Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) review: Just the job

Just the job

GSMArena Team, 4 August 2017.

Synthetic benchmarks

The Galaxy J5 (2017) is powered by Samsung's own Exynos 7870 chipset, much like the J7 (2017). That's actually one of the most significant changes introduced with this year's J5 - it's now out of quad-core territory and has a proper octa-core CPU in charge of number crunching. Neither the J5 (2017) nor the J7 (2017) have been deemed worthy of the newer Exynos 7880 that you can find in the A-series, but it's still a great statement that the J5 now shares hardware with the J7 instead of the entry-level J3.

Less exciting is the amount of RAM, which at 2GB is might be a little limiting on the number of apps you can quickly switch between.

Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) review

You know our usual benchmark drill starts off with some GeekBench, and we can't really call the results surprising. The single-core numbers of the J5 (2017) are virtually identical to the J7 (2017)'s, and in turn to the J7 (2016)'s - we resorted to GeekBench 3.0 for that comparison. Phones with the Snapdragon 625 inside do outperform the J5 (2017), but that's a different tier chip, in all fairness. The Huawei P10 Lite posts even higher scores, but even it gets defeated by the Xperia XA1 on occasion.

GeekBench 4.1 (single-core)

Higher is better

  • Sony Xperia XA1
    887
  • Moto G5 Plus
    847
  • Huawei P10 lite
    834
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    734
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    731
  • Nokia 5
    672
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    670
  • Moto G5
    618

GeekBench 4 (single-core)

Higher is better

  • Huawei P10 lite
    886
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    832
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    819
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    800
  • Moto G5 Plus
    799
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    795
  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    764
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    695
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    693
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    655
  • Nokia 5
    647
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    638

GeekBench 3 (single-core)

Higher is better

  • Sony Xperia XA1
    1025
  • Huawei P10 lite
    1008
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    938
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    924
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    922
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    755
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    751
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    745
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    690
  • Nokia 5
    678
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    672
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    471

In multi-core the J5 (2017) trails its bigger brother ever so slightly, but not to a point to make us wonder if there's something wrong. The results are all over the place here, with the Xperia XA1 and P10 Lite beating the J5 in v4.0, only to lose in v4.1 - Primate Labs say v4.1 is more accurate.

GeekBench 4.1 (multi-core)

Higher is better

  • Moto G5 Plus
    4255
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    3779
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    3667
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    3611
  • Huawei P10 lite
    3344
  • Nokia 5
    2851
  • Moto G5
    2580
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    1819

GeekBench 4 (multi-core)

Higher is better

  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    3958
  • Moto G5 Plus
    3789
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    3554
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    3388
  • Huawei P10 lite
    3307
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    3256
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    3016
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    3011
  • Nokia 5
    2728
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    2719
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    2621
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    2099

GeekBench 3 (multi-core)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    4997
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    4617
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    4584
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    4539
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    4187
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    4154
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    4140
  • Huawei P10 lite
    4004
  • Nokia 5
    3286
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    3244
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    2774
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    1437

We then turn to Basemark OS II 2.0 to get an idea of the overall performance that can be expected out of the J5 (2017) compared to its rivals. Well, slightly better than the J7 (2016) and the Moto Z Play (the old one, with a Snapdragon 625, mind you), but nowhere near the numbers of the P10 lite and Xperia XA1, not to mention Samsung's own A5 (2017). Apparently, something went south with the J7 (2017)'s runs of this benchmark, so disregard its lowly score.

Basemark OS 2.0

Higher is better

  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    1417
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    1351
  • Huawei P10 lite
    1284
  • Moto Z2 Play
    1259
  • Moto G5 Plus
    1089
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    1050
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    1038
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    1031
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    1007
  • Nokia 5
    982
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    832
  • Moto G5
    795
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    532
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    349

In Antutu we observe a wide gap between the Exynos 7870-equipped Js and other competing phones, Snapdragon 430s excluded. We attribute a lot of that to the chip's GPU, which doesn't allow the phones to shine in the 3D-graphics-heavy v6 of the benchmark.

AnTuTu 6

Higher is better

  • Moto Z2 Play
    68680
  • Moto G5 Plus
    63390
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    62316
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    62217
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    61616
  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    61020
  • Huawei P10 lite
    60895
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    60707
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    49094
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    46822
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    46400
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    44089
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    44062
  • Moto G5
    43755
  • Nokia 5
    43392
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    27487

The graphics-focused GFXBench does a good job exposing the Exynos 7870's GPU for what it is - an average performer in 720p which is underpowered to drive 1080p. Well, good thing then that the Galaxy J5 (2017)'s display is 720p, right? Even so, the Snapdragon 430's Adreno 506 is capable of achieving higher frame rates - compare the numbers of the Redmi 4 and the Nokia 5 against the Samsung midranger. It is, however, the Xperia XA1 that is the absolute winner in onscreen tests here.

