Loading information, please wait...

close this window

Loading information, please wait...

Samsung Galaxy A55 Test / Review

---

Published on: 31-07-2024 / Modified: 31-07-2024
I recently tested the Samsung Galaxy A25 after not having tested a Samsung in 2 years. It's not that this brand doesn't interest me, on the contrary, but as I work alone and my blog is a hobby, I have to make choices

I bought this Samsung Galaxy A25 to make a quick comparison between this phone and its Chinese equivalents. I'd already done this exercise two years ago and reached more or less the same conclusion, and it wasn't a very favorable one for Samsung. The Galaxy A25 is clearly not a bad phone, but it's too expensive for what it has to offer

I was curious to see if this conclusion would apply to Samsung's mid-range. When I saw the price of the Samsung Galaxy A55 drop below €300 on Amazon, I pounced on it. That was the starting price of the A25, whereas the A55 is a phone of a different caliber. Has Samsung finally woken up? That's what I'm going to find out in this review.

I bought this phone on Amazon for €296, while on Samsung's website it was still over €400. I don't know if it was a mistake or a promotion, but I couldn't miss it

If you'd also like to take advantage of it, here's the link I used:

Samsung Galaxy A55 on Amazon

Video test

Soundtrack: French only

Subtitles available

To watch the video on YouTube: Samsung Galaxy A55 / Video test

Manufacturer web site:

https://www.samsung.com

Samsung Galaxy A55 delivered by:
https://amzn.to/4fqq...

Structure of my tests

I test the phones according to a pre-established structure (see below) to provide you with as much information as possible. Unfortunately, this takes a long time. Some tests like network performance tests take several days and for photo tests I sometimes have to wait until the weather is suitable to take pictures in good conditions. I am therefore obliged to publish the tests step by step, so I invite you to come back if the test is not complete at the time of your visit.

Price Samsung Galaxy A55

The list below shows the prices for the Samsung Galaxy A55 from more than 50 sites around the world. If you are not satisfied with any price, you can subscribe to a price alert to be the first to be notified when the price drops.

Timeline

July 16, 2024: Samsung Galaxy A55 ordered from Amazon for €296

July 19, 2024: phone delivered, testing begins.

Unpacking

The Samsung Galaxy A55's box contains only the bare essentials - in fact, it's very slim compared with a phone from the Xiaomi universe. The box contains the phone, a manual, a needle to open the sim drawer and a USB cable for recharging the phone. There is no charger

I don't find this very problematic, as the charging speed of Samsung phones in this range is still quite low, and any charger will do.

Finish

The Samsung Galaxy A55 is a sober, elegant phone; they've managed to make something beautiful out of an ultra-simple concept. The phone is very uniform throughout, there's no fanciness, it has a very serious air



The screen occupies around 85% of the front panel. It's a 6.6-inch amoled screen. The edges are visible but not obtrusive, and are quite similar to what I've seen on the A25. I think it's a shame that a phone costing over €400 isn't borderless. I'll come back to the screen later in this review



The outline of the phone is uniform with the rest of the but here we find aluminum instead of plastic, which is one of the elements that reinforces the phone's uniformity. On the right-hand side are the usual volume and start buttons, with a relief on the power button that was also present on the A25. On the left-hand side, there's nothing at all, this edge is perfectly smooth



On the upper part we find the SIM drawer, which can hold 2 SIM cards in duplex mode or one SIM card in combination with a memory card. There's also a sound sensor

On the lower part we find the USB C port, a sound output and two sound sensors. The presence of a single external speaker indicates that the monitor speaker will be used to produce stereo sound, which often results in small differences in sound processing



The rear is perfectly smooth and uniform, with only the three photo sensors interrupting the rear surface. The position will not allow the phone to lie completely flat unless a suitable shell is used. The back is perfectly smooth, with a slight mirror effect that will reveal fingerprints fairly quickly, but nothing dramatic - the surface treatment reduces this problem somewhat

Specifications

The information below comes from the Device Info HW application. The application provides detailed technical information about the tested phone. The Samsung Galaxy A55 runs on 100% Samsung architecture, so there's no use of components from Mediatek or Qualcomm. Few manufacturers are able to do without these two suppliers

I tested the 8 GB / 128 Gb version of this phone, and you'll find all the technical specifications in the screenshots below

