Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 71.5 | 79.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 13 | Android 5.1 |
| -- | 2015-08-13 |
| 6.63 x 3.02 x 0.33 inches | 6.03 x 3.00 x 0.30 inches |
| 6.99 ounces | 6.03 ounces |
| Cerulean Blue, Cloudwing Grey and Flowing Purple | Black, Gold, Gray and White |
| -- | Glass; metal |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| -- | $ 415.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.8 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2460 x 1080 pixels | 1440 x 2560 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | Super AMOLED |
| 395 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| 5000 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | Capacitive, Multi-touch |
| 10.6 | 9.4 |
| Performance | |
| MediaTek Helio G99 MT6789 (6 nm) chipset | Exynos 7 Octa 7420 chipset |
| Octa-Core 2200 MHz processor | ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Single-Core 2100 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G57 MC2 GPU | ARM Mali-T760 MP8 GPU |
| 9.27 | 8.46 |
| Storage | |
| 128 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1 TB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 15.42 | 7.7 |
| Camera | |
| 64.00 MP + 13.00 MP | 16.00 MP + 5.00 MP |
| -- | f/1.90 aperture |
| -- | 28.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.38 inches (1/2.6") sensor |
| -- | 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| -- | 2560 x 1440 (60 fps) (Quad HD / 2K) slow motion video |
| 8.69 | 10.01 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G) and HSDPA | LTE-A (4G), HSPA, HSUPA, EDGE, GPRS, GSM and CDMA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.6 | 6.8 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Battery | 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| -- | 336 hours standby time 22 hours talk time |
| 6.8 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | -- |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
The Galaxy Note 5 is much better than the Blackview Oscal Tiger 12, having a 79.3 score against 71.5. The Galaxy Note 5 construction is a little bit thinner and somewhat lighter than Blackview Oscal Tiger 12. Both phones in this review include Android OS, but Galaxy Note 5 has the previous 5.1 version while Blackview Oscal Tiger 12 has Android 13.
The Blackview Oscal Tiger 12 has a sharper display than Galaxy Note 5, because although it has a bit lower 1080 x 2460 resolution and a just a little less pixels per display inch, it also counts with a bigger screen. Blackview Oscal Tiger 12 has a very superior storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Galaxy Note 5, because it has a slot for an SD memory card that allows a maximum of 1 TB and 64 GB more internal storage.
Blackview Oscal Tiger 12 has a little bit better processing power than Galaxy Note 5, because it has more RAM and a larger number of cores. The Blackview Oscal Tiger 12 features a very superior battery lifetime than Samsung Galaxy Note 5, because it has a 67% bigger battery size. The Samsung Galaxy Note 5 captures much better photos and videos than Blackview Oscal Tiger 12, although it has a back camera with a much worse 16 mega pixels resolution.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.