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    15
  • Moto Z2 Play
    9.9
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    9.9
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    9.8
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    9.8
  • Moto G5 Plus
    9.7
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    9.6
  • Huawei P10 lite
    7.8
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    7.2
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    7.2
  • Moto G5
    7.1
  • Nokia 5
    7.1
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    5.1
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    5.1
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    4.9
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    1.8

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Sony Xperia XA1
    19
  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    15
  • Nokia 5
    14
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    14
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    10
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    10
  • Moto Z2 Play
    9.9
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    9.7
  • Moto G5 Plus
    9.7
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    9.6
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    9.5
  • Huawei P10 lite
    8.4
  • Moto G5
    7.1
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    7
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    5.1
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    3.8

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    9.1
  • Moto Z2 Play
    6.5
  • Moto G5 Plus
    6.4
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    6.2
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    6.2
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    6.2
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    6.2
  • Huawei P10 lite
    4.6
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    4.6
  • Moto G5
    4.6
  • Nokia 5
    4.6
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    4.5
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    3.3
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    3.3
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    3.2

GFX 3.1 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Sony Xperia XA1
    15
  • Nokia 5
    10
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    10
  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    9
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    7.4
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    7.2
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    6.7
  • Moto Z2 Play
    6.5
  • Moto G5 Plus
    6.4
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    6.2
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    6.1
  • Huawei P10 lite
    5
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    4.6
  • Moto G5
    4.6
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    3.3

GFX 3.1 Car scene (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    5.2
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    3.7
  • Moto Z2 Play
    3.6
  • Moto G5 Plus
    3.5
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    3.4
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    3.4
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    3.4
  • Huawei P10 lite
    2.8
  • Moto G5
    2.5
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    2.5
  • Nokia 5
    2.5
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    2.5
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    1.9
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    1.9

GFX 3.1 Car scene (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Sony Xperia XA1
    7.9
  • Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017)
    5.2
  • Nokia 5
    5.2
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    5.1
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    3.8
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    3.7
  • Moto Z2 Play
    3.6
  • Moto G5 Plus
    3.5
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    3.4
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    3.4
  • Huawei P10 lite
    3
  • Moto G5
    2.5
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    2.5
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    1.9

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

  • Huawei P10 lite
    1521
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    1367
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    1296
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    1290
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    1226
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    1171
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    1154
  • Nokia 5
    1098
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    1041
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    999
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    946
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    576

It's a little funny to look at the Basemark X scores - the separation between the chipset tiers is so well-defined. Ignoring last year's Galaxy J5 and its Snapdragon 410 weakling of an SoC, the Exynos 7870 devices sit at the bottom, the Snapdragon 430 crowd is in the middle, and team Snapdragon 625 is on top. Okay, technically the Moto Z2 Play packs the 626, but it's just a minor update over the popular 625. The Xperia XA1 with the Helio P20 inside is a notch below the S625s, but out of reach of the S430s, while the Huawei P10 Lite slots in between the S430s.

Basemark X

Higher is better

  • Moto Z2 Play
    10536
  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 4 (S625)
    10446
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4 Prime
    10424
  • Moto G5 Plus
    10406
  • Motorola Moto Z Play
    10401
  • Sony Xperia XA1
    9714
  • Xiaomi Redmi 4
    7608
  • Huawei P10 lite
    7588
  • Nokia 6 (Chinese version)
    7522
  • Moto G5
    7475
  • Nokia 5
    7316
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017)
    5489
  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)
    5383
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017)
    5258
  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)
    2180

To sum up the charts above, Samsung's done a good pairing a 720p display and an Exynos 7870 chipset to fit into the Galaxy J5 (2017). It delivers sufficient CPU power and its GPU is just about adequate. It's not a powerhouse, the J5, but handles day-to-day task without breaking a sweat, and its graphics performance is in fact superior to the more expensive FullHD J7 (2017).

Reader comments

  • Ajie
  • 04 Mar 2021
  • Nue

The is sweet and very good

What a phone this was. I loved it to pieces. The performance and amoled display was great.

  • Tadie
  • 12 Aug 2020
  • 0wq

I loved this phone, the cam is real good, sadly mine died but i feel like getting it again