Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarSamsung Galaxy A35 5G review - A powerful all-rounder with Galaxy S design for under $300
Samsung's mid-tier Galaxy A series is very popular thanks to its attractive price-performance ratio and the manufacturer gives it a yearly update. From a technical point of view, changes are mostly few and far between, however, with the help of a rejuvenation process, smartphones still manage to get numerous improvements along the way. The same is true with the Samsung Galaxy A35.
In the areas of features and performance, the Galaxy A35 currently holds the number two spot in the Galaxy A lineup, closely behind the top model, the Galaxy A55. Regarding the SoC, the review candidate even manages to reach onto what was once the top shelf. With the Exynos 1380, the Galaxy A35 uses the same SoC found in last year's Galaxy A flagship, the Galaxy A54.
Externally, the Galaxy A35 also enjoys several improvements. Things have changed quite a bit, especially when it comes to the case.
Possible competitors compared
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.9 % | 05/2024 | Samsung Galaxy A35 5G Exynos 1380, Mali-G68 MP5 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2340x1080 | |
| 82.2 % | 11/2023 | Motorola Moto G84 SD 695 5G, Adreno 619 | 166.8 g | 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.9 % | 04/2024 | Nothing Phone (2a) Dimensity 7200, Mali-G610 MP4 | 190 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2412x1084 | |
| 84.9 % | 04/2023 | Samsung Galaxy A34 5G Dimensity 1080, Mali-G68 MP4 | 199 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2340x1080 | |
| 87.4 % | 05/2024 | Samsung Galaxy A55 5G Exynos 1480, Xclipse 530 | 213 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 03/2024 | Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G Dimensity 8300-Ultra, Mali-G615 MP6 | 186 g | 512 GB UFS 4.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2712x1220 |
Case - The Galaxy A35 has a glass rear panel and Galaxy S design
Compared to its predecessor, the Galaxy A35 has made a forward leap regarding case quality. Both visually and in terms of the material appearance, it edges quite close to the much more expensive Galaxy S series smartphones.
Unlike the Galaxy A34, the back panel is now made of glass instead of plastic and the Super AMOLED display is protected by Gorilla Glass Victus+ rather than the Gorilla Glas 5 used previously. The display bezels have also gotten somewhat slimmer. Samsung continues to use plastic for the case frame. The only disadvantage of a glass upgrade: With almost identical dimensions, at 209 grams, the Galaxy A35 is significantly heavier than its predecessor.
The selfie camera has some additional design improvements. While the Galaxy A34's camera was housed inside a teardrop-shaped recess, the Galaxy A35 possesses a much more modern punch-hole design. Like its predecessor, the very well-built, solid review candidate is IP67 certified which makes it both water and dustproof.
Samsung offers the Galaxy A35 in four very understated case colors. In addition to our review device's Awesome Navy, the pastel tones Awesome Ice, Awesome Lemon and Awesome Lilac are also available.
Features - The Galaxy A35 comes with up to 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage
Samsung's mid-range smartphone is available in two storage variants. The 128 GB entry-level version offers 6 GB of RAM and costs $399 on Samsung's online store. For $449, you get the bigger version of the Galaxy A35 which comes with 256 GB of storage as well as automatically packing 8 GB of RAM.
The internal storage can be expanded by up to 1 TB by using a microSD card to which app data can also be outsourced. If you can do without the microSD card, you can fit two 2 nano SIM cards in the slot. Unlike the Galaxy A34, eSIMs can also be activated.
In terms of the usual features, compared to the predecessor, nothing has changed. USB-C 2.0, Bluetooth 5.3, NFC as well as stereo speakers continue to be on board and HD streaming is also supported thanks to DRM Widevine L1. The Camera2 API runs with a limited support level. If you install third-party camera apps, they only have limited access to the camera's features.
microSD Card Reader
With our microSD reference card, the Angelbird AV Pro V60, the Galaxy A35's card reader achieved very good data transfer speeds for a mid-range smartphone. In particular, it did considerably better than the Galaxy A34's card reader.
