Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 75.4 | 83.8 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| 2015-10-29 | 2019-03-15 |
| 5.90 x 3.07 x 0.36 inches | 6.24 x 2.93 x 0.30 inches |
| 5.96 ounces | 5.86 ounces |
| Black and White | Black, Blue, Coral and White |
| -- | Plastic |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| $ 135.00 | $ 202.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.4 inches | 6.4 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2340 x 1080 pixels |
| AMOLED | Super AMOLED |
| 544 pixels per inch | 403 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.7 | 8.1 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994 chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 9610 chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Octa-Core 2000 MHz) processor | ARM Cortex-A73 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2300 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 430 GPU | Mali-G72 MP3 GPU |
| 9.09 | 9.27 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 128 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 1,95 TB) external memory slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 14.66 | 14.14 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 25.00 MP + 25.00 MP |
| f/2.00 aperture | f/1.70 aperture |
| -- | 27.00mm focal length |
| -- | 0.36 inches (1/2.8") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (30 fps) (Full HD) video resolution |
| -- | 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 9.79 | 10.12 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| -- | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 5.5 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3760mAh Battery | 4000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.68 | 5.92 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| -- | FM Radio |
Comparison review
Samsung Galaxy A50 is much better than the Motorola DROID Turbo 2, with a global score of 83.8 against 75.4. The Samsung Galaxy A50 body is a lot newer, a little lighter and somewhat thinner than Motorola DROID Turbo 2. Motorola DROID Turbo 2 has a little bit better looking screen than Galaxy A50, because although it has a little smaller display, it also counts with a greater count of pixels per screen inch and a better resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels.
The Motorola DROID Turbo 2 counts with just a bit bigger storage capacity to store more games and applications than Galaxy A50, because although it has just 64 GB internal storage capacity, it also counts with a SD extension slot that admits a maximum of 1,95 TB. The Samsung Galaxy A50 features just a little better performance than Motorola DROID Turbo 2, and although they both have a Octa-Core processing unit, the Samsung Galaxy A50 also has more RAM.
The Galaxy A50 has just a bit longer battery performance than Motorola DROID Turbo 2, because it has a 4000mAh battery size instead of 3760mAh. Galaxy A50 has a bit better camera than Motorola DROID Turbo 2, and although they both have the same (Full HD) video resolution and the same video frame rate, the Galaxy A50 also has a camera with more MP and a larger camera aperture.
Galaxy A50 is a lot more expensive than the Motorola DROID Turbo 2, but you can get a better phone for that few more dollars.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.