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

101–110 of 151 posts

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

#101

Post by nicce »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #66
gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>reddit, [...] twitter Probably not the best examples because they have bloated webapps that are pretty slow/laggy.

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.

You can use nitter instances instead of Twitter. UI on there is super lightweight and usable, something you hope the original one would be. Also you are not distracted by constant popups for logging in.

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

#102

Post by yissp »

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.

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.

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

#103

Post by nicoburns »

danpalmer wrote: post #93
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…

Having had an iPhone 6s, X, and 12, I disagree. I'm a heavy user but of relatively basic functionality – I'm not gaming on my phone. Switching apps, latency for apps to restore state once you switch to them, latency for the camera to save a photo, latency on pretty much all interactions is noticeably better. I'm not talking about dropped frames, Apple have always been good at ensuring a fluid user experience, but the…

How is the battery on your 6S? I don't doubt that the older processor is slower in places, but one with a degraded battery will be much slower.

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

#104

Post by wiredfool »

danpalmer wrote: post #93
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…

Having had an iPhone 6s, X, and 12, I disagree. I'm a heavy user but of relatively basic functionality – I'm not gaming on my phone. Switching apps, latency for apps to restore state once you switch to them, latency for the camera to save a photo, latency on pretty much all interactions is noticeably better. I'm not talking about dropped frames, Apple have always been good at ensuring a fluid user experience, but the…

Having just upgraded from a 6s to a Xs, yeah, there's a speed difference with basic web browsing, even on lightweight sites like HN. It's the difference between fast enough and snappy.

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

#105

Post by bpfrh »

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…

About why somebody would buy it:

for me it was a combination of having a normal audiojack, smaller form factor(s9) and pricing.

I did buy the phone after it was already out for a year or two and was cheaper...

Software is ok for me, but I don't use anything from samsung except for the mail app and clock, so it is not like I would notice.

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

#106

Post by parkingrift »

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…

>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 about this, but honestly, phones really don't need to be faster at this point.

I think if this rumor were true then Apple would not have launched the iPhone SE with the A15. There was really no reason for the SE to have the A15 but they shoved it in there, anyway.

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

#107

Post by nicolas_t »

_fat_santa wrote: post #38
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 remember with my S9, even though the Exynos was slower, that's the device everyone wanted because the bootloader could be unlocked.

The snapdragon devices in Asia can be unlocked, only the US snapdragons cannot. I have mine unlocked and rooted (even if losing managed work profiles is a huge pain)

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

#108

Post by akvadrako »

Bilal_io wrote: post #84
akvadrako wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Um, no I mean the non 5g version. It isnt two generations old; I bought it just when it was released, that was under two years ago. That makes it current generation.

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

#109

Post by z2 »

Tade0 wrote: post #68

I was just thinking that Samsung's recent chip manufacturing capabilities appear to look somewhat disappointing on paper. Didn't expect a confirmation right away. I used to buy their products, because back in the early 2010s they we're successful as an alternative to Apple - in terms for bang/buck ratio at least. I won't be switching anytime soon because my Galaxy S8 is holding up decently, but news such as these her…

I recall Samsung struggling with high end fabrication since the iPhone 6 "chipgate" issue where the CPU (designed by Apple) manufactured by TSMC ran cooler than those by Samsung. It seems this happened again last year with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 888 too: https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2021/05/tsmc-ba...

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

#110

Post by sschueller »

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.

Why would Samsung own flagship chip perform worse than qualcoms? Wouldn't it be in Samsung's interest to either use an inferior version of the snapdragon or throttle it?
Post reply on HN