As this is a 100% Samsung architecture, the components are by default only present in Samsung phones, so I can't compare them with other phones

CPU / GPU Performance

The Samsung Galaxy A55 is equipped with an Exynos 1480 CPU which, for the moment, is only available for this model of phone, so the comparison isn't directly possible, but with the level of performance measured, the Galaxy A55 has a CPU performance slightly superior to that of a Redmi Note 13 Pro. They're both mid-range phones, with a price advantage for the Redmi, but this time it's not as significant as usual, because on the one hand the Samsung is more powerful, and on the other the Samsung's price has dropped into the same zone as the Redmi's

With this kind of performance, you'll be able to perform any task in good conditions. The load test I'm doing with the battery test will allow me to rank it more accurately against the other phones I've tested

For the graphics part this smartphone relies on a Samsung Xclipse 530 GPU, this is also the first time I've tested this configuration. Here too, we're in the mid-range, which will enable you to play any game in good conditions.

Benchmark Antutu/3DMark

I scored 546504 points with Antutu v8. That's an excellent score. Of course, you'll always find something more powerful, but with a score like that, this phone will do everything you ask of it. As I often say, power is a marketing argument that manufacturers use to make you believe it's absolutely necessary. For normal use, a score of over 500,000 points is more than enough. Even gamers will be able to play any game, although they may have to make a sacrifice in terms of graphics





Gaming

To test the performance in game, I download the mobile PUBG game and evaluate the in-game experience, graphics level and depth of vision. This game is quite demanding and should help you evaluating the performance of a phone.

The Antutu score already gave an excellent indication of this phone's ability to deliver a good gaming experience. I tested PUBG Mobile as I usually do with HDR and realistic mode, the level of graphics is good, the depth of vision is good and the fluidity of the game is good. On some very demanding games, this phone could be challenged, but as that's not its primary vocation, I can't see that as a problem.

Mobile network sensitivity

To test the sensitivity to the mobile network, I use a probe which measures the quality of the mobile signal 24 hours a day (eg: cell id, rssi, rsrq, snr, frequency,...) for more than 3 years. I then measure the phone signal under the same conditions to compare them to the probe's reference signal.

Phones tested:





I've redeveloped my diagnostic application and this has enabled me to increase the frequency of my tests and collect additional data. I'll probably have to make some adjustments to refine this data, but the initial results are already very interesting.

I took 11917 measurements to assess sensitivity to the mobile network and compared the results with my probe, which has been measuring the mobile network signal 24 hours a day for over 3 years. The network at the time of measurement had an average RSRQ of -9.42 dB, which represents an average signal level that's not likely to give a phone trouble. Over this period, I obtained an average RSSI of -100.59 dBm with the Samsung and -95.7 dBm with my probe. The difference isn't huge, but it's real and means that this phone has a fairly average sensitivity to the network. The signal, on the other hand, is much more stable than the probe, but this is undoubtedly a layer of optimization by Samsung, because in reality the signal always fluctuates a little.

Wifi performance

To test a phone's ability to receive the network properly, I take measurements near my router and then remotely (and always at the same place). This gives me an average in dBm where a value of -90 dBm indicates poorer performance than a value at -30 dBm.


Wifi signal

I took 137 measurements to assess the quality of the wifi signal and obtained an average signal of -13.05 dBm. Not only is this signal level excellent, it is also very stable over time, as the following graph shows:





Download/Upload speed

To test the speed in Wifi, I connect to my router in 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz (if available) and use the Ookla application to measure the speed.

GPS performance

To test the accuracy of the GPS signal, I use two positioning applications to evaluate the difference between the actual position and the position indicated by the phone. This test is done outdoors with nothing to obstruct the signal. An accuracy level of up to 3 meters can easily be corrected by an application (e.g. Google Maps).

This is the first phone I've tested with my new network diagnostics application, and GPS is one of the new features I've developed. The principle is quite simple, I capture all the data from the GPS signal on numerous occasions to see the evolution of the position, stability, level of accuracy..., I then compare the latitudes and longitudes obtained by the phone with the phone's true position. I then calculate the difference between the coordinates to measure the real level of accuracy. I then calculate the difference between the coordinates to measure the actual level of accuracy.

