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

111–120 of 151 posts

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

#111

Post by 7speter »

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…

It might be benchmark cherrypicking. Companies like AMD, Intel, even Apple pick the best looking data to make their silicon look much better than the competitor. The latest example was apple claiming its integrated gpu in its new apple silicon chip used in the Mac Studio was more powerful than nvidias 3090… that didnt turn out to be the case needless to say

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

#112

Post by cf141q5325 »

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.

In case anyone else is wondering what causes the different models for different markets

>First, Qualcomm can't produce enough processor to fit in all of the Samsung's phones. Second, snapdragon is too expensive, especially if you buy it in other countries. So, Samsung only uses snapdragon in countries where Qualcomm sells them cheaper.

As well as wanting to be exposed into more markets

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Samsung-use-Exynos

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

#113

Post by StillBored »

reaperducer wrote: post #73
cl0ckt0wer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, Sprint was just increasing the bass somewhere in their connection. But you can't really think that a POTS call sounds better than a modern VOIP call? Maybe the super-compressed crap you get when you dial a number, but apps use way better sounding codecs.

IIRC, Sprint was just increasing the bass somewhere in their connection That was AT&T's method. AT&T even had a demo line that you could call that would play various sounds and music and you could press a button to switch between the modes to hear the difference. But you can't really think that a POTS call sounds better than a modern VOIP call? Yes, I can. Because just before the pandemic, I was able to use a real PO…

POTS, is largely of varying service too. The switched network of old was mostly replaced by G.711 on TDM connections, which is probably an improvement for long distance. So at that point it was no longer strictly analog, but then the phone companies started shaving pennies and doing things like pair gain to cram more phone lines down the same wires, which was a fairly large reduction in line quality for local calls.

These days so much of it is routed over IP, which is where all the latency got added.

So, its hard to know what your "ranch" actually was.

OTOH, its hard for any hardwired system to be half as bad as your average cell phone which are dealing with constant channel quality issues, which results in the robot voice (for lack of a better description), and all the broken up audio, or simply silence that one frequently gets from a cell phone. Basically cell phones suck for actually talking to people. But once again, convenience trumps quality.

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

#114

Post by danpalmer »

nicoburns wrote: post #103
danpalmer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I upgraded it I think it was at 87% health and my X when it was at about 83%. Apple claim there is no throttling for these amounts.

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

#115

Post by lkxijlewlf »

parkingrift wrote: post #106
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.

The SE is an odd ball device. It is a device that is explicitly for the crowd that will not upgrade their phone every year. Apple wanted to make sure they had a 5G phone for that crowd because they want all their devices on 5G now. They could have put an A14 in it, but they needed the efficiencies of the A15 to make up for the 5G battery suck because they could only increase battery capacity so much and still fit the iPhone 8 frame.

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

#117

Post by EwanToo »

sschueller wrote: post #110
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?

They still need a competitive offering against other Android manufacturers at the high end.

Xiaomi and others are happy to buy Qualcomm chips if it gives them the high end advantage

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

#118

Post by w1nk »

_fat_santa wrote: post #51
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…

The problem as I see it, Samsung wanted to carve out a piece of Android to create their own experience. They wanted to be like Apple and Google and have their own first party apps. The problem is that Android already comes with all these first party apps so you just end up with duplication. This problem is only further compounded by the carrier having their hand in the cookie jar and having their own first party apps…

I think you're giving them too much credit by saying they're attempting to create their own experience. I don't believe that's the motivation at all. I don't see any reason to believe Verizon wants to improve the dialer or the messaging app in any way. They're building these things as data exfiltration applications. In the case of some of the apps you can't even remove them. It's absolutely disgusting to be honest.

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

#119

Post by nebula8804 »

TonyTrapp wrote: post #57
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…

For what it's worth, even outside Android their software is horrible. Check out Samsung Magician, their SSD tool [0]. That UI just doesn't make any sense. Samsung is a hardware company (and they're great at that), can't remember any good software from them, ever. [0] https://i.imgur.com/lbqdn8i.png

Seeing as how their Washing Machines self destruct, I don't think they may be that good at hardware either. Yeah its been a few years since we heard them in the news but I am hearing through the grapevine that they products still are poor quality(at least the appliances).

[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ddIfgarPg

Post reply on HN