Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A3 (2016)

Se sente bem. O recurso especial do anterior modelo era sua carcaça monobloco de alumínio. A Samsung agora usa mais vidro na nova iteração. A tela do smartphone de gama média também foi modificada: Ele tem uma resolução mais alta enquanto fornece mais espaço ao mesmo tempo. Um design bem-sucedido no geral?
Andreas Kilian, Tanja Hinum (traduzido por Ricardo Soto),
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016 (Galaxy Serie)
Processador
Samsung Exynos 7578
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-T720 MP2
Memória
1536 MB 
Pantalha
4.7 polegadas 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel, tela táctil capacitiva, Super AMOLED, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 10.7 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector para fones de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: micro-SD máx. 128 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: acelerômetro, sensor de proximidade, pedômetro, giroscópio, bússola, WiFi Direct, DLNA, MirrorLink, USB-OTG, nano-SIM
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 4.1, GSM quad-band (850/900/1800/1900 MHz), 3G quad-band (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (B1/B3/B5/B7/B8/B20/B40) Cat.4 (max. 150 Mbit/s download & 50 Mbit/s upload), SAR body: 0.492 W/kg, SAR head: 0,621 W/kg, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.4 x 134.5 x 65.2
Bateria
9 Wh, 2300 mAh
Sistema Operativo
Android 5.1 Lollipop
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix (auto foco f/1.9, vídeos 1080p @ 30 FPS)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix (foco fixo f/1.9, vídeos 1080p @ 30 FPS
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto falante mono na borda inferior, Teclado: virtual, Fonte de alimentação, cabo USB, headset in-ear, ferramenta para slot, Microsoft Office, Galaxy apps, MyGalaxy, Smart Manager, Samsung KNOX, S-Voice, 24 Meses Garantia, fanless
peso
131 g, Suprimento de energia: 57 g
Preço
329 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

142.1 mm 72.4 mm 11.6 mm 155 g143 mm 70.6 mm 7.7 mm 133 g142 mm 72.5 mm 8.1 mm 145 g141.9 mm 68.1 mm 5.1 mm 98 g140 mm 69 mm 6.9 mm 138 g134.5 mm 65.2 mm 7.4 mm 131 g130.1 mm 65.5 mm 6.9 mm 110 g
Garmin Edge 500 - Route
Garmin Edge 500 - Route
Garmin Edge 500 - Underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - Underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - Section
Garmin Edge 500 - Section
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Route
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Route
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Underpass
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Underpass
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Section
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Section
Camera software: Auto mode
Camera software: Auto mode
Camera software: Pro mode
Camera software: Pro mode
Camera software: Mode options
Camera software: Mode options

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Test picture
Samsung Galaxy A3 - Test picture
427
cd/m²
392
cd/m²
381
cd/m²
414
cd/m²
386
cd/m²
374
cd/m²
412
cd/m²
387
cd/m²
376
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 427 cd/m² Médio: 394.3 cd/m² Minimum: 2.13 cd/m²
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 386 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.11 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.9
ΔE Greyscale 1.34 | 0.64-98 Ø6.1
Gamma: 2.12
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
1280x720 px 4.71'' (AMOLED)
Samsung Galaxy A3
940x540 px px 4.5'' (AMOLED)
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1280x720 px 5.0'' (IPS)
OnePlus X
1920x1080 px 5.0'' (AMOLED)
Huawei P8 lite
1280x720 px 5.0'' (IPS)
Wiko Highway Pure
1280x720 px 4.8'' (AMOLED)
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
1920x1080 px 5.1'' (AMOLED)
Screen
-47%
-84%
-203%
-143%
-203%
-59%
Brightness middle
386
434
12%
418
8%
312
-19%
365
-5%
298
-23%
334
-13%
Brightness
394
433
10%
407
3%
314
-20%
353
-10%
298
-24%
341
-13%
Brightness Distribution
88
96
9%
95
8%
91
3%
93
6%
96
9%
91
3%
Black Level *
0.49
0.42
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.11
2.98
-168%
3.92
-253%
6.28
-466%
5.2
-368%
6.81
-514%
2.84
-156%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.35
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.34
2.68
-100%
3.81
-184%
8.24
-515%
5.85
-337%
7.53
-462%
2.91
-117%
Gamma
2.12 104%
2.44 90%
2.27 97%
2.12 104%
2.17 101%
2.15 102%
2.01 109%
CCT
6441 101%
6603 98%
7361 88%
8145 80%
7252 90%
8348 78%
6432 101%
Contrast
853
869
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
70.86
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
91.25

