Rabu, 31 Desember 2014

Samsung Galaxy Core Prime

Samsung Galaxy Core Prime review: Core values

GSMARENA TEAM, 30 DECEMBER 2014.

Introduction

The Galaxy Core lineup represents Samsung's take on the essential smartphone. The Galaxy Core Prime updates the base formula in two areas - a slightly better camera and slightly better chipset - and it serves as a smaller alternative to Galaxy Grand Prime.

Samsung Galaxy Core Prime official photos

The Core Prime was announced mere months after Galaxy Core II (not to mention Core LTE, Core Lite LTE and several others), but brings definite improvements over all members of the family, even if most specs are shared among the Cores.

For one, the 64-bit capable Snapdragon 410 is definitely a first. The 5MP/720p camera has been done on other Cores, but it is still the best in the lineup. The front-facing camera is the best one yet - a 2MP/480p shooter - that goes over the low bar of having no selfie camera at all or a 1MP one. It defiantly lacks the ambition of the Galaxy Grand Prime's selfie camera but it's also not very ambition when it comes to pricing so it all sounds fair.

Key features

Optional Dual SIM version available
4.5" 480 x 800 TFT display with 207ppi
Android OS v4.4 KitKat with TouchWiz UI
Quad-core 1.2 GHz Cortex-A53 processor, Adreno 306 GPU, 1GB of RAM, Snapdragon 410 chipset
8GB built-in storage, microSD card slot
5MP camera with LED flash, 720p video recording; 2MP front-facing camera
Cat. 4 LTE (150/50Mbps); Wi-Fi b/g/n; Bluetooth 4.0; NFC; GPS; microUSB, FM radio
2,000mAh battery

Main disadvantages

Screen ppi is entry-level
No screen protection glass
No automatic brightness sensor

Coming off our Galaxy Grand Prime review, we know that a lot of the 64-bit benefits hang on an Android 5.0 Lollipop update. Considering the Core Prime was announced only recently, the prognosis on an update is good, but nothing is guaranteed.

The camera department is a definite update over the Galaxy Core II, where the 5MP snapper only recorded 480p video and there was a 480p front-facing camera. Three other Core models (Plus, LTE and Lite LTE) also shoot 720p video, but they all lack the Core Prime high quality selfie snapper.

Samsung Galaxy Core Prime at the office

Speaking of the Grand, in its review we discussed the recent popularity of large screens with low resolution. While in terms of pixel density the Galaxy Core Prime is in the same range, its entry-level position makes us more willing to forgive the sub-HD resolution and the lack of an IPS screen matrix.

True to its position in the market, the phone has a dual-SIM flavor. One version, the G360F, even reaches above its station with 4G LTE connectivity, but that's exclusive to China and Taiwan.

Sabtu, 27 Desember 2014

Motorola DROID Turbo vs Galaxy Note 4

Motorola DROID Turbo vs Samsung Galaxy Note 4

Posted: 04 Nov 2014, 06:38, by John V.

Tags: T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon + Sprint + Motorola + Samsung + Android +

GO TO PAGE

Motorola DROID Turbo vs Samsung Galaxy Note 4

Introduction

Oh, Motorola, what have you done with us, releasing such a decked-out smartphone, and leaving it as a Verizon exclusive? The DROID Turbojustifies its title by offering the best that component makers currently have on the market – Quad HD panel, Snapdragon 805 chipset, and a 20 MP camera, all backed up with a giant for the category 3900 mAh battery, promising a two-day endurance, something unheard of for a QHD phone.

Actually, there is no other match for the DROID Turbo in the market, but Samsung's freshly-brewed Note 4 mega-monster, which in its turn sports a larger, 5.7” QHD screen, also an 805 chipset, and an optically-stabilized 16 MP shooter. That is why are pitting the two current Android champions in the cage, and making sure there are no under-the-belt punches...

Design

Smaller and chubbier, the DROID Turbo weighs as much as the larger Note 4, but feels more ergonomic in the palm.