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
Software - Android 14 and 5-year updates
Samsung has equipped the Galaxy A35 with Android 14 and its in-house One UI 6.1 user interface. The manufacturer offers a strong selling point in the form of long-term updates. The Galaxy A35 promises to receive 4-year-long OS upgrades, allowing it to enjoy Android 18. Samsung aims to roll out security patches over 5 years.
In addition to the obligatory Google and Samsung tools, the Galaxy A35's software features also include the password safe, Samsung Knox and, unfortunately, quite a bit of bloatware. However, apps such as Facebook, Spotify, Temu, games such as Candy Crush Saga or Microsoft tools such as OneDrive or LinkedIn, can all be deleted if necessary.
Communication and GNSS - WiFi 6 for the Galaxy A35
Unlike its predecessor, Samsung has given the Galaxy A35 a slightly more extensive range of mobile communication frequencies with which you should get a signal nearly everywhere. However, when all is said and done, the differences are small. Unlike the Galaxy A34, the A35 also supports the LTE band 25 and the 5G bands 5 and 66.
The Galaxy A35 also offers more when it comes to Wi-Fi. It has WiFi 6 on board whereas the predecessor only came with WiFi 5. Together with our Asus ROG Rapture AXE1100 reference router, the smartphone achieved very stable transfer speeds of around 830 MBits/s when sending and receiving data, helping it join the pack of mid-tier front runners. By contrast, the Galaxy A34 didn't manage over 679 MBit/s.
| Networking | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
|
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
|
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 |
|
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz |
|
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz |
|
The Galaxy A35 determines its location via the satellite navigation services GPS (L1), Glonass (L1), Galileo (E1), Beidou (B1, B1C) and QZSS (L1). In tests, it managed to do this with an accuracy of up to 2 meters.
The smartphone passed the practical test with distinction and, in doing so, it has proved itself to be very well suited to navigation tasks. Apart from some small deviations, the Galaxy A35 recorded a 10-kilometer bike tour route very accurately. This makes it just as accurate as the Garmin Vent 2 fitness smartwatch which came along for the ride for comparison purposes.
Telephone functions and voice quality - With eSIM support
Either two nano SIM cards or a nano SIM card and a microSD card with a capacity of up to 1TB, fit in the Galaxy A35's hybrid SIM slot. Alternatively, you can also activate an eSIM. VoLTE and Wi-Fi calls are also supported.
The Galaxy A35 delivered good voice quality in our test. When making landline and mobile network test calls, the caller and receiver understood each other clearly. The ambient noise reduction also worked well in louder environments. In hands-free mode, the clarity remained high but the voices sounded a touch muffled.
Cameras - Triple camera almost unchanged from its predecessor
Regarding the camera setup, not much has changed compared to last year. Although the selfie camera is now housed in a punch-hole instead of a teardrop-shaped recess, it still takes 13 MP photos and videos are recorded the same as the main camera at a maximum of 4K and 30 frames per second. Compared to the Galaxy A34, the good image image quality also remains unchanged. In portrait mode, the selfie camera delivers attractive bokeh effects and its photos are characterized by strong colors which don't appear exaggerated.
The triple camera on the rear still consists of 3 lenses which possess almost identical specs. Only the main camera has received a small update with it now capable of taking 50 MP images instead of the previous 48 MP. Everything else is as you were. The main camera uses a f/1.8 aperture and takes 12 MP photos by using 4-in-1 pixel binning. In addition, there is an 8 MP ultra wide-angle camera (f/2.2) as well as a 5 MP macro camera (f/2.4).
In daylight, the main camera takes nice shots which are, typical for Samsung, very saturated. This has the effect of making them appear as bright as they are vivid - that's not everyone's cup of tea. The intense contrast gives the photos great vibrancy even though not much of this can be seen in darker image areas.
