Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017) review: Marathoner with a punch

Synthetic benchmarks

Beating inside the Galaxy A7 (2017) is Samsung's own Exynos 7880. It is the updated version of last year's 7870 - one of the pioneers of mid-range efficiency of a 14nm manufacturing process. The updated version keeps the overall formula intact only introducing a small clock rate bump in the Cortex-A53 cores (1.9GHz vs. 1.6GHz). RAM speeds have also been boosted thanks to LPDDR4 support, as opposed to the 7870's LPDDR3.

Upgrades are actually more significant in the GPU department. The Mali-T830 now has a third core and a higher clock rate of 950MHz, versus 700MHz. This is great for keeping up with rendering on the 1080p screen.

Despite all of the improvements to the new Exynos 7880 SoC, it is still a mid-range chip by design. While it does offer plenty of performance for most users, paired with the A7 (2017)'s premium exterior, it makes for a rather confusing combination in value to performance terms. In hardware terms, it is much better suited to compete with its Exynos 7870 siblings, like the Galaxy J7 (2016) or A3 (2017). Over at camp Quaclomm, a nice performance peer would be the Snapdragon 625 - made on a equally efficient 14nm process. This brings to mind handsets like the Galaxy C7, Moto Z Play, Lenovo P2 or the extremely popular Xiaomi Redmi Note 4. The thing is, all of these are priced well below the EUR 400 mark.

In terms of pure price competitors, the truth is EUR 450 can buy you proper flagship-grade hardware and the performance to match. Some good examples include the OnePlus 3T, Xperia Z5 Premium or the Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus and its sibling - the Mi Note 2. So, in the name of fairness, we decided to include all of them in the performance charts.

Kicking things off with GeekBench 4 and single core performance, we see a couple of predictable patterns. For one, the Cortex-A53 cores inside the Exynos 7880 perform noticeably better than their 7870 counterparts, the bump in clock speed has paid off. On the other hand, the Snapdragon 625 takes things even further with a bump in core speed up to 2GHz. That seems to equate to about 10% better performance on average.

GeekBench 4 (single-core)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   1890
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   1854
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   1824
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   1815
•  ZTE Axon 7
   1702
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   1694
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   1546
•  vivo V5 Plus
   846
•  Oppo R9s
   845
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   843
•  Lenovo P2
   840
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   839
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   795
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   776
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   764
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   681

Multi-threaded performance is a whole different story. Just like its Snapdragon 625 counterpart from the Qualcomm realm, the Exynos 7880 can utilize all of its eight Cortex-A53 cores at the same time. This results in massive performance increases, putting the A7 (2017) a mere 200 or so points away from something like the OnePlus 3T and its top-of-the-line Snapdragon 821 chipset. Sadly, however, these numbers don't really translate to real world performance in the same way.

This definitely starts to shine through in a test like BaseMark OS II. It is a lot more compound and extensive and doesn't limit itself to CPU alone. It is good to see that the Galaxy A7 (2017) holds its own very well, effectively leading the pack of 14nm mid-ranges. That is a good sign for the performance levels of the phone's internals in general - storage is pretty snappy and the new LPDDR4 RAM is definitely faster than its predecessor.

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   3328
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   2814
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   2698
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   2677
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   2603
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   2155
•  Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
   2073
•  Huawei Mate 8
   2033
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   2004
•  ZTE Axon 7
   1889
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   1619
•  Lenovo P2
   1400
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   1368
•  vivo V5 Plus
   1325
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   1226
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   999

The same goes for AnTuTu. The A7 (2017) does lose some ground this time around, but still manages to perform respectively and in a predictable manner, pacing it right alongside its scaled-down A5 (2017) brother.

AnTuTu 6

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   165097
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   155185
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   151619
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   140871
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   140324
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   132084
•  ZTE Axon 7
   129926
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   97392
•  Huawei Mate 8
   91609
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   85162
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   74488
•  Oppo R9s
   66081
•  vivo V5 Plus
   63812
•  Lenovo P2
   63493
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   63358
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   62818
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   62454
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   62217
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   61020
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   60767
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   49094
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   45742
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016)
   35689
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016)
   35134

It appears that an extra GPU core and a clock boost can really go far in terms of pixel-pushing power. The Mali-T830MP3 outperforms the Adreno 506 inside the Snapdragon 625 without even breaking a sweat.