I took 1066 GPS signal measurements for this first test, and here's the evolution of the level of accuracy reported by the phone on a time line: (interval 1 second)



You can see from this graph that the signal accuracy improves over time, starting at 22 meters and settling at 2 meters after 30 seconds, and at around 1 meter after 145 seconds. The phone then stabilizes at around 1 meter accuracy over the whole period. If I take the whole measurement time, I get an accuracy of 1.4 meters.

If I now calculate the distance between the phone's latitude/longitude and its exact location, I get another view of reality:



Here the signal starts with a lower accuracy and improves over time, taking 190 seconds to reach its best accuracy level, but this does not correspond to what the phone estimated in the first graph. I get an average accuracy of 2.77 meters instead of 1.4 from the phone. So you can't totally rely on the level of accuracy returned by the phone, and as it's the first time I've done this type of measurement, I don't have a point of comparison.

An accuracy level of 2.77m seems quite reasonable to me, as it's a deviation that can easily be corrected by a GPS guidance application.

Battery range

To test battery life I developed an application that measures the battery level minute by minute until the battery is empty. This application consumes about ten percent of the phone's resources and I do a test with 100 brightness. This test aims to reproduce a contemplative use of a phone (e.g. surfing the internet, reading articles, spending time on social networks). These results are not valid for intensive gaming/streaming use.
Battery life



I obtained a battery life of 786 minutes with the screen at 50% and 1296 minutes with the screen at 100%. The phone must have switched to power-saving mode towards the end of the first test, as the consumption towards the end is significantly lower. The relationship between the two is fairly linear. With this level of autonomy you should be able to last 2 or 3 days in normal use before recharging the phone

Charging speed

I always talk about charging speed in my tests, but in some cases I should perhaps use the term slow charging instead. I don't understand Samsung's stubbornness in continuing to produce phones with such slow charging. This Samsung Galaxy A55 has a "fast" charge of 25 watts, which is really ridiculous compared to Chinese competitors who manage to exceed 100 watts in the same price range. As usual, I used my UGREEN 100-watt charger for this test



Charging is fairly linear up to around 40%, then starts to slow down and slows down even more from 70% onwards.

I get 20% battery in 12 minutes, 40% in 25 minutes, 60% in 40 minutes, 80% in 56 minutes and 100% in 87 minutes

Energy efficiency



To test energy efficiency, I push each component of the phone to the maximum for several minutes to measure actual computing power, temperature rise and battery consumption. It's a rather extreme test, but it allows us to see how the phone performs under these conditions

With the CPU at 100% I obtained an average consumption of 7.3 watts. To make sense of this figure, I need to compare this result with a phone of similar performance. If I take the Redmi Note 13 Pro as an example, I obtained a consumption of 7.95 watts for a performance 8% lower. The power consumption of this Samsung is therefore quite good, and this should be reflected in the battery life when the CPU is in use

With the GPU at 100%, I obtained an average power consumption of 2.3 watts. The Redmi Note 13 Pro consumes 4.4 watts under the same conditions, but with a 21% performance gain. The Redmi performs better, but if I bring the performance down to an equivalent level, the Samsung shows that it has much better control of its power consumption.

If I push everything to the maximum at the same time, I get an average of just over 7.9 watts, which shows that the CPU and GPU can't be exploited to the full. Only gamer phones are generally well optimized to handle the consumption of all components at the same time, so this result comes as no surprise. The temperature rise of the battery, on the other hand, is quite reasonable: it's the CPU that generates the most heat, and you can feel the difference in temperature on the back of the phone. To calculate the maximum autonomy in the worst conditions, all you have to do is take this consumption and pull it over time to see how long the battery would last in such conditions. Here I arrive at 2h34 of autonomy in "extreme" mode

Photo camera test

To test the quality of photos produced by a phone, I do a technical test (resolution, sharpness, chromatic aberration,...) in studio (identical conditions) to evaluate the technical part objectively. From the second half of 2020, I built my own laboratory to take completely objective technical measurements. I then take pictures in real conditions to see how the camera performs. I then evaluate these photos according to my criteria but I publish the photos so that you can evaluate the result according to your criteria.

