Xperia Z5 1318.6 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 1043
Geekbench 3 multi-core Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 3013 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 3023 Samsung Galaxy Note5 4717 LG V10 3361.33 HTC One A9 3063 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 2075 Apple iPhone 6s 4421 LG G4 3559 Honor 5X 3028 OnePlus X 2415.33 Sony Xperia Z5 4167.3 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 4194
Vellamo Metal Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1094.66 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1115 Samsung Galaxy Note5 2532 LG V10 2216 HTC One A9 1078 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 2657 LG G4 2369 Honor 5X 1108 OnePlus X 1542 Sony Xperia Z5 1667.33 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 2124
Vellamo Browser Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1982 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1944 Samsung Galaxy Note5 5476 LG V10 3571.33 HTC One A9 2331 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 4424 LG G4 3948 Honor 5X 2327 OnePlus X 2661 Sony Xperia Z5 4301.66 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 3714
Sunspider Lower is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 1941.6 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 1961.86 Samsung Galaxy Note5 677.7 LG V10 1047.16 HTC One A9 1712 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 1529.1 Apple iPhone 6s 217.7 LG G4 730.2 Honor 5X 1171.7 OnePlus X 1285.5 Sony Xperia Z5 675.3 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 867.2
GFXBench T-Rex HD on-screen Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 14 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 14 Samsung Galaxy Note5 37 LG V10 25 HTC One A9 16 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 24 Apple iPhone 6s 59.1 LG G4 25 Honor 5X 15 OnePlus X 23 Sony Xperia Z5 53 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 16
GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 on-screen Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 5.76 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 5.6 Samsung Galaxy Note5 15 LG V10 5.7 HTC One A9 6.6 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 9.3 Apple iPhone 6s 56.1 LG G4 9.4 Honor 5X 6 OnePlus X 10 Sony Xperia Z5 18.3 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 40
Basemark OS II Higher is better	Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016) 827.66 Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016) 763.33 Samsung Galaxy Note5 1765 LG V10 1148.33 HTC One A9 957 Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015) 1214 Apple iPhone 6s 2139 LG G4 1549 OnePlus X 1185.66 Sony Xperia Z5 1575 Motorola DROID Turbo 2 1426

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.

These measurements are made using Portrait Displays' CalMAN calibration software.

View all

	Maximum brightness Higher is better	Minimum brightness (nits) Lower is better	Contrast Higher is better	Color temperature (Kelvins)	Gamma	Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better	Delta E grayscale Lower is better
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016)	369 (Average)	1 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6731 (Excellent)	2.12	2.26 (Good)	3.69 (Good)
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016)	479 (Good)	1 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6610 (Excellent)	2.04	2.52 (Good)	5.26 (Average)
Samsung Galaxy Note5	470 (Good)	2 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6722 (Excellent)	2.09	1.32 (Excellent)	1.94 (Excellent)
LG V10	457 (Good)	4 (Excellent)	1:1556 (Excellent)	7877 (Average)	2.35	4.06 (Average)	6.57 (Average)
HTC One A9	345 (Average)	11 (Average)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6829 (Excellent)	2.1	2.42 (Good)	3.01 (Good)
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015)	715 (Excellent)	1 (Excellent)	1:1072 (Good)	6748 (Excellent)	2.19	1.22 (Excellent)	1.81 (Excellent)
Apple iPhone 6s	554 (Excellent)	6 (Good)	1:1593 (Excellent)	7056 (Good)	2.21	1.47 (Excellent)	3.23 (Good)
LG G4	454 (Good)	2 (Excellent)	1:1930 (Excellent)	8031 (Poor)	2.24	4.36 (Average)	7.28 (Average)
Honor 5X	585 (Excellent)	7 (Good)	1:1251 (Excellent)	8021 (Poor)	2.19	2.9 (Good)	6.77 (Average)
OnePlus X	298 (Poor)	1 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	8816 (Poor)	2	7.9 (Average)	8.12 (Poor)
Sony Xperia Z5	672 (Excellent)	4 (Excellent)	1:1256 (Excellent)	7688 (Average)	2.62	3.79 (Good)	6.19 (Average)
Motorola DROID Turbo 2	445 (Good)	2 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6849 (Excellent)	2.34	4.81 (Average)	4.38 (Average)

View all

The numbers below represent the amount of deviation in the respective property, observed when a display is viewed from a 45-degree angle as opposed to direct viewing.

	Maximum brightness Lower is better	Minimum brightness Lower is better	Contrast Lower is better	Color temperature Lower is better	Gamma Lower is better	Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better	Delta E grayscale Lower is better
HTC One A9	48.4%	45.5%	unmeasurable	12.9%	1%	44.6%	110%
Motorola DROID Turbo 2	52.4%	50%	unmeasurable	13.3%	1.3%	45.5%	66.4%
Samsung Galaxy Note5	60.4%	50%	unmeasurable	5.7%	2.4%	281.1%	128.9%
Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016)	65.3%	0%	unmeasurable	3.1%	1.4%	139.8%	179.1%
OnePlus X	66.4%	0%	unmeasurable	35.2%	0%	37.8%	60.8%
Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016)	67.4%	0%	unmeasurable	1%	2.5%	114.3%	103.6%
Apple iPhone 6s	82.9%	83.3%	79.8%	5.1%	10.9%	56.5%	53.9%
Sony Xperia Z5	83.9%	75%	82.1%	17.7%	1.1%	2.6%	28.4%
Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015)	85.7%	0%	79%	12.3%	3.2%	73.8%	185.6%
Honor 5X	86.3%	85.7%	84.2%	6.6%	0.5%	12.4%	4.3%
LG G4	86.8%	50%	90.3%	5.4%	0.9%	7.3%	28.6%
LG V10	88%	75%	90.6%	3.2%	14.5%	3.9%	3.5%

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.