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 240.4 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 50 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18284 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 4 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 5 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.3 ms).
AnTuTu v5 - Total Score
OnePlus X
40256 Points ∼41% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
37854 Points ∼38% +19%
Huawei P8 lite
34247 Points ∼35% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
31762 Points ∼32%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
23242 Points ∼23% -27%
Wiko Highway Pure
21063 Points ∼21% -34%
Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
3330 Points ∼4% +51%
OnePlus X
2570 Points ∼3% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
2201 Points ∼3%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1563 Points ∼2% -29%
Wiko Highway Pure
1429 Points ∼2% -35%
Samsung Galaxy A3
1409 Points ∼2% -36%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
OnePlus X
913 Points ∼19% +30%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
721 Points ∼15% +3%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
703 Points ∼14%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
528 Points ∼11% -25%
Wiko Highway Pure
482 Points ∼10% -31%
Samsung Galaxy A3
474 Points ∼10% -33%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Huawei P8 lite
2754 Points ∼4%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1561 Points ∼2%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Huawei P8 lite
588 Points ∼12%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
526 Points ∼11%
Linpack Android / IOS
Multi Thread
OnePlus X
634.085 MFLOPS ∼21% +164%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
247.675 MFLOPS ∼8% +3%
Wiko Highway Pure
240 MFLOPS ∼8% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
239.951 MFLOPS ∼8%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
207.718 MFLOPS ∼7% -13%
Single Thread
OnePlus X
425.55 MFLOPS ∼42% +371%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
117.086 MFLOPS ∼11% +29%
Wiko Highway Pure
105 MFLOPS ∼10% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
95.591 MFLOPS ∼9% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
90.438 MFLOPS ∼9%
BaseMark OS II
Web
OnePlus X
843 Points ∼41% +12%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
756 Points ∼37%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
733 Points ∼36% -3%
Wiko Highway Pure
637 Points ∼31% -16%
Huawei P8 lite
616 Points ∼30% -19%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
484 Points ∼24% -36%
Graphics
OnePlus X
1975 Points ∼7% +376%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
488 Points ∼2% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
415 Points ∼1%
Wiko Highway Pure
324 Points ∼1% -22%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
315 Points ∼1% -24%
Huawei P8 lite
303 Points ∼1% -27%
Memory
Huawei P8 lite
816 Points ∼10% +84%
OnePlus X
662 Points ∼8% +49%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
569 Points ∼7% +28%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
443 Points ∼5%
Wiko Highway Pure
434 Points ∼5% -2%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
394 Points ∼5% -11%
System
OnePlus X
2225 Points ∼14% +61%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
2095 Points ∼13% +52%
Huawei P8 lite
1467 Points ∼9% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
1380 Points ∼8%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1166 Points ∼7% -16%
Wiko Highway Pure
1030 Points ∼6% -25%
Overall
OnePlus X
1252 Points ∼15% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
808 Points ∼10% +22%
Huawei P8 lite
687 Points ∼8% +4%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
662 Points ∼8%
Wiko Highway Pure
551 Points ∼7% -17%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
515 Points ∼6% -22%
Smartbench 2012
Gaming Index
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
4368 points ∼95%
OnePlus X
4069 points ∼88% -7%
Samsung Galaxy A3
3862 points ∼84% -12%
Huawei P8 lite
3753 points ∼82% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
3500 points ∼76% -20%
Wiko Highway Pure
3295 points ∼72% -25%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3234 points ∼70% -26%
Productivity Index
OnePlus X
9286 points ∼49% +63%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
6719 points ∼36% +18%
Wiko Highway Pure
6307 points ∼33% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A3
6034 points ∼32% +6%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
5706 points ∼30%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
4962 points ∼26% -13%
Huawei P8 lite
2941 points ∼16% -48%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score
OnePlus X
4450 Points ∼23% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
4134 Points ∼21% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
4051 Points ∼21%
Huawei P8 lite
3717 Points ∼19% -8%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3701 Points ∼19% -9%