Hardware

It was the price drop that motivated me to buy this phone, but it was one of the phones I wanted to test because of the Sony IMX906 used as the main sensor. I felt that Redmi had made a quantum leap in photo quality by using a Sony IMX 766, so Samsung has responded with a photo sensor that should in principle exceed the quality of the IMX 766

The main sensor used by Samsung is also used in other phones such as the Redmi K70 Ultra, Honor 90 GT, Honor 100 Pro and Honor 200. In most cases, these are more expensive phones than Samsung's

The ultra-wide-angle secondary sensor is a Sony IMX 258. I don't think I've tested this sensor before, so it too will be a discovery.

Photo quality

Photo quality (indoor/studio)

The studio test is carried out under the same conditions so that the results can be compared on an equal basis. I calibrate my lighting for each test to obtain the same brightness and colour temperature. This test is a preliminary analysis of the technical qualities of a camera. Most phones fail this test, so you should also read the results of the other tests in the following paragraphs.

Sony IMX 906 main sensor / 50 MP



Like most photos I take in the studio, the photo is underexposed. The vast majority of phones I test have the same problem when I test them under strong artificial light, this problem generally disappears in daylight and this is what we'll see in the next chapter. What you need to look at in this photo is color rendition and sharpness. If I start with the sharpness, I find that the level of detail is very good, even if I zoom in.

Here's an example zoomed in at 200%:



The quality deteriorates, but it's still very good for this zoom level. I can see some digital noise appearing, it's been a long time since I've seen that, I'll pay attention to it for night shots to see if it's the same

The colors seem quite warm to me, it's quite rare for studio shots and it's quite a good sign. The photo taken in manual mode (very white background) shows good color saturation when the exposure level is closer to reality

To analyze sharpness, I always use the following photo:



This photo confirms what I was already seeing with the zoom, the sharpness level is really good. If I zoom in at more than 100%, the fine print on the Canadian banknote is still clearly legible. Sharpness diminishes at the periphery, but remains at a good level

Sony IMX 258 / 13 MP main sensor



Ultra-wide-angle sensors are generally less bright than main sensors, and this is once again true here. Distortion is very noticeable, but this is quite normal, as this type of sensor is not designed to take photos of objects positioned so close to the lens. Colors follow the same trend as the main sensor, but this is not the case for sharpness. This type of sensor is generally not very good at fine detail, and this is even more apparent in the following photo



The characters on the Canadian banknote are not legible, everything is already blurred even at 100%. This sensor isn't designed to take very sharp photos, but here the level of sharpness is particularly low



Outdoor photo quality

Main sensor: Sony IMX 906



I was eager to see if the photo quality of this new Sony sensor would leave the competition far behind, but in reality I wasn't very impressed with the results. The photos produced by this sensor are beautiful, the colors are correctly saturated, the dynamic range is good, the colorimetry is good... so all the boxes are ticked and my opinion could end there, but there's still something that challenges me.

Looking at the photos on a large PC screen, I began to see a few flaws, notably a level of detail that isn't optimal. I can clearly see white outlines around the foliage when I zoom in (even below 100%) and this indicates artificially forced sharpness. If I zoom in at 100%, the sharpness isn't very good and I see it deteriorate at the periphery with a stretching effect like with an ultra-wide-angle sensor.

This sensor is therefore capable of producing very nice photos, nicer than the Sony IMX 766, but you mustn't zoom beyond 70% as sharpness defects will start to appear.



Capteur secondaire: Sony IMX 258



I was positively surprised by the color and light processing of this ultra-wide-angle sensor. Colors are fairly faithful and saturation is not too forced. Sharpness, on the other hand, is not very good - there's no miracle in that, as was already evident in my studio test. Dynamic range isn't great either, with the sky quickly fading from blue to white, but these are the usual shortcomings of this kind of sensor, so don't judge it on these points. I think it does very well in terms of color rendering, and that's probably what everyone will remember when they look at your photos



Test photo / night

Main sensor: Sony IMX 906



When I took my first night photos with this sensor, I had the reflex to check that the flash wasn't activated, as the photos were so bright. The level of processing for night photos is quite high, and this makes it possible to obtain very bright scenes, provided you have a few well-lit areas. Unfortunately, the processing does not cope well with direct light. All intense light sources generate mauve halos that reverberate throughout the image. I've seen this kind of processing before on other phones using a Sony sensor.