At night, the camera is also impressive, capturing colors fairly realistically compared to many other mid-range smartphones. To get closer to subjects you'll have to use the digital zoom due to the lack of a zoom lens. At 2x magnification, it still manages to deliver relatively acceptable results but, beyond that, things quickly get blurry.
The main camera can record videos in 4K at 30 frames per second and is also supported by an optical image stabilizer. You don't often see this combination in the mid-tier area. If you switch to 1080p, 60 frames per second is possible.
Just like the main camera, the ultra wide-angle camera takes good images which the camera software then matches with strong color reproduction. They are not particularly sharp and quickly become noisy in darker image areas. The 5 MP macro camera operates at a distance of 3 to 5 centimeters from the subject and takes decent images. However, the latter doesn't do anything the main camera can't do with its digital zoom.
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.
Daylight image 1Daylight image 2Ultra wide-angle5x zoomLowlight image
Finally, we took a closer look at the main camera under controlled lighting conditions. With optimum lighting, colors are captured accurately (max. Delta E of 10.47) and the test chart is displayed clearly. At 1 lux low light, the image is significantly darker but both the chart itself and its colors remain completely visible.
Accessories and warranty - Samsung Care+ as an optional add on insurance
The Samsung Galaxy A35's box contents include a USB cable, a SIM tool, a quick guide as well as a warranty booklet. The smartphone supports up to 25-watt charging. Samsung offers a compatible charger but it is currently unavailable on its online store.
The Galaxy A35 comes with a 24-month warranty. This can be supplemented by the Samsung Care+ insurance package which runs for up to two years and includes optional theft cover. Depending on the selected tariff, Samsung Care+ for the Galaxy A35 has a price of between $8 per month and $129 (2-year plan, one-off payment) US dollars.
Input devices & Operation - Always-On display and configurable function keys
Operating the Galaxy A35 via its responsive, 120 Hz response time touchscreen is a pleasantly smooth experience. In parallel, the vibration motor runs quietly, giving precise haptic feedback. The Always-On screen permanently displays information concerning the time, battery level and, if desired, notifications.
By default, the function key on the right-hand side of the case opens the Bixby assistant, however, this can also be reverted to a classic power button in the settings. Pressing the function key twice opens the camera or a preferred app. If you only have one hand free, the smartphone can be comfortably used one-handed. In doing so, the display area is shrunk in both width and height by around a third.
An optical fingerprint sensor takes care of biometric security and a one-time fingerprint save is subsequently recognised accurately. Likewise, 2D face recognition is also possible via the selfie camera and, although it works a tick faster, it is also less secure.
Display - A Super AMOLED display at more than 1700 nits
The Galaxy A35's display shines brightly. With a pure white background, we measured an average of 912.4 cd/m², a comparably above-average score. As a comparison: At 929.9 cd/m², the Galaxy A34 has practically the same brightness.
With equally distributed light and dark display areas, (APL18 measurement) the panel brightness increases significantly once more, where it is possible to display SDR content at up to 1563 cd/m² (Galaxy A34: 1544 cd/m²), and even HDR at up to 1796 cd/m². At the lowest brightness setting, the luminance falls to a low 1.51 cd/m².
