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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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 Note 5 677.7
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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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 Note 5 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

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.



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.

Related phones

Galaxy A7 (2016)
  • Display 5.5" 1080 x 1920 pixels
  • Camera 13 MP / 5 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 615, Octa-core, 1600 MHz
  • Storage 16 GB + microSDXC
  • Battery 3300 mAh(17h 3G talk time)

FEATURED VIDEO

37 Comments

1. zeeBomb

Posts: 2318; Member since: Aug 14, 2014

Decent to say the least

7. neela_akaash

Posts: 1239; Member since: Aug 05, 2014

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

8. Sidewinder

Posts: 515; Member since: Jan 15, 2015

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

12. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Camera And Battery As Well.

23. Powerballs

Posts: 1; Member since: Jan 29, 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.

29. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 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.

37. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

I know***

30. may_czos

Posts: 955; Member since: Nov 22, 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.

24. medtxa

Posts: 1655; Member since: Jun 02, 2014

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

19. redmd

Posts: 1926; Member since: Oct 26, 2011

And availability.

2. dmh0284

Posts: 50; Member since: Apr 04, 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.

10. Acdc1a

Posts: 473; Member since: Jan 21, 2016

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

11. dmh0284

Posts: 50; Member since: Apr 04, 2014

The thing could barely run android smoothly.

27. SenorThrottles

Posts: 284; Member since: Dec 23, 2015

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

14. muhsen

Posts: 281; Member since: Jun 07, 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.

20. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 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!

3. fonelover

Posts: 255; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

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

4. fonelover

Posts: 255; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

They should use SD650 for this model.

15. true1984

Posts: 864; Member since: May 23, 2012

or at least the SD617 like the One A9

31. may_czos

Posts: 955; Member since: Nov 22, 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).

5. jove39

Posts: 2145; Member since: Oct 18, 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.

32. may_czos

Posts: 955; Member since: Nov 22, 2014

It is but for this price.

6. rd_nest

Posts: 1656; Member since: Jun 06, 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.

17. Victor.H

Posts: 1056; Member since: May 27, 2011

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

18. rd_nest

Posts: 1656; Member since: Jun 06, 2010

^^ Good!

9. TyrionLannister unregistered

615 is trash.

22. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

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

33. may_czos

Posts: 955; Member since: Nov 22, 2014

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

13. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 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

34. may_czos

Posts: 955; Member since: Nov 22, 2014

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

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.