Wiko Highway Pure
3216 Points ∼16% -21%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
OnePlus X
21 fps ∼0% +75%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
14 fps ∼0% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
12 fps ∼0%
Huawei P8 lite
9.9 fps ∼0% -17%
Samsung Galaxy A3
5.3 fps ∼0% -56%
Wiko Highway Pure
5.3 fps ∼0% -56%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
5.3 fps ∼0% -56%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16
OnePlus X
23 fps ∼1% +15%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
20 fps ∼1%
Huawei P8 lite
15.3 fps ∼0% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
14 fps ∼0% -30%
Samsung Galaxy A3
13 fps ∼0% -35%
Wiko Highway Pure
10 fps ∼0% -50%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
9.5 fps ∼0% -52%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL
OnePlus X
8.6 fps ∼1% +110%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
4.8 fps ∼1% +17%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
4.1 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy A3
1.8 fps ∼0% -56%
Wiko Highway Pure
1.8 fps ∼0% -56%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1.7 fps ∼0% -59%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
OnePlus X
10 fps ∼3% +19%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
8.4 fps ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy A3
6.4 fps ∼2% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
4.8 fps ∼1% -43%
Wiko Highway Pure
4.2 fps ∼1% -50%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3.7 fps ∼1% -56%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
OnePlus X
17156 Points ∼20% +47%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
11653 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
10424 Points ∼12% -11%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
10148 Points ∼12% -13%
Wiko Highway Pure
9152 Points ∼11% -21%
Samsung Galaxy A3
9071 Points ∼10% -22%
Huawei P8 lite
8206 Points ∼9% -30%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
OnePlus X
14541 Points ∼3% +123%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
7536 Points ∼1% +16%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
6522 Points ∼1%
Huawei P8 lite
5167 Points ∼1% -21%
Samsung Galaxy A3
3939 Points ∼1% -40%
Wiko Highway Pure
3872 Points ∼1% -41%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3789 Points ∼1% -42%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
OnePlus X
15051 Points ∼6% +108%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
8030 Points ∼3% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
7229 Points ∼3%
Huawei P8 lite
5629 Points ∼2% -22%
Samsung Galaxy A3
4505 Points ∼2% -38%
Wiko Highway Pure
4440 Points ∼2% -39%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
4402 Points ∼2% -39%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Physics
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
10827 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
10270 Points ∼12% -5%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
9544 Points ∼11% -12%
Wiko Highway Pure
8877 Points ∼11% -18%
Samsung Galaxy A3
8700 Points ∼10% -20%
Huawei P8 lite
7399 Points ∼9% -32%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
4449 Points ∼1% +13%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
3937 Points ∼1%
Huawei P8 lite
3676 Points ∼1% -7%
Wiko Highway Pure
2230 Points ∼0% -43%
Samsung Galaxy A3
2207 Points ∼0% -44%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
2135 Points ∼0% -46%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Score
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
5090 Points ∼2% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
4585 Points ∼2%
Huawei P8 lite
4138 Points ∼2% -10%
Wiko Highway Pure
2679 Points ∼1% -42%
Samsung Galaxy A3
2646 Points ∼1% -42%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
2580 Points ∼1% -44%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016 Samsung Exynos 7578, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy A3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus X Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 MSM8974AA, Qualcomm Adreno 330, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P8 lite HiSilicon Kirin 620, ARM Mali-450 MP4, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Wiko Highway Pure Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo Samsung Exynos 7580 Octa, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus X
4810 Points ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
3627 Points ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
3566 Points ∼7%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3296 Points ∼6%
Wiko Highway Pure
2864 Points ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy A3
2782 Points ∼5%
Huawei P8 lite
2483 Points ∼5%
Sunspider - 1.0 Total Score
Huawei P8 lite
1985.6 ms * ∼22%
Wiko Highway Pure
1639 ms * ∼18%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
1573.1 ms * ∼17%
OnePlus X
1509.1 ms * ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