On every brightness setting, the Super AMOLED display flickers quite consistently at around 240 Hz. This is an area where sensitive users can reckon with complaints. The Galaxy A35 doesn't offer a DC dimming mode.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 904 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.1
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.60 | Motorola Moto G84 P-OLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Nothing Phone (2a) AMOLED, 2412x1084, 6.70 | Samsung Galaxy A34 5G Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.60 | Samsung Galaxy A55 5G Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.60 | Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G AMOLED, 2712x1220, 6.67 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 1% | 18% | -11% | 13% | 24% | |
| Brightness middle | 904 | 894 -1% | 1033 14% | 922 2% | 962 6% | 1034 14% |
| Brightness | 912 | 889 -3% | 1042 14% | 930 2% | 967 6% | 1035 13% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 94 -3% | 96 -1% | 98 1% | 99 2% | 96 -1% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 1.1 48% | 1.6 24% | 2.5 -19% | 1.6 24% | 1.1 48% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.8 | 2.81 -0% | 2.5 11% | 3.6 -29% | 2.6 7% | 1.9 32% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 3 -36% | 1.2 45% | 2.7 -23% | 1.5 32% | 1.4 36% |
| Gamma | 2.1 105% | 2.252 98% | 2.07 106% | 2.09 105% | 2.13 103% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 6478 100% | 7122 91% | 6482 100% | 6661 98% | 6382 102% | 6674 97% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 240 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 240 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17803 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
A series of measurements with fixed zoom and various brightness settings (at minimum brightness, the amplitude curve appears very flat but the scaling is to blame for this. In the info box, you can see an enlarged version of the amplitude at minimum brightness.)
Samsung has calibrated its mid-range smartphone's display very well. Switching from the pre-installed Vivid mode to Natural and leaving the white balance on the medium setting, at a Delta E < 3, the Super AMOLED display's color deviation is outwith the perceptible range.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1.831 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.902 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.929 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.4 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.298 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.7 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
Even in sunshine, content can be easily read on the bright display. Anyone wishing to set the brightness manually, will not be able to coax the maximum brightness from the stable viewing angle, Super AMOLED display since a maximum of only 420 cd/m² is possible.
Performance - The Galaxy A35 has a Samsung Exynos 1380
Samsung has equipped the Galaxy A35 with the Samsung Exynos 1380 which could be found in last year's Galaxy A top model, the Galaxy A54. In the year 2024, the eight-core SoC's performance is more than solid and helps our review candidate achieve powerful everyday performance that is only occasionally spoiled by the odd stutter.
In the synthetic benchmarks, the Galaxy A35 maintains a respectable distance from the Galaxy A55 whose lead is, however, not particularly large. The same applies to the comparison with the Galaxy A34 which is, all in all, not that far behind the Galaxy A35. However, in the AI benchmarks, the predecessor scores significantly better thanks to its MediaTek Dimensity 1080 processor.
| UL Procyon AI Inference for Android - Overall Score NNAPI | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Average of class Smartphone (207 - 84787, n=148, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (5835 - 6152, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
As the GPU benchmarks show, with its ARM Mali G68 MP5 GPU, the Galaxy A35 can also play more graphically demanding games smoothly. Compared to the competition, things are similar to the synthetic benchmarks with a mid-table placing the best the device can offer. The Galaxy A55 is consistently a few frames ahead of the review candidate but also has to admit defeat to the Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G which delivers the best performance among its peers.
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7: T-Rex Onscreen | 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
GFXBench 3.0: on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL | 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
GFXBench 3.1: on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
GFXBench: on screen Car Chase Onscreen | 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | 3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Score | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 / T-Rex Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / Manhattan Onscreen OGL | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 / 1080p Manhattan Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 / Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Car Chase Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
When it comes to surfing the internet, the Galaxy A35 scores well, loading complex websites quickly and, in the benchmarks, it's in the middle of the pack.
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (94.6 - 119.6, n=5) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Firefox 124.2.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=154, last 2 years) | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Chrome 123.0.6312.99) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (70.5 - 104, n=4) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| WebXPRT 4 - Overall | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Firefox 124.2.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (97 - 123, n=5) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 202, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Firefox 124.2.0) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=118, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (124 - 145, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (33801 - 36155, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=215, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Firefox 124.2.0) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G (Chrome 111.0.5563.116) | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) (Firefox 124.2.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G84 (Chrome 118) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 1380 (1099 - 1209, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Chrome 123.0.6312.100) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G (Chrome 123) | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G (Chrome 122.0.6261.64) | |
* ... smaller is better
With its UFS 2.2 storage, the Galaxy A35 achieves solid data transfer speeds and keeps loading times relatively short. However, it lags behind the competition and has to make way for the Galaxy A55 and the Galaxy A34 whose memory controllers work more efficiently.