The photo processing is impressive but makes the photo look surreal. I don't think it's too bad, because without this processing the night shot wouldn't really be usable. This night processing reminds me of a Redmi Note 8 I tested when I was on vacation in Stockholm, it was one of the best night processing I could test, this Samsung does as well but with a problem in the processing of direct light



Secondary sensor: Sony IMX 258



Night photos are not the domain of ultra-wide-angle sensors like this one, and yet I was positively surprised by the result. The processing plays its part well in preventing the photo from being totally dark, and this is very noticeable when you take the photo. If you look at the photo you've just taken, you'll see that it's very dark, and it's only after you've waited a few seconds that the phone adds image processing to give the exposure a big boost. It's quite rare to get this kind of brightness on a sensor of this type.
The other usual faults are obviously still present and are even more visible. The loss of peripheral sharpness is colossal, the zone of sharpness is very narrow and even in this zone, sharpness is rather average

Video quality

Stabilisation



The Samsung Galaxy A55 is able to stabilize a video in 4k 30 fps, I just see a micro-vibration with each step, but overall the video is very well stabilized. In 1080p these micro-shakes are no longer visible.

Video normale conditions

Daytime video



The Samsung Galaxy A55 is capable of filming in 4k and 30 fps, so it's a bit of a disappointment not to be able to shoot in 60 fps like other phones in this price range. Daytime video quality is good, with good colors and exposure time. On the other hand, there is visible sharpness processing that causes a kind of flicker at pixel level. This isn't too noticeable on a phone screen, but on a larger one it's much more noticeable. I can also see exposure jumps, whereas on a device with this level of performance, this shouldn't be the case.

So, as with photography, using video on a mobile screen won't be a problem, but if you decide to share it on a larger screen, you're going to see some flaws appear (even in 4k)

Night video



I wasn't very impressed with night video either, and again for the same reasons. The sharpness just isn't good enough, because even when moving slowly, the phone can't find its sweet spot. This is a shame, because the exposure level is correct and colors are not exaggerated by the image processing.

External audio quality

This test is intended to give you an overview of the volume and sound quality during calls and when listening to music through the external speakers.

Audio / music test



The Samsung Galaxy A55 uses two speakers to broadcast sound, but these speakers don't broadcast sound in the same way. There's the usual speaker housed next to the USB port, but the other is integrated into the headset speaker. It's quite clear from this video that the power of the sound emitted is not the same. On the other hand, sound quality is good, with a good balance between high and low frequencies, but still with a lack of depth on either side of the spectrum. You can't work miracles with such small speakers

Audio/call test



Call volume when using the listening speaker is below average, the decibel meter sometimes fell back to "low" mode, which doesn't happen very often. The sound quality is good, but the volume is quite low. If I switch the sound to the speakers, the sound is naturally more powerful, but not spectacularly so, and the sound is also higher-pitched. I'm a bit surprised by the volume when I'm on a call, it's been a long time since I've had such a low volume, and this will undoubtedly be a problem in noisy places unless the phone adapts the volume automatically.

Audio quality (headphones)

To test the quality of the phone's audio output, I connect the device's audio output to a measuring tool, then play sounds on all frequencies and measure the differences between the original sound and the sound produced by the phone. In this way I measure the phone's ability to correctly reproduce all sounds.


I compared the headphone audio quality of this phone with the Samsung Galaxy A25 and in principle, the A55 should produce better sound...it's true except that the A55 shows signs of weakness when the maximum volume is used and this can be seen on this graph which represents the phone's ability to reproduce all frequencies correctly. The A55 shows greater deviation, and this is due to sound distortion. The distortion is not catastrophic, but it is noticeable. You therefore need to turn the sound down a notch or two to get faithful reproduction of all frequencies.

I also measured the power output and although it's higher than what I measured on the Samsung Galaxy A25, it's still below average. This is quite astonishing, because Samsung had accustomed me to better sound, and it's actually older Samsung models like the S10+ that are among the best in terms of power.

Screen quality

To test the screen, I use a colorimetric probe that measures the color accuracy of a screen, as well as other parameters to see if a screen is able to correctly reproduce an image. I also test the brightness level to determine if the screen will be able to display an image in full sunlight.