1413 ms * ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy A3
1330 ms * ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
735 ms * ∼8%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei P8 lite
15866 ms * ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy A3
13998 ms * ∼24%
Wiko Highway Pure
13234 ms * ∼22%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
11843 ms * ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
11796.2 ms * ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
11603.4 ms * ∼20%
OnePlus X
7264.1 ms * ∼12%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus X
85 Points ∼11%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
68 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
64 Points ∼8%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
52 Points ∼6%
Huawei P8 lite
47 Points ∼6%
Wiko Highway Pure
46 Points ∼6%
Google V8 Ver. 7 - Google V8 Ver. 7 Score
OnePlus X
5328 Points ∼27%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
3765 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
3499 Points ∼18%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
3125 Points ∼16%
Wiko Highway Pure
2852 Points ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy A3
2832 Points ∼14%
Huawei P8 lite
2352 Points ∼12%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
OnePlus X
28 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
23.097 Points ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
22.1 Points ∼6%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
20.832 Points ∼6%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Random Write 4KB
OnePlus X
14.22 MB/s ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
11.07 MB/s ∼4%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
10.27 MB/s ∼4%
Huawei P8 lite
8.32 MB/s ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy A3
6 MB/s ∼2%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
5.11 MB/s ∼2%
Wiko Highway Pure
5 MB/s ∼2%
Random Read 4KB
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
22.79 MB/s ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
22.57 MB/s ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
21.92 MB/s ∼8%
Huawei P8 lite
18.46 MB/s ∼7%
OnePlus X
16.31 MB/s ∼6%
Wiko Highway Pure
14 MB/s ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy A3
11 MB/s ∼4%
Sequential Write 256KB
Samsung Galaxy A3
71 MB/s ∼9%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
57.92 MB/s ∼8%
Huawei P8 lite
52.79 MB/s ∼7%
OnePlus X
49.31 MB/s ∼7%
Wiko Highway Pure
39 MB/s ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
27.27 MB/s ∼4%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
22.33 MB/s ∼3%
Sequential Read 256KB
OnePlus X
235.51 MB/s ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
215.86 MB/s ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
168.79 MB/s ∼9%
Huawei P8 lite
139.48 MB/s ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy A3
132 MB/s ∼7%
Wiko Highway Pure
132 MB/s ∼7%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
131.42 MB/s ∼7%
BaseMark OS II - Memory
Huawei P8 lite
816 Points ∼10%
OnePlus X
662 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
569 Points ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
443 Points ∼5%
Wiko Highway Pure
434 Points ∼5%
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
394 Points ∼5%
Carga Máxima
 34.7 °C33.4 °C31.5 °C 
 34.5 °C32.9 °C31.2 °C 
 33.7 °C32.6 °C31 °C 
Máximo: 34.7 °C
Médio: 32.8 °C
31.3 °C32.5 °C33 °C
31.3 °C32.4 °C32.8 °C
30.5 °C31.1 °C31.6 °C
Máximo: 33 °C
Médio: 31.8 °C
alimentação elétrica  28.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.7 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.8 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.
Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0 / 0.15 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.96 / 1.39 / 1.45 Watt
Carga midlight 2.65 / 3.51 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Gossen Metrahit Energy
Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
32h 58min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 28min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 23min
Carga (máximo brilho)
6h 16min
Samsung Galaxy A3 2016
Mali-T720 MP2, 7578, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Samsung Galaxy A3
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Motorola Moto G 3. Gen 2015 XT1541
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 8 GB eMMC Flash
OnePlus X
Adreno 330, 801 MSM8974AA, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Huawei P8 lite
Mali-450 MP4, Kirin 620, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Wiko Highway Pure
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo
Mali-T720 MP2, 7580 Octa, 16 GB eMMC Flash
Battery Runtime
-36%
-25%
-29%
-53%
-41%
-9%
Reader / Idle
1978
1080
-45%
1364
-31%
968
-51%
715
-64%
1235
-38%
1615
-18%
H.264
863
602
-30%
677
-22%
514
-40%
369
-57%
465
-46%
773
-10%
WiFi v1.3
628
526
-16%
549
-13%
351
-44%
472
-25%
546
-13%
Load
376
256
-32%
264
-30%
339
-10%
194
-48%
164
-56%
402
7%
WiFi
568