The two phones are fatties for today's demanding standards of sub-8mm flagships, yet the Note 4 clocks in at 0.33” (8.5mm), while the Turbo has the whopping up to 11.2mm girth, depending on whether you get the thinner Metallic, or the just slightly thicker Ballistic Nylon model. Hey, that gigantic battery has to fit somewhere, right? Given the much smaller display, the Turbo is way more comfortable to operate with one hand than the largish Note 4. The phones weigh the same, though, which doesn't bode very well for the thuggish Turbo, which is much smaller.

Samsung offers a removable back cover, which lets you swap the battery, or add more storage, while the Turbo doesn't. The Samsung phablet also comes with the S Pen stylus and its fingerprint scanner, ushering in one more input method, and one more security layer, in case you are inclined to use those.

Motorola does have a few tricks up its sleeve in terms of design against the Note 4 as well, since it offers a few versions of the Turbo with innovative materials like ballistic nylon and metalized fiber for the chassis, and there is even an eye-catchy red version, too. Samsung made the Note 4 look more premium than its predecessors, however, with a metal side rim, so we'd call it a draw in the design department.

100%-+

‹ PREV

1 of 10

NEXT ›

‹ Prev

1.

view as one page »

Front view | Side view

5.65 x 2.89 x 0.44 inches
143.5 x 73.3 x 11.2 mm
6.21 oz (176 g)

Motorola DROID Turbo

6.04 x 3.09 x 0.33 inches
153.5 x 78.6 x 8.5 mm
6.21 oz (176 g)

Samsung Galaxy Note 4

To see the phones in real size or compare them with other models, visit our Visual Phone Size Comparison page.

Displays

The Turbo might sport record pixel density, but Note 4 nails it in every aspect that matters, like color accuracy and peak brightness.

The 5.2” 1440x2560 resolution panel of the Turbo holds the pixel density record with the breathtaking 565ppi. Galaxy Note 4 is not far behind, though, as it boasts the same resolution, but on a 5.7” display diagonal, returning 515ppi. Both are some of the best numbers in the industry, so no matter what pixel matrix is used to achieve those crazily crammed dots, you'd be hard pressed to find any jaggies in small text, icons, and throughout the interface.

Both panels are of the AMOLED variety, but they are pretty different. We measured the Note 4 to offer great 6700K color temperature and to be very, very color-accurate in its Basic screen mode. The Droid Turbo has an even better white point (6600K), very near to the reference 6500K, but its colors are not accurate. The Turbo exhibits very oversaturated greens, which goes somewhat for the reds and blues as well, and the color points are off the standard marks for the most part, while the Note 4 fits very nicely in the sRGB gamut reference. Keep in mind that previous Samsung phones, like the S5, S4 and Note 3, have proven that many people like these oversaturated but inaccurate colors, and the Droid Turbo isn't worse than them.

Another DROID Turbo display downside is that it is pretty dim, at 248nits measures, against the 468 nits of the Note 4, so you will have trouble telling what's on the screen of the Turbo on a bright sunny day outdoors.

Thus, we'd have to give the display round to the Note 4.

Display measurements and quality

	MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS(nits)HIGHER IS BETTER	MINIMUM BRIGHTNESS(nits)LOWER IS BETTER	CONTRASTHIGHER IS BETTER	COLOR TEMPERATURE(Kelvins)	GAMMA	DELTA E RGBCMYLOWER IS BETTER	DELTA E GRAYSCALELOWER IS BETTER
SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 4	468 (Good)	1 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6667 (Excellent)	1.97	2.61 (Good)	3.1 (Good)
MOTOROLA DROID TURBO	248 (Poor)	9 (Average)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	6594 (Excellent)	1.84	7.32 (Average)	3.86 (Good)

VIEW ALL

Experia Z3 Vs Galaxy S5

Sony Xperia Z3 vs Samsung Galaxy S5

Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 10:38, by Daniel P.

Tags: T-Mobile + AT&T + Verizon + Sprint + Samsung + Android + Sony +

GO TO PAGE

Introduction

Sony did put up a direct competitor to Samsung's flagship in the spring – theXperia Z2 – but its six-month upgrade cycle now spits out an even better phone against the same old S5, just in time for the holiday shopping craze. The new Xperia Z3 is slimmer, prettier, and more decked-out than its predecessor, chipping away at any and all advantages the Galaxy S5 might have had before, so we are pitting it against Samsung's direct competitor to help you choose...

