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

71–80 of 151 posts

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

#71

Post by TonyTrapp »

rejectfinite wrote: post #67
TonyTrapp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That looks like the old interface. Here it is on my machine, latest version https://i.imgur.com/dg9JOr2.png Not saying this is better :D

It's a screenshot from three years ago or so, it was just so bad that I had to keep it. And yeah, can't say that the new interface is an improvement. ;)

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

#72

Post by bee_rider »

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

The tool works well enough, though.

They seem to be really bad at user experience stuff specifically.

In their defense, this is exactly how most engineers would run a company I think, haha. The only problem is that they are in literally every segment, including ones where usability is really important.

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

#73

Post by reaperducer »

cl0ckt0wer wrote: post #58
reaperducer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only feature fight I want to see from phone makers and networks anymore is latency. 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…

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 POTS network in a remote part of the country. Called from one ranch to another over a rural switch. And it was awesome.

The quality of a call is about more than its audio bandwidth. If that was true, then people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an iPod and a vacuum tube amp. And, again, latency is a massive factor, as is true asynchronous communication. Arguing over POTS is a whole different thing than arguing over VOIP.

People who defend VOIP claiming it's just as good have never done a side-by-side comparison. The only advantage VOIP has over anything is the usual "make it cheaper" race to the bottom.

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

#74

Post by Bilal_io »

Finnucane wrote: post #34

A couple of days ago this guy was holding this phone up as an alternative to the iPhone SE. But this phone is also not good?

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.

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

#75

Post by tpmx »

criddell wrote: post #63
tpmx wrote: post #32

Fight me: Single-core performance is still much more important than multi-core performance for most things you do on a phone, including web browsing.

I think you underestimate how many games people play on their phones.

I think you overestimate how many CPU cores those games effectively use in comparison to the daily e.g. webview usage.

Very happy to be proven wrong though - I have no direct experience in the modern mobile gaming area.

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

#76

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

reaperducer wrote: post #13
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…

The only feature fight I want to see from phone makers and networks anymore is latency. 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…

VOIP needs added latency when done over a mobile connection. Digital mobile connections aren't the most stable or reliable. I can ping Google from my phone and get results anywhere between 30 and 300 ms. With latency being all over the place, you have to add a significant buffer to avoid audio cutouts.

And personally, I'd rather have a little latency added than have to talk over a shitty POTS line. I always had a hard time understanding people over it.

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

#77

Post by soylentcola »

mschuster91 wrote: post #54
jotm wrote: post #12

If 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…

> 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. It's not just Samsung Pay you'll lose. Blow the eFuse and you'll play constant cat-and-mouse with Google Pay, Netflix and a shitload of banking apps. It's really sad that we have to choose between rooting our devic…

Yep. I can install software and manage my laptop and desktop computers. I can grant superuser/admin permission when needed. And yet somehow I'm able to pay my mortgage, transfer funds between checking and savings accounts, buy and sell stocks, and stream movies without the whole thing crashing and burning.

The idea that it's just unthinkable to have the ability to grant superuser rights on my stupid pocket computer is ridiculous. I can't help but think it's because it's another chance for said services to avoid the "mistake" that was (relatively) open computing and the choice it offers.

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

#78

Post by bee_rider »

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.

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.

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

#79

Post by albertopv »

durnygbur wrote: post #7
unixhero wrote: post #2

Just like my Galaxy S10 Plus with 512gb (2019) feels identical to my new and expensive Sony Xperia 1 III (2021)

Galaxy S10e was the last Android smartphone, if it only wouldn't crack within first weeks I possessed it. Now only Android phablets exist.

I like "small" phones, Galaxy S10e is the second best android I ever had. First was Sony xperia X Compact, sadly a fall destroyed the screen and the repair was really too expensive and risky. So I bought a xz2 compact, a used one to save something, not the first second hand phone I bought, never had a problem. A bit bigger, but faster, and a total failure: screen suffered of ghost touches until it became unusable, after the purchase I discovered it was a known issue, of course seller blamed me. Last time I bought a used phone. BTW, S10e was the only smartphone not too big and it will be my last android, no more "small" android phones are made. Considering I'm also sick of Google (I'm already gradually switching to other services), when my S10e will stop to work I will switch to an iPhone SE.

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

#80

Post by akvadrako »

Bilal_io wrote: post #74
Finnucane wrote: post #34

A couple of days ago this guy was holding this phone up as an alternative to the iPhone SE. But this phone is also not good?

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.
Post reply on HN