But will you ever notice, other than if you obsess over benchmarks or play video games all day long?
Yes because in 2022 Android is still a sluggy slow hellscape
Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
91–100 of 151 posts
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#92A 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?
Depends on what you value out of a phone. I'd probably never buy an iPhone SE over this due to the screen size of the SE.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#93Day 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 there are lots of points where apps can take a few seconds to do something on older hardware, or do it nearly instantly on newer hardware.
Does a few seconds make a difference? To my life, no. To my enjoyment of using the device, yeah. Whether it's worth frequent upgrades or not is a value judgement we can only make for ourselves, but there are many perceptible differences devices more than a few years apart.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#94I 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…
Had now a cheap realme GT Master Edition, no Ads, no bloated device (every preinstalled external App could be removed), and it is fast, Snapdragon 778G Chip. I don't like chinese brands, but Samsung & Co. did not deliver competetive devices in lower price-area.
I bought a Chinese phone once, it worked fine for a few months, then I had a long call on Teams and it suddenly turned off - it was very hot. I never managed to turn it back on.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#95I 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 have been hearing the exact same complaints about Samsung literally since it entered the smartphone market.
- Bloat? Yup, touchwiz.
- Ads? They had an unremovable galaxy store app early on.
- Bad performance? Definitely compared to the iPhones they got compared to.
At this point I see the main pulls of Samsung being the fact they offer better software support than Chinese brands with up to 5 years security updates / 4 years OS updates, and they have an entire ecosystem of tablets and keyfinders and audio products and so on. The problem I have with Samsung nowadays is that Apple offers all of those things but better so if you can do without the Google/Microsoft integration you should just go Apple. They have also lost several of their historical advantages:
- SD card? Gone.
- Headphone jack? Gone.
- Best screens in the business? Everybody is using their panels now.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#96I 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 have been hearing the exact same complaints about Samsung literally since it entered the smartphone market. - Bloat? Yup, touchwiz. - Ads? They had an unremovable galaxy store app early on. - Bad performance? Definitely compared to the iPhones they got compared to. At this point I see the main pulls of Samsung being the fact they offer better software support than Chinese brands with up to 5 years security updates…
Maybe I'm cynical but I think most of their success can be attributed to advertising/marketing. They've done a good job of that. In quality though, I don't consider them better than Huawei or Xiaomi.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#97But will you ever notice, other than if you obsess over benchmarks or play video games all day long?
My wife has one of their lower end old models (A32) and it sometimes lags out playing Netflix. Everything is going fine, and then the video just stutters to the point that it's unwatchable. For comparison, that has a Geekbench score of 500 single threaded and 1650 multithreaded[1].
This is on top of other issues like the wifi just not connecting after a bit, or the bloatware and constant struggle fighting against their incessant notifications. After this, I'm never getting her a Samsung phone again. Please Google, don't kill the Pixel line... you're our only hope.
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their hard drives are pretty reliable as far as I've seen, which would seem to indicate that they don't regularly mess up the drivers I guess.
I assume you mean the on-disk firmware. The "drivers" would normally be software provided by the OS, and is protocol- not vendor-specific.
Indeed I do. Good point!
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not the software. Samsung consistently ships very well tuned flagships. Compare their performance and efficiency to other devices using the same SoC, and that much is clear. Of course, we can only say this about their Qualcomm devices, since there aren’t other Exynos devices to compare against Samsung’s.
Qualcomm makes all their own firmware, drivers, etc. and my impression is that it's considered to have much better software quality than Samsung's stuff. Take this with a grain of salt though since I'm hearing this second-hand.
Devices using the exact same Qualcomm SoC can have significantly different performance and efficiency [0]. Samsung devices tend to do very well, even though they are typically among the first to ship the chips.
In the article I've linked, you'll see the Samsung S10 gets the longest battery life of any device using the Snapdragon 855, while still placing at or near the top in the performance charts.
[0]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14794/snapdragon-855-phone-ro...
Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 love my S10e but it's probably the last Android I own cause--to your point--everything else is just too big
I love my S10e too. And there is the new S22, which is just tad bigger, I think it could be a reasonable replacement.