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

121–130 of 151 posts

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

#121

Post by pg5 »

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 just got an S22+. Haven't noticed any ads and it's pretty minimal in terms of bloatware, though maybe it's due to my carrier.

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

#123

Post by theriddlr »

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…

Had an SE 1st gen. I had to upgrade last year as Duolingo wouldn't load anymore even after killing all other apps. The 13 Mini is too big for one-handed use and gives me migraines from PWM.

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

#124

Post by snovv_crash »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #88
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.

That sounds like slow flash, not a slow processor.

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

#125

Post by causi »

mardifoufs wrote: post #27
nicolas_t wrote: post #5

The exynos vs snapdragon issue is a long standing issue with Samsung. There's also very significant differences between the flagship phones like the S22 ultra sold in EU (exynos) and the ones sold in the US or Asia (snapdragon) Getting an Exynos galaxy means more thermal throttling, lower performances and is just not competitive with other brands for the budget.

I thought both samsung and qualcomm dropped their custom cores for exynos and snapdragon at this point. So is there still such a huge difference between the two? Aren't both of them using the best arm licensed core? I get that for some reason apple sillicon like performance won't happen but this is just sad from samsung. Also samsung seems to be doing something fishy with benchmark results. It seems like exynos has b…

Yes, and moreso in some applications than others. For example, Exynos graphics drivers are utter garbage and on unconventional graphics tasks like console emulation Exynos chips perform like a Snapdragon that's five or more years out of date.

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

#126

Post by frosted-flakes »

bee_rider wrote: post #78
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're using reddit on mobile, use any app besides the official one. Personally, I use Bacon Reader. If you're on desktop, use the old reddit layout, and install RES if you can. Nearly every complaint I see about reddit's UX is because of people using the official app (Seriously, how is the official app the worst one?) or the new reddit UX. As for Twitter, I've never felt its website or app to be slow on mobile.

I think most people use the reddit website. If you have to download an app to use what is fundamentally a website, that website has failed miserably.

Apps force you into a single-threaded experience, which I dislike. Browsers have tabs, which I like.

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

#127

Post by frosted-flakes »

yissp wrote: post #102
bee_rider wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people use the reddit website. If you have to download an app to use what is fundamentally a website, that website has failed miserably.

If you access the website from a mobile browser it will nag you at every opportunity to switch to the app. It's quite annoying, so I wouldn't be surprised if most people give up.

There's a button to turn off the nags the menu. I don't think you even need to be signed-in.

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

#128

Post by screye »

the_snooze wrote: post #31
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…

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…

Is it bad though ? I honestly have no clue where people are seeing ads. Their base apps are all 1:1 better than Google's and replacing their launcher with Nova is so trivial that I wouldn't even consider that modification. Bixby is shitty, but I insta disable it and keep Google assistant on instead.

Thr UI itself feels mature and fast. I never run into problems with lagging and I practically run my phone (zfold3) on battery saver all the time. (I don't need to, it just doesn't seem to have any cons for me, so might as well)

Their camera app is great and split screen is executed much better than Google. Dex and pen support are pretty much exclusive to Samsung.

Maybe the nonflagship experience is terrible. But their flagship experience for me has been stellar.

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

#129

Post by goosedragons »

screye wrote: post #128
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…

Is it bad though ? I honestly have no clue where people are seeing ads. Their base apps are all 1:1 better than Google's and replacing their launcher with Nova is so trivial that I wouldn't even consider that modification. Bixby is shitty, but I insta disable it and keep Google assistant on instead. Thr UI itself feels mature and fast. I never run into problems with lagging and I practically run my phone (zfold3) on…

I've been happy with my A51. I haven't even bothered to change the stock launcher. It lets me organize the app drawer alphabetically which is basically all I care about. The email client is decent and there's no ads I see. The Galaxy store has ads but that's insanely easy to ignore. The phone is admittedly not the fastest but I only notice that in the occasional game. The features I do care about like the screen, NFC, SD card slot all work great. Often the faster cheaper phones skimp on the screen and always leave out NFC.

And yeah split screen is better than stock.

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

#130

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

ok123456 wrote: post #47
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 quit Samsung as soon as I started getting ads for Spotify on the music player on my Galaxy S5, and just started buying shenzhen chinese phones. I haven't seen an ad or piece of bloatware since. The quality is quite good, and the features often surpass most mid-range devices for about half the price. They're either stock android or very close to it.

I wouldn't be surprised to find malware preinstalled on those devices, tbh. I'd wipe it and install AOSP or LineageOS on it instead.
Post reply on HN