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | Motorola Moto G84 | Nothing Phone (2a) | Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 61% | 189% | 92% | 146% | 641% | 73% | 213% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 529.32 | 506.9 -4% | 1028.37 94% | 887.41 68% | 1688.53 219% | 3824.7 623% | 710 ? 34% | 1526 ? 188% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 270 | 511.5 89% | 952 253% | 494.67 83% | 831.44 208% | 3642.57 1249% | 518 ? 92% | 1139 ? 322% |
| Random Read 4KB | 244.24 | 195.8 -20% | 273.19 12% | 216.75 -11% | 351.47 44% | 355.7 46% | 189.1 ? -23% | 250 ? 2% |
| Random Write 4KB | 62.59 | 174.7 179% | 311.8 398% | 206.14 229% | 132.11 111% | 467.74 647% | 181.5 ? 190% | 275 ? 339% |
Games - 60fps is the exception
The Galaxy A35 cut a good figure in the game tests, running games smoothly even at higher graphics settings.
However, high frame rates of 60fps and higher are an exception and are generally only possible if you can manage without some graphics details. As our Gamebench tests show, the Galaxy A35 still performs well. At almost 40fps, PUBG Mobile runs averagely on HD settings without any dips in the frame rate. Genshin Impact also runs well at maximum graphics details, sometimes even managing to hit 50fps when rendering less demanding environments. All in all, using Gamebench, we also measured an average of nearly 40fps here.
Emissions - The Galaxy A35 has good stereo speakers
Temperature
Using the Burnout benchmark, we examined how the Galaxy A35 handles sustained load. After processing the demanding benchmark for a whole hour, the Galaxy A35's surface heated up to over 42 degrees and you can definitely feel this temperature when holding the smartphone. However, from a thermal point of view, it is completely harmless and a result of a test scenario that is unlikely to happen in real-life situations.
Internally, the sustained stress was unable to lay a glove on the Galaxy A35, almost always having access to its full performance capabilities. This could be seen in the 3DMark Wild Life stress test which attested that the smartphone is close to 100% stable.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.3 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.5 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.2 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
3DMark Wild Life Stress Test
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy A34 5G | |
| Nothing Phone (2a) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G84 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A55 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
| Solar Bay Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G | |
Speakers
At 90.6 dB(A), the Galaxy A35's stereo speakers sound quite powerful, producing balanced mids and highs, even at maximum volume. Voices are reproduced very well, although nearly all bass tones are absent.
Anyone prioritising better sound should connect the smartphone to an external audio device such as headphones via USB-C or Bluetooth 5.3. The Galaxy A35 is stingy when it comes to Bluetooth audio codecs, with SBC, AAC, aptX, LDAC and Samsung's Seamless Codec (SSC) only providing a relatively small selection.
Samsung Galaxy A35 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A34 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Battery runtime - Up to 25-watt charging
Power consumption
Under load, the Galaxy A35 performs quite economically but is generally more power-hungry in everyday situations than its predecessor.
The smartphone can be charged at up to 25 watts and, in tests, it took around 1 hour 45 minutes to fully charge its 5000 mAh battery. It takes 36 minutes to reach 50 percent charge, 70 percent takes 57 minutes and 85 percent, 1 hour 29 minutes. Since the smartphone doesn't come with a charger, we charged the device using a Ugreen 65-watt adapter.