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   49
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   49
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   47
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   44
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   40
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   38
•  Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
   26
•  Huawei Mate 8
   18
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   18
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   15
•  ZTE Axon 7
   15
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   15
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   15
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   14
•  Oppo R9s
   10
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   9.9
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   9.9
•  vivo V5 Plus
   9.9
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   9.8
•  Lenovo P2
   9.8
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   9.8
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016)
   5.7
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016)
   5.7
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   5.1
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   4.9

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   48
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   47
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   41
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   31
•  Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
   27
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   27
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   27
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   19
•  Huawei Mate 8
   18
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   15
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   15
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   15
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   15
•  ZTE Axon 7
   12
•  Lenovo P2
   10
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   10
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   9.9
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   9.7
•  vivo V5 Plus
   9.7
•  Oppo R9s
   9.7
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   9.6
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   9.6
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   9.5
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2016)
   5.7
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2016)
   5.7

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   33
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   32
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   31
•  ZTE Axon 7
   31
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   30
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   30
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   28
•  Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
   18
•  Huawei Mate 8
   10
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   10
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   9.5
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   9.4
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   9.1
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   9.1
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   7.2
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   6.2
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   6.2
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   6.2
•  vivo V5 Plus
   6.2
•  Lenovo P2
   6.2
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   6.2
•  Oppo R9s
   6.2
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   3.2

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   33
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   32
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   30
•  Sony Xperia Z5 Premium
   19
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   18
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   15
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   15
•  ZTE Axon 7
   15
•  Huawei Mate 8
   11
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   11
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   9.4
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   9.4
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   9
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   9
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   7.3
•  Lenovo P2
   6.7
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   6.7
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   6.2
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   6.1
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   6.1
•  vivo V5 Plus
   6.1
•  Oppo R9s
   6.1
•  Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
   3.2

However, cranking up the heat does punish the Mali-T830MP3 quite a bit, 3 cores or not. A frame rate of 5.2 fps is hardly enjoyable or even playable, by any standard. However, real-life gaming on the A7 (2017) is still a blast. It not only has ample room on its 5.7-inch screen for two-handed controls, but most games scale back so gracefully nowadays that you might not even notice. Plus, Samsung's Game Launcher and Game Tools give an extra layer of control over fine details, so you can really customize your experience.

GFX 3.1 Car scene (offscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   20
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   20
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   19
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   18
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   18
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   15
•  ZTE Axon 7
   15
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   6.2
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   5.5
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   5.4
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   5.2
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   5.2
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   3.4
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   3.4
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   3.4
•  vivo V5 Plus
   3.4
•  Lenovo P2
   3.4
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   3.4
•  Oppo R9s
   3.4
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   1.9

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

•  OnePlus 3T
   20
•  Xiaomi Mi Note 2
   20
•  Xiaomi Mi 5s Plus
   19
•  ZTE Axon 7
   16
•  Lenovo Moto Z Droid
   12
•  Vivo Xplay5 Elite
   9.8
•  Samsung Galaxy S7
   7.9
•  Huawei P9 Plus
   6.8
•  Xiaomi Mi Max
   5.4
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (Helio X20)
   5.4
•  Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017)
   5.2
•  Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
   5.2
•  Samsung Galaxy A3 (2017)
   3.9
•  Lenovo P2
   3.7
•  Motorola Moto Z Play
   3.7
•  Samsung Galaxy C7
   3.4
•  Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
   3.4
•  Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
   3.4
•  vivo V5 Plus
   3.4
•  Oppo R9s
   3.4

Overall, the Galaxy A7 (2017) with its Exynos 7880 puts out quite good performance numbers for its hardware and it's on par with Qualcomm's energy efficiency champion - the Snapdragon 625.

All things considered, we couldn't really ask much more out of such a frugal chip. It easily chews through all everyday tasks and even split-window use is no trouble whatsoever. We really feel like this particular approach to making efficient mid-range chips is the perfect way of bringing true value to the average user.

That being said, if you are looking to get the most performance for your dollar in this price range, the new Galaxy A series isn't really the way to go.