Is this phone supposed to be any faster than the Captivate (Galaxy S), data wise, assuming one is in the 3G section of the AT&T site and the other in the 4G section, or is there really no jump at all? I just tried a speed test with a Captivate and my GSII, and both showed the same speed on speed test which is pretty weird in my opinion...
Really depends on your area, in socal valley I can run a captivate right next the SGS2 and get the same results with the captivate slightly slower with uploads (fixed usually with a I9000 modem)
That's what I did too, haha...Put a Captivate and GSII next to each other in SoCal, and the speed was the same, so I was like =0.
I am in a HSPA+ service area, on my captivate I almost never saw more that 2Mbps down, I see just over 3 on my i777.
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
I'm getting way better speeds on my SGS2 than I was getting on my Captivate. I have my gs2 stock, but it's still faster than my Captivate stock, with stock froyo, and with numerous roms. I don't remember exactly what my speed tests were with my Cappy (around 1.5 - 3 DL and .5 to .8 Up), but I'm getting 6+ to 8 DL and 1.5 Up with my sg2
Depends on if you have a real H+ coverage?
To me it's about 3 times faster than captivate in house.
Was getting 600KB/s in a 3g area whereas the captivate only got 300 (no HSPA+ in my neighborhood)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
when I used to use the speedtest app, I got the same data speeds on my captivate and my gs2. As soon as I used the speedtest via the browser, it showed the speed difference.
Yeah, this makes more sense, the browser application and the speed test application have varying numbers...I guess speed test application =/= reliable
yeah, its documented in a few places that the speedtest app is not reliable (maybe on some devices?)
I use the FCC speed test app, more accurate results
I know this is an old thread but I didnt want to start a new one for this. I have been running side by side speed tests with a captivate running cm7. On my gs2 I'm running unnamed 2.1.1 with the UCKK6 modem. I am consistently getting better speeds on the captivate than I am on the GS2 (sometimes over 1+mbps higher) The gs2 has never gotten higher speeds than the captivate. I've tried different modems, Ive run the FCC speed test, the normal speedtest app and the speakeasy.net website all yielding the same results. I'm in an area that is supposed to have great HSPA+ coverage. I just dont understand why my GS2 isnt getting higher speeds than the captivate since it's HSPA+ and the captivate is only 3G(if I'm not mistaken) Both phones were new orders so new sims, service etc..
My captivate RARELY got to 4mbps. My sgsII usually hovers around 6-8mbps
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
jdbeitz said:
My captivate RARELY got to 4mbps. My sgsII usually hovers around 6-8mbps
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my Gs2 hasnt gotten over 4 yet
Just now I went outside and did a speed test. my captivate pulled a little over 4mbps and my gs2 was at 3.
Yeah i guess i have to try to different modems and settings because my captivate was pulling 5300 down and 1100 up and my GS2 is only doing a meg faster down and the same up. It kind of retarded that i had to switch my sim card to a 4g one if my speed did not really change. Does anyone know if the 3g supercharger works for 4g. I was going to ask Zep but i figured id ask here since i was making post around the subject
\/icious said:
Does anyone know if the 3g supercharger works for 4g. I was going to ask Zep but i figured id ask here since i was making post around the subject
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
??? What 3G supercharger?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=991276&highlight=v6+supercharger
Zepplinrox's V6 supercharger Kick Ass Kernal (KAK) Tweaks and 3g turbocharger. You have to go to the 4th line down where it says most recent files here to get KAK and the 3g turbocharger. It worked pretty well for my captivate. I think im going to apply it to my SGSII even though its runs as smooth as can be just because i like overkill lol
/me gets popcorn while awaiting results.
I'm in Dallas, TX so AT&T coverage is not an issue here, and I get the same speed on the Captivate and the SGS2 an average of 3mbps down.
zeppelinrox said:
/me gets popcorn while awaiting results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol Zep your the man. Well i havent had time to try all settings thoughly to get a clear and concise judgement on the 3g turbocharger. I started off only getting around 6.3m down and 1.1m up. I ran tweakker and my next tests immediately after were all around 5.6 down 1.1 up. The next day, however, they jumped up to around 7.4 down 1.1 up. I applied 3g turbocharger fastest and experimental and test after that were around 8.3 afterwards. I ran the test five to six times on speedtest.net. I need to create an acct. so i can track this stuff. I was using the app but the app was showing 2m less consitantly on my down speeds. i really should have ran my phone longer after using tweakker to make sure around 7.4 was going to be my norm peak.