The Galaxy A35 doesn't support wireless charging.
| Off / Standby |   0.12 / 0.28 Watt |
| Idle |  0.89 / 1.99 / 2.14 Watt |
| Load |
4.57 / 12.31 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G 5000 mAh | Motorola Moto G84 5000 mAh | Nothing Phone (2a) 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A34 5G 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A55 5G 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G 5000 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 1380 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 28% | 11% | 24% | 9% | -26% | -43% | 12% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.89 | 1 -12% | 0.81 9% | 0.69 22% | 0.85 4% | 1.11 -25% | 1.068 ? -20% | 0.896 ? -1% |
| Idle Average * | 1.99 | 1.3 35% | 2.01 -1% | 1.61 19% | 1.51 24% | 1.14 43% | 3.04 ? -53% | 1.448 ? 27% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.14 | 1.4 35% | 2.07 3% | 1.66 22% | 1.71 20% | 1.16 46% | 3.18 ? -49% | 1.621 ? 24% |
| Load Average * | 4.57 | 3.5 23% | 4.16 9% | 4.01 12% | 4.87 -7% | 12.33 -170% | 8.77 ? -92% | 5.61 ? -23% |
| Load Maximum * | 12.31 | 5 59% | 7.91 36% | 6.5 47% | 11.73 5% | 15.34 -25% | 12.6 ? -2% | 8.4 ? 32% |
* ... smaller is better
Power consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Power consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
Battery life
With its 5000 mAh battery, the Galaxy A35 achieves good battery life. During simulated internet surfing, the device ran for 15 hours, while the playback of an HD video in a continuous loop resulted in a battery life of 23 hours. The competition also delivers quite similar scores. However, in a direct comparison with the Galaxy A34, the review candidate has to make some concessions since, overall, it has slightly better stamina.
| Samsung Galaxy A35 5G 5000 mAh | Motorola Moto G84 5000 mAh | Nothing Phone (2a) 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A34 5G 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A55 5G 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -11% | 7% | 19% | -1% | -15% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2600 | 1997 -23% | 2522 -3% | 2975 14% | 2202 -15% | 1815 -30% |
| H.264 | 1401 | 1002 -28% | 1513 8% | 1363 -3% | 1511 8% | 967 -31% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 902 | 908 1% | 1011 12% | 1024 14% | 1077 19% | 942 4% |
| Load | 262 | 277 6% | 293 12% | 395 51% | 220 -16% | 251 -4% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Samsung Galaxy A35
The Samsung Galaxy A35 behaves similarly to Apple smartphones. Every year, they receive a refresh that includes some new added features and anyone who already has last year's model needn't necessarily make the switch since the innovations make it hard to justify. This is different, however, if your previous smartphone has a few years under its belt. Because, then the opportunity is worth seizing to be technologically bang up to date.
The Samsung Galaxy A35 differentiates itself from its predecessor, but only when it comes to the details. It offers a slightly faster SoC, support for eSIMs and comes equipped with Android 14 rather than Android 13. What makes it particularly interesting for Galaxy upgraders is its fresh design and premium materials which nudge it visually and haptically closer to the Galaxy S series.
Viewing its technical specs objectively and outwith the Samsung universe, overall, the Galaxy A35 still makes a positive impression. The Galaxy A35 is a powerful mid-range smartphone which offers plenty of value despite now costing around $330. Buyers don't just get a bright Super AMOLED display, a good camera and good battery life but also benefit from lengthy updates, solid everyday performance and a premium design.
The Samsung Galaxy A35 offers a powerful feature set at an attractive price and combines all of that with a high-quality design.
In some areas, Samsung's smartphone update is a little too reserved. For example, the charging speed is the same as its predecessor and is limited to a rather slow 25 watts. In addition, there is no wireless charging and One UI 6.1 is still home to quite a bit of bloatware.
Galaxy A35 alternatives: Amongst other devices, you also get a 120 Hz display and good performance with the Motorola Moto G84 and Xiaomi Poco X6 Pro 5G which can both be had for under $300. On top of that, the Xiaomi smartphone scores points for a significantly faster SoC.
Price and availablity
Samsung Galaxy A35 5G
-
05/03/2024 v7
Manuel Masiero
More articles related to this device
Samsung Galaxy A35 5G (Galaxy A30 Series)Related Articles
Transparency
The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review.
Pricecompare
