Lava Shark vs TCL P80 5G
The Lava Shark (2025) runs on the Unisoc T765, while the TCL P80 5G (2026) runs on the MediaTek Dimensity 7300 Elite; launch prices were $89 and $229. By overall MobileRank rating, the TCL P80 5G leads — 55/100 vs 33/100 (a 22-point difference). Key differences: the main camera is 13 MP vs 50 MP; the TCL P80 5G has NFC for contactless payments, the Lava Shark doesn't.
Profile comparison
Category scores
Lava Shark
TCL P80 5G
What makes Lava Shark better?
- Cheaper at launch: $89 vs $229
- Overall rating 33/100
What makes TCL P80 5G better?
- Better Geekbench Single: 1011 vs 750
- Better Geekbench Multi: 2813 vs 2200
- Better main camera: 50MP vs 13MP
- Higher refresh rate: 120Hz vs 90Hz
- Higher performance (55/100 vs 40/100)
- Better camera (40/100 vs 10/100)
- Longer battery life (52/100 vs 43/100)
- Better display (84/100 vs 43/100)
Comparison verdict
Comparing the Lava Shark vs the TCL P80 5G, the TCL P80 5G scores 22 points higher (55/100 vs 33/100). In the "performance" category, the TCL P80 5G leads (55/100 vs 40/100). In the "camera" category, the TCL P80 5G leads (40/100 vs 10/100). Value score: Lava Shark — 60/100, TCL P80 5G — 64/100; it shows how far a model sits above or below the usual level for its price, and is not part of the overall rating. In the "performance" category, the TCL P80 5G notably outperforms the Lava Shark (55/100 vs 40/100). In the "display" category, the TCL P80 5G significantly outperforms the Lava Shark (84/100 vs 43/100). In the "camera" category, the TCL P80 5G significantly outperforms the Lava Shark (40/100 vs 10/100). In the "battery" category, the TCL P80 5G is a bit better (52/100 vs 43/100).
Specs comparison
| Specification | Lava Shark | TCL P80 5G | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processor | Unisoc T765 | MediaTek Dimensity 7300 Elite | |
| AnTuTu | — | 879714 | |
| Geekbench Single | 750 | 1011 | |
| Geekbench Multi | 2200 | 2813 | |
| Display | 6.8" IPS LCD | 6.8" OLED | |
| Resolution | 720x1612 | 1280x2766 | |
| Refresh rate | 90 Hz | 120 Hz | |
| Battery | 5000 mAh | 5000 mAh | |
| Charging | 18W | — | |
| Main camera | 13 MP | 50 MP | |
| Ultrawide | 0 MP | 8 MP | |
| Front camera | 5 MP | 32 MP | |
| RAM | 4GB | 8GB | |
| Storage | 64GB | 128GB / 256GB | |
| OS | Android 15 | Android 16 | |
| NFC | no | yes | |
| Protection | IP54 | — | |
| Weight | — | — | |
| Launch price | $89 | $229 |
Camera comparison
Lava Shark
- Main: 13MP
- Front: 5MP
TCL P80 5G
- Main: 50MP f/1.9
- Ultrawide: 8MP
- Front: 32MP
Display comparison
Lava Shark
- 6.8" IPS LCD
- Resolution: 720x1612
- Refresh rate: 90 Hz
TCL P80 5G
- 6.8" OLED
- Resolution: 1280x2766
- Refresh rate: 120 Hz
Battery and charging
Lava Shark
- 5000 mAh
- Wired: 18W
- No wireless charging
TCL P80 5G
- 5000 mAh
- No wireless charging
Benchmarks
Launch prices and where to check today's
Launch price difference: $140. Lava Shark was $140 cheaper at launch.
Detailed category analysis
performance
In the "performance" category, the TCL P80 5G notably outperforms the Lava Shark (55/100 vs 40/100).
display
In the "display" category, the TCL P80 5G significantly outperforms the Lava Shark (84/100 vs 43/100).
camera
In the "camera" category, the TCL P80 5G significantly outperforms the Lava Shark (40/100 vs 10/100).
battery
In the "battery" category, the TCL P80 5G is a bit better (52/100 vs 43/100).
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: the Lava Shark or the TCL P80 5G?
The TCL P80 5G significantly outperforms the Lava Shark by 22 points (55/100 vs 33/100).
What is the rating of the Lava Shark and the TCL P80 5G?
The Lava Shark has a MobileRank rating of 33/100, the TCL P80 5G — 55/100.
Which has the better camera: the Lava Shark or the TCL P80 5G?
The TCL P80 5G leads on camera score (40/100 vs 10/100).
Which is more powerful: the Lava Shark or the TCL P80 5G?
The TCL P80 5G leads on performance (55/100 vs 40/100).
Should you choose the Lava Shark over the TCL P80 5G?
Neither model stands out enough to recommend it for a specific use case: the clearest difference is display — better on the TCL P80 5G (84/100 vs 43/100).