Pro

+ Muito boa qualidade da carcaça
+ Excelente tela
+ Boa funcionalidade de telefonia
+ Tela táctil precisa
+ Baixa temperatura
+ Slot Micro-SD
+ NFC e USB-OTG
+ Bom alto falante
+ Duração da bateria muito longa

Contra

- Desempenho sob baixa iluminação da câmera
- Sem LED de notificações
- Sem WiFi de 5 GHz
- Sem suporte para Miracast ou MHL
- Traseira escorregadia da carcaça
- Bateria não removível
In review: Samsung Galaxy A3 (SM-A310F). Review sample courtesy of Samsung Germany.
In review: Samsung Galaxy A3 (SM-A310F). Review sample courtesy of Samsung Germany.

A reiteração do Galaxy A3 da Samsung possui muitas vantagens. Uma é a construção de alta qualidade da carcaça sólida que consegue convencer com vidro arredondado nas bordas e um marco de metal. A desvantagem deste design é a bateria não removível e a traseira muito lisa.

No entanto, o aparelho tem muito a oferecer tecnicamente. A excelente tela, a opção de expandir o armazenamento interno de 16 GB via micro-SD e a duração muito longa da bateria são as principais vantagens. Qualidades que muitos usuários de smartphones irão apreciar. Enquanto o NFC está abordo, o módulo WiFi  integrado, infelizmente ainda suporta o compartilhamento de dados apenas através da banda de 2,4. O novo SoC quad-core da Samsung não quebra recordes, mas convence com um desempenho adequado para o uso rotineiro no Galaxy A3.

Ao contrário disso, a qualidade dos módulos de câmera instalados deixa uma impressão confusa. Enquanto fotos tiradas em boas condições de luz são muito atraentes com a sua boa nitidez e boa resolução, uma condição menos ideal, muitas vezes causa decepção. O foco automático e muitas vezes impreciso e lento, e a tendência de sub expor as fotos piora as coisas.

A Samsung criou um smartphone de gama média especial que consegue convencer com uma excelente tela e excelente duração de bateria.

Alternativas com preço similar para o Galaxy A3, que tenham um tamanho de tela similar, são raras. Os usuários que não tenham problemas com uma tela maior poderiam dar uma olhada no, por exemplo, um pouco mais caro Galaxy S5 que conseguiu uma avaliação geral ainda melhor de 87 % me nossos testes.

Esta é uma versão reduzida da análise original. Você pode ler a análise completa em inglês aqui.

Samsung Galaxy A3 2016 - 02/29/2016 v5(old)
Andreas Kilian

Acabamento
93%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 90%
Mouse
89%
Conectividade
45 / 60 → 74%
Peso
94%
Bateria
94%
Pantalha
91%
Desempenho do jogos
14 / 63 → 21%
Desempenho da aplicação
32 / 70 → 46%
Temperatura
93%
Ruído
100%
Audio
56 / 91 → 62%
Camera
65%
Médio
72%
85%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A3 (2016)
Andreas Kilian, 2016-03- 6 (Update: 2016-03-15)