Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren’t those just for the Asian market?
Asian market mostly get Snapdragon except for South east asia where both are sold. In Europe, it's exclusively exynos and that means that there's pretty much no point in buying Samsung compared to other brands in Europe.
Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
11–20 of 151 posts
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#12The North American Note 9 used a Snapdragon 845 SoC while the European version used Samsung's own Exynos 9810. The Exynos consistently benched lower, had worse battery life and ran hotter. The upside was that the Exynos version has an unlocked bootloader, which is huge imo.
With a custom kernel made by hobbyists in their spare time, you can have the 9810 on par with the SD845 or even better. It has great undervolting and overclocking potential on both the CPU and GPU. The difference between the stock Samsung kernel and Zeus for example, is mind boggling.
Sadly, flashing a custom ROM on it involves tripping an eFuse and losing some Samsung functionality, but if you don't care about Samsung Pay and whatever other "secure" garbage they offer, it's worth it.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#13Day 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…
Voice latency is a big part of why people type on a telephone, instead of talking on it. We're entering a second generation of people who have no idea what it was like talking on an analog POTS network. They'll even argue with you, claiming their VOIP connection across the ocean has the same quality and latency as someone talking on a hard line to a neighbor down the road. Ummm... no. Not even close. Sadly, the older generations didn't realize how good they had it.
Remember when phone companies used to compete on quality? AT&T's "You get what you pay for" campaign. Sprint's "So clear you can hear a pin drop" campaign. MCI's "Static-free coast-to-coast."
Today, it's "We'll bundle six other services you don't want with your phone service and charge you a $1,200 for a new phone. Aren't we great!"
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#14Day 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…
>reddit, [...] twitter Probably not the best examples because they have bloated webapps that are pretty slow/laggy.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#15You 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 down.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#16Day 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…
Then again I upgrade phones if they come out in green also. My last upgrade was for a 120hz screen refresh rate.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#17Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#18The 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.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#19Day 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…
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#20If the Note 9 is any indication, it's not the hardware, it's the bloody software - Samsung is seemingly terrible at it! The North American Note 9 used a Snapdragon 845 SoC while the European version used Samsung's own Exynos 9810. The Exynos consistently benched lower, had worse battery life and ran hotter. The upside was that the Exynos version has an unlocked bootloader, which is huge imo. With a custom kernel made…
Of course, we can only say this about their Qualcomm devices, since there aren’t other Exynos devices to compare against Samsung’s.