Design

The stylish Xperia Z3 looks like a catwalk star next to the plastic Galaxy S5, and sports a higher waterproof rating.

The Z3 has one distinctly visible advantage before the S5 in terms of design, and it is its slim and premium glass and metal unibody, to which the Galaxy S5 can bounce a largely plastic one, with a tacky faux leather back cover. Despite that removable back battery cover, the Galaxy S5 sports an IP67 waterproof rating, allowing you to submerge it in up to three feet of water for half an hour. Sony's phone is also waterproof, though, and with a higher, IP68 rating at that, meaning you can dunk int in five feet of fresh water in its turn. Sony also adorned the Z3 with two stereo speakers at the front as an added value, while Samsung bet on biometrics, such as a fingerprint scanner embedded in the home key, and a heart rate sensor on the back, which work as advertised, though we prefer Apple's or Huawei's approaches to fingerprint recognition.

The S5 is comparatively large for the screen diagonal, but the Xperia Z3 is even taller, making it a bit more uncomfortable to carry in your pocket. Its signature metal power/lock key is a tad smallish and wobbly, so it's more of a chore to find and press it without looking, than the adequately placed lock key on the side of the S5. Looking at the back, we find the 16 MP camera of Samsung's flagships placed smack in the upper middle, while the Z3's 20 MP snapper is pushed all the way to the corner, so your fingers often gets in the way while shooting in landscape mode.

100%-+

‹ PREV

1 of 12

NEXT ›

‹ Prev

1.

view as one page »

Front view | Side view

5.75 x 2.83 x 0.29 inches
146 x 72 x 7.3 mm
5.36 oz (152 g)

Sony Xperia Z3

5.59 x 2.85 x 0.32 inches
142 x 72.5 x 8.1 mm
5.11 oz (145 g)

Samsung Galaxy S5

To see the phones in real size or compare them with other models, visit our Visual Phone Size Comparison page.

Display

The bright Z3 LCD panel beats Samsung's AMOLED display in its own game..exhibiting saturated but inaccurate colors and cold color temperature.

The phones have almost the same screen diagonals – 5.2” for the Xperia Z3, and 5.1” for the S5, and the same 1080 x 1920 pixels resolutions, so both sport excellent 400+ ppi pixel density. Surprisingly, despite the totally different screen technologies – LCD for the Xperia, and AMOLED for the Galaxy, - they exhibit equally inaccurate color representation. While cold, off-base and oversaturated colors were to be expected from Samsung's AMOLED screens, at least until the Note 4, we were taken aback to measure even colder colors on the Z3, to the tune of the abominable 10324 Kelvins, with 6500K as a reference. This makes the Z3 panel one of the coldest we've measured so far, and looking very artificial, not to mention that the hue presentation is all over the place when referenced to the standard, as you can see in the color charts below.

Sony says that this color-busting panel is made with a brand new screen tech that improves brightness, and lowers power consumption, and we indeed measured the whopping 713 nits maximum, as well as a great battery life. The Galaxy S5, however, is also bright, and with low screen reflectance, so the outdoor visibility of the two is about on par. The minimum brightness of the handsets is also equal, and it is the excellent 4 and 2 nits, respectively. Both phones offer super-sensitive touch layers that can be turned on and off at will, and allow you to operate the screen with gloves.

Display measurements and quality

	MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS(nits)HIGHER IS BETTER	MINIMUM BRIGHTNESS(nits)LOWER IS BETTER	CONTRASTHIGHER IS BETTER	COLOR TEMPERATURE(Kelvins)	GAMMA	DELTA E RGBCMYLOWER IS BETTER	DELTA E GRAYSCALELOWER IS BETTER
SONY XPERIA Z3	713 (Excellent)	4 (Excellent)	1:1148 (Good)	10324 (Poor)	2.55	6.43 (Average)	9.28 (Poor)
SAMSUNG GALAXY S5	442 (Good)	2 (Excellent)	unmeasurable (Excellent)	8183 (Poor)	2.25	5.08 (Average)	7.38 (Average)

VIEW ALL