Colorimetry

I measured the colorimetry of this phone in "vivid" mode (default setting) and obtained a delta E of 3.18 for colors, 5.6 for whites and 2.12 for grays. While these figures aren't bad, they're not as good as what I've obtained with Samsung screens used on other brands. The "vivid" mode gives access to a colorimetric space superior to REC709, but the result isn't crazy, and here too I find it a little disappointing.

If I take the "natural" mode, I get a delta E of 2.31 for colors, 5.8 for whites and 2.14 for grays. Colorimetry is therefore more accurate in natural mode, but this is at the expense of the color space, which sticks to REC709 and not beyond.

I played a little with the settings to try and get a better result from the vivid mode to preserve the extended color space and obtained a delta E of 3.06 for colors, 2.6 for white and 2.13 for grays. The difference with the basic "vivid" mode isn't very great if I look at the overall delta E, but on the other hand, white is clearly more faithful, with a white that is truly white.

Here's what it looks like on a CIE graph:



To get this level of color fidelity you need to change the following settings in the screen parameters:





Brightness / Contrast

I measured a brightness of 448 cd/m² in normal mode and over 700 in sun mode. Normal mode is a little weak for use in full sunlight, but sun mode will happily meet this need

Contrast

I measured infinite contrast, the black is so deep that the probe couldn't measure its brightness. So this screen offers excellent contrast

Accessories Samsung Galaxy A55

Compare Samsung Galaxy A55 with the others

Test / Review conclusion

I haven't tested a mid-range Samsung since the A52, mainly because I find mid-range Samsung very expensive. It's precisely because the price of the Galaxy A55 has dropped below €300 that I bought it, because at that price, Samsung is venturing into Redmi territory

Samsung has succeeded over time in imposing a rather dark and elegant style, you recognize a Samsung at first glance and few brands can boast of having reached this level of maturity. The Chinese models from Redmi and other brands are much more anonymous and change their appearance quite regularly. Samsung is therefore one step ahead of its Chinese competitor in this respect

Samsung has never claimed performance territory, yet this Galaxy A55 offers a good level of performance that will allow you to use any application or game in good conditions. Some demanding games might require a few sacrifices in terms of graphics, but as that's not this phone's primary vocation, I can't see this as a problem

The screen is as usual of good quality, with impeccable contrast and a frequency of 60 or 120Hz. I regret, however, that color fidelity is not at the same level as with Redmi. I was able to improve colorimetry a little by changing settings, but with Redmi, the basic configuration offers more faithful color rendering.
Samsung has always been a benchmark for sound quality, and this is still the case, but the gap with the competition is much smaller. This Galaxy A55 produces distortion at maximum volume, and that maximum volume is below average. It's not a phone you're going to blow your ears out with, but it will produce excellent sound at up to 90% of its maximum volume. In-call sound quality is good, but here too the sound power is below average.
The battery totally lives up to its promise, with very good autonomy and good temperature control when the battery is heavily used. This Samsung Galaxy A55 has a good energy performance, the power/consumption ratio is above average

I was expecting a lot from the photo part and this phone is capable of producing beautiful photos but on condition that you don't zoom in too much as the management of the level of detail is not sufficient. You can't see this on a phone screen; it's only visible on a large screen. I encountered the same problem with video quality, which is excellent on a small screen but much less so on a large one. Stabilization, on the other hand, is at a good level.

Mobile signal sensitivity is a little below average, as I found on the Samsung Galaxy A25 I tested a few months ago. The wifi signal is very good, with good download speed. The GPS signal is also about average

I feel like I've written a conclusion with a lot of "yes buts" because this Samsung clearly has the strong points that make the brand so successful, but besides that, digging into certain subjects makes me realize that Samsung probably hasn't gone all out to dominate the market in all aspects as was more often the case before. I don't think many buyers of this phone will notice these few shortcomings, but I prefer to be transparent about my findings. I'm thinking in particular of those who use their photos/videos on media other than the phone, who may be disappointed by the level of detail

Strengths

Performance

Battery life

Screen quality

Sound quality (
Colorimetry and photo dynamic range

Video stabilization

Energy performance

Wifi signal & speed

Level of finish

Weaknesses

Photo/video detail

Average mobile signal

Poor screen colorimetry

100% sound saturation

Below-average call volume

Slow charging

Alternatives to this product

Not yet available / tested

---

Privacy Policy | Terms and conditions