Side-by-side technical data

Panasonic Eluga Ray 500 vs vivo Y83 Pro

Comparison between Panasonic Eluga Ray 500 and vivo Y83 Pro: camera, battery, fast charging, display, performance and colors, side by side. More phones from Panasonic and vivo.

The verdict

Your pick: vivo Y83 Pro, ahead on Design & display, Performance & hardware and Connectivity. Unless Camera or Battery & charging decides it for you.

Category
Category Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Design & display 4.7 5.6
Performance & hardware 1.7 2.8
Camera 5.5 3.0
Connectivity 2.9 3.6
Battery & charging 3.8 2.8

Which one is for you?

Panasonic Eluga Ray 500, if you care about…

Battery Capacity
4,000 mAh
against 3,260 mAh
Display Pixel Density
294 ppi
against 270 ppi

vivo Y83 Pro, if you care about…

RAM Capacity
4 GB
against 3 GB
Storage Type
eMMC 5.1
against eMMC 5.0
Bluetooth Version
Bluetooth 5.0
against Bluetooth 4.0
Maximum Storage Capacity
64 GB
against 32 GB

Specification comparison

Performance

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Processor Model MediaTek MT6737 MediaTek Helio P22
Processor Process Size 28 nm 12 nm Best value
Graphics GPU Mali-T720 MP1 PowerVR GE8320
Storage Type eMMC 5.0 eMMC 5.1 Best value
Maximum CPU Clock 1.25 GHz 2 GHz Best value
Maximum Storage Capacity 32 GB 64 GB Best value
AnTuTu Score — 78,000
Geekbench 6 Single-Core 141 233 Best value
Geekbench 6 Multi-Core 594 723 Best value
CPU Description Quad-core 1.25 GHz Cortex-A53 Octa-core 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53
Processor Type Quad-Core Octa-Core
64-Bit Processor Yes Yes
RAM Capacity 3 GB 4 GB Best value
RAM Type DDR3 DDR4 Best value
Expandable Storage Yes Yes
Maximum memory card 128 GB 256 GB Best value

Design

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Body Colors Champagne, Gold, Blue Purple, Black, Gold
Body Thickness 9.2 mm 7.7 mm Best value
Body Width 71.3 mm 75.2 mm
Body Height 144.3 mm 155.2 mm
Weight 163 g 152 g Best value
Usable Surface 67 % 82.7 % Best value

Battery

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Battery Capacity 4,000 mAh Best value 3,260 mAh
Battery Type Li-Ion Li-Ion
Fast Charge Power — 18 W
Battery Features Battery Level Indicator, Rechargeable Battery Level Indicator, Rechargeable

Display

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Display Aspect Ratio 16:9 19:9
Display Technology IPS LCD IPS LCD
Display Diagonal 5″ 6.22″ Best value
Display Horizontal Resolution 720 px 720 px
Display Vertical Resolution 1,280 px 1,520 px Best value
Display Pixel Density 294 ppi Best value 270 ppi
Display Features IPS LCD, Touchscreen Gorilla Glass, Touchscreen

Sensors

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Fingerprint Sensor Placement Front Rear

Sensor

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Sensor Features Fingerprint Sensor, Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor Fingerprint Sensor, Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Compass

Software

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Operating System Android 7 Android 8.1
OS Family Android Android
OS Version — 8

Connectivity

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
SIM Configurations Dual Nano-SIM Dual Nano-SIM
Cellular Bands 2G GSM 850, 2G GSM 900, 2G GSM 1800, 2G GSM 1900, 3G UMTS B900, 3G UMTS 2100, 4G LTE B3, 4G LTE B5, 4G LTE B40 2G GSM 850, 2G GSM 900, 2G GSM 1800, 2G GSM 1900, 3G UMTS B850, 3G UMTS B900, 3G UMTS 2100, 4G LTE B1, 4G LTE B3, 4G LTE B5, 4G LTE B40, 4G LTE B41
Cellular Technologies GSM, HSPA, LTE, 3G, 4G GSM, HSPA, LTE
Wi-Fi Standards Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n), Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/g/n
Wi-Fi Features Wi-Fi Direct Wi-Fi Direct
Bluetooth Version Bluetooth 4.0 Bluetooth 5.0 Best value
Bluetooth Profiles A2DP A2DP, LE
Navigation Systems GPS GPS, GLONASS Best value
Connectivity Features 3.5 mm Audio Jack, Infrared, FM Radio, USB Charging, USB OTG 3.5 mm Audio Jack, FM Radio, microUSB, USB OTG
USB Version microUSB USB 2.0
SAR American Head — 1.12 W/kg
SAR American Body — 0.53 W/kg
Max. download speed 150 Mbps 300 Mbps Best value
Max. upload speed 50 Mbps 150 Mbps Best value

Audio

Specification Eluga Ray 500 Y83 Pro
Microphone Count 2 2
Audio Features A2DP, Loudspeaker Loudspeaker
Google

Follow NeoTeo on Google to see more of our stories

Add as a preferred source on Google