I applied V6 supercharger through build.prop and integrated running die-hard & 1000hp and also applied KAK tweak with I/O tweaks off as my phone locked up when i applied the I/O tweaks but thats probably because mine is set to CFQ. Dont know why and will probably set it to deadline. The one thing this fixed for me was the transition using the browser. Going in and out of the browser was never as snappy until now. I just cant slow this MFer down. I was concerned that i let my impatience get the best of me picking up this phone instead of waiting on the next gen as i only get a new phone when i can upgrade every 18 months but i have no doubt this phone will last me the next 18 month easily. Thanks to Entropy512, GTX465x, and Zeppelinrox My phone runs buttery smooth and i have not yet stumbled on a single hiccup. My hat is off to you gents. I feel like my phone is set for overkill and ICS still isnt out and i havent tried to go to 1600mhz. Mine is running @ 1400 BTW and under volted by -100mV. I have a feeling my next phone upgrade is really only going to be for a better screen and camera as speed probably wont ever be an issue.
Related
I'm using the new DCD 2.0 rom with great results -- and since I've been just a lurker for awhile, a big THANK YOU to everyone working on that.
I have a quick question: How do I know if it's connected using Rev A? I'm not seeing any performance differences, though there should be Rev A coverage here... just curious
There are a few mobile bandwidth tests that you can run.
http://www.dslreports.com/mspeed?jisok=1
my average looks about 611 kbit/sec... that is the same as before the Rev A upgrade. this means Rev A isn't working? and to judge by reports from others, I guess nobody really has it working?
sorry to put those as a question, butas far as I can tell, there is no evidence of a speed diff w/ the new radio.
gps works great, of course... and on WM6.1, everything is faster. just not data...
Are you sure you have Rev A in your area?
I'm getting around 900k now... before I was in the 200k range, if I was lucky!
Check out this site for an idea of Rev. A coverage in your area.
Hint: The more that submit the more accurate it becomes...
http://evdomaps.com/
Rev A is definetly working on the 3.16 ROMs. I used to average around 400-600 down and never more than about 120 up. Now I'm averaging around 1 meg down and 300 up. The best I've gotten was 2.2 down, 540 up. Definetly Rev A...
My upload speed is faster, but my download speeds are still the same. Then again, I've always wondered how good the EVDO network in my area actually is.
I like this entry on EVDO Maps:
200 Consillium Place Toronto, ON M1H 3J3
Carrier: Verizon Create Date: 6/29/2007
Computer: CANADAPK Update Date: 6/29/2007
Network: RevA Location: outdoors
Download: 1972 Upload: 640
dBm: Bars:
This is TELUS Mobility HQ.... almost 2megs/sec download!
interesting.
I'm in Utah Valley, in ... err... well, Utah. Sprint's maps all show full coverage, but I thought I saw a map once that had specifically Rev A. now I can't find it.
maybe they don't have it here yet... that would be strange, given the unusually high concentration of technology companies that are found around here, even despite Novell's slow decline. But, I've been getting 400-1000kbps since I got my phone, not just since the update... no noticable change.
maybe someday they'll get it going and suddenly everything will speed up =]
too bad there is no indication other than speed of which rev the evdo is running. it would be interesting
do you really mainly notice Rev A speeds when you use your phone as a modem? i thought i'd really be able to see a difference with Rev A using slingplayer, but i get the same speeds as i did on my old rom. i live around pittsburgh as well which is supossed to be a rev A area.
Check the latency
As a general statement, the improvements from Rev. 0 to Rev. A are not that impressive on the download side. Yes, the improvements on the upload side should be more impressive, but how many people are doing any significant uploading?
On the other hand, the latency should improve considerably and I think most people overlook that. It's a pretty big deal.
We just got finished upgrading the embedded WWAN on a bunch of laptops at work from Rev. 0 to Rev. A and I can tell you the entire improvement was in the latency. The responsiveness was much improved.
I would be checking that first. Do some before and after tests and report them back.
yeah, ive definately seen an improvement in latency, i used to get 1s+ pinging google, now i average about 125ms
wow
i flashed to the leaked htc 3.16 first and my download is really slow, more like 288 to 488. but when i flashed to dcd's 2.0 i got 997/sec. thats amazing. big difference. i used the same mobile speed site.
edit:
just did another test 1020/sec thats cool. I myt not get the same speed all the time but it feels good knowing i wont go anywhere near the slow speed of pass roms.
I get around 2.23MBPS download using opera mini and the running the Leaked 3.16 ROM. Much faster than my previous 400-1.2MBPS download on the 2.16 ROM. Funny thing is that, when i switch from opera mini to Opera Mobile, or IE, i get really slow speeds, maybe top at 1MBPS but usually like 500KBPS. Its like only opera mini can use the Rev.A while the other two stick with the Rev.0
well, i'm getting about 110 down, and i live in chicago where we have rev A, i've never been able to get more than 1x
anyone have any ideas on why that i live in a rev a area, i only get 1x, always only get 1 x
600-900kbs avg for me on TELUS
killerkhatiby009 said:
I get around 2.23MBPS download using opera mini and the running the Leaked 3.16 ROM. Much faster than my previous 400