Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 71.5 | 80.2 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| Android 13 | -- |
| 0000-00-00 | 2015-08-21 |
| 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 sapphire, Gold platinum, Silver titan and White pearl |
| -- | Glass and Metal |
| -- | Scratch-Resistant Glass |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.8 inches | 5.7 inches |
| 2460 x 1080 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| IPS LCD | Super AMOLED |
| 395 pixels per inch | 515 pixels per inch |
| 5000 cd/m2 brightness | -- |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 10.6 | 8.6 |
| Performance | |
| MediaTek Helio G99 MT6789 (6 nm) chipset | Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 7420 chipset |
| Octa-Core 2200 MHz processor | ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit, 14 nm (Octa-Core 2100 MHz) processor |
| 8 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Mali-G57 MC2 GPU | Mali-T760 MP8 GPU |
| 9.27 | 9.18 |
| 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), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.6 | 6.3 |
| Battery Life | |
| 5000mAh Battery | 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 6.8 | 4.96 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 4.2 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| Fingerprint ID Scanner | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
| FM Radio | -- |
Comparison review
Galaxy Note5 is better than OSCAL Tiger 12, having a overall score of 80.2 against 71.5. The Galaxy Note5 construction is a little thinner and lighter than the OSCAL Tiger 12. The OSCAL Tiger 12 has a much better looking display than Galaxy Note5, because although it has a quite lower 1080 x 2460 pixels resolution and a just a bit worse quantity of pixels per inch in the screen, it also counts with a larger screen.
The OSCAL Tiger 12 features a bit faster processing unit than Samsung Galaxy Note5, and although they both have the same number of cores, the OSCAL Tiger 12 also has more RAM memory. Samsung Galaxy Note5 shoots better videos and photos than OSCAL Tiger 12, although it has a back-facing camera with much less mega pixels.
The OSCAL Tiger 12 features much more storage capacity for apps and games than Galaxy Note5, because it has 128 GB internal storage and a slot for external memory cards that holds up to 1 TB. OSCAL Tiger 12 counts with a superior battery performance than Galaxy Note5, because it has 5000mAh of battery capacity.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.