An independent comparison of the newly released Huawei Y9s and the Samsung A50 has shown that in many ramifications and features, the Huawei Y9s is superior to the Samsung A50. In the review conducted by Rick Aqua, a smartphone enthusiast and reviewer, he revealed that the Huawei Y9s pulled a Geekbench score of 319 single-core and 1273 multi-core score, against Samsung A50’s 344 single-core and 1177 multi-core score. Geekbench is an internationally recognized review mechanism. It is a processor benchmarking program. It runs a series of tests on a processor and times how long the processor takes to complete the tasks. The quicker the central processing unit of a device completes the tests, the higher the GeekBench score.
The new Huawei Y9s, which sold out in its first four hours, is currently the talk of town. Its amazing features are so functional, users are saying it rivals other high-end phones, though, it is just an entry-level phone in the Huawei smartphone family.
According to the review, both the Huawei Y9s and the Samsung A50 have similar patterns, but the Y9s feels more premium and slightly heavier, weighing 206g against the 166g of the A50. The Huawei Y9s offers a 6.59 inch ultra-wide full view as against the A50’s 6.4 and when the skin-to-body ratio was calculated, the Huawei Y9s had more room and space for user’s hands to navigate the width of its screen better than the A50. Huawei Y9s has 91% skin-to-body ratio compared to 84% skin-to-body ratio of the A50.
Huawei Y9s processes and opens faster than the Samsung A50 and it feels more sensitive, especially with its super-fast biometric fingerprint sensor. The Y9s has 4000MAH battery, with 128 GB storage and 6GB RAM while A50 has 4000MAH, 128 GB and 4GB RAM. The A50’s lower RAM must be responsible for its slower pace in opening apps and responding to touch.
In terms of performance and everyday usage, the Huawei Y9s beats the Samsung A50. The A50 sells for GHS1649 while the Y9s sells for GHS1499, offering better value for money.
Watch the full review and performance comparison here: