Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#81

Post by [deleted] »

mschuster91 wrote: post #49
the_snooze wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? I have Samsung phones for testing and development work, and I don't understand why anyone would ever use these things. They're loaded down with so much half-assed knockoff shovelware of common services, some of which have ads, and nearly all of which keep issuing out useless notifications. It's like Samsung forgot that phones serve people, not the other way aroun…

Agreed. The problem is, the competition is worse... basically only with Samsung and Google you have the assurance that you'll get firmware updates for a reasonable amount of time, and Google's palette of devices is limited.

[deleted]

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#82

Post by hbn »

monkeydust wrote: post #41

I would pay more for Samsung with stock Android. Well I would have in the past now I can just buy a Pixel.

Calling what the Pixels run "Stock Android" is a misnomer. Even being lenient, I'd argue Google's phones haven't really run anything close to stock Android since the Nexus 4. The Nexus 5 was when they dropped the AOSP launcher for one that integrated with Google Now to the left of your homescreens, replaced the default messaging app with Hangouts, and that was when the Google apps replacing stock apps really took off. Modern Pixels are certainly not running stock Android.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#83

Post by ryukoposting »

Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

I will continue buying refurbished LG V35s until they either become impossible to find, or carriers stop supporting 4G LTE.

Not that I've needed to buy a refurbished LG V35 yet- it's going on 3.5 years without missing a beat. The only bloatware was LG's personal fitness app, and a handful of carrier stuff that was easily uninstalled or disabled.

My old V20 was similarly durable, besides OLED burn-in after about 3 years. I still keep it by my desk in case I need to use Find My Device.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#84

Post by Bilal_io »

akvadrako wrote: post #80
Bilal_io wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an Android fan, but I have to admit, no budget or even a mid-range Android phone compares to the iPhone SE. Maybe I am generalizing, but it seems like a safe bet.

I would say the Pixel 4a is a good alternative, though it was recently discontinued.

I own the Pixel 4a 5G, it's a solid phone but it's 2 generations old. In comparison, the new iPhone SE is in a league of its own, at least for now.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#85

Post by treis »

ryukoposting wrote: post #83
Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

I will continue buying refurbished LG V35s until they either become impossible to find, or carriers stop supporting 4G LTE. Not that I've needed to buy a refurbished LG V35 yet- it's going on 3.5 years without missing a beat. The only bloatware was LG's personal fitness app, and a handful of carrier stuff that was easily uninstalled or disabled. My old V20 was similarly durable, besides OLED burn-in after about 3 yea…

>I will continue buying refurbished LG V35s

What's so good about them?

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#86

Post by adolph »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #8

Day to day, anything past an iPhone 6s or 7 and phones pretty much feel the same speed. If you game or edit pics or anything else that needs a faster proc, sure, you'll notice not having the fastest phone. But if you email, reddit, HN, twitter, etc, you're really not going to notice much. Rumors are the iPhone 14 will have the same A15 and only the Pro will get the A16. I think you'll see a bunch of people freak out…

Another aspect of Apple processor updates is increased battery performance per unit of work.

Battery in SE 2 compared to 3 is 11% larger (1821 mAh to 2018 mAh) but advertised "video playback" duration is 15% larger (13 h to 15h). This is unlike the comparison of SE 1 to 2 in which an 18% larger battery (1624 mAh to 1821 mAh) was entirely eaten by screen, etc. for no improved playback duration.

13 h 15 h

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#87

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

bee_rider wrote: post #64
duxup wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? Is Samsung "good at software" at all? I'm wondering if maybe Samsung's skill set as a company just doesn't include software / they don't have the people who know how to manage software development / products / teams and etc? I remember ages ago I had a Samsung phone and their software started to trickle out and I thought "woah they're just getting started it see…

Their hard drives are pretty reliable as far as I've seen, which would seem to indicate that they don't regularly mess up the drivers I guess.

I assume you mean the on-disk firmware. The "drivers" would normally be software provided by the OS, and is protocol- not vendor-specific.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#88

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #8

Day to day, anything past an iPhone 6s or 7 and phones pretty much feel the same speed. If you game or edit pics or anything else that needs a faster proc, sure, you'll notice not having the fastest phone. But if you email, reddit, HN, twitter, etc, you're really not going to notice much. Rumors are the iPhone 14 will have the same A15 and only the Pro will get the A16. I think you'll see a bunch of people freak out…

I use an ancient SIM-free phone and the place I notice the speed issue is never within the applications I use it for (Stellarium, Maps, All Trails, IRS etc). It's switching between applications. Once you're "fully inside" one of the apps, yeah, the speed of this 10 year old device is completely adequate and almost indistinguishable (with these apps at least) from a similar phone today.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#89

Post by falsenapkin »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #44

They should call it the A51 because that thing looks like an alien with its 5 camera’s. Does anyone else find this sort of flex ridiculous?

I think it's 4 cameras and a flash but yeah I agree still. I've casually tried to read about the cameras and can't really find a good technical source. To me it looks like a lot of one upmanship. Main camera does 64MP but by default shoots in 16MP. Macro/depth cameras are only 5MP. Is a macro lens something people are really clamoring for? I think physical "0.5x" and "2x" make a lot of sense but something about their strategy seems more like marketing check boxes for tech geeks and less about quality.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#90

Post by faeriechangling »

lizardactivist wrote: post #70

But will you ever notice, other than if you obsess over benchmarks or play video games all day long?

Yes, the performance is low enough to cause jitter/stutter/frame drops just navigating around the UI and hopping between apps. Android can really use as much power as you can throw at it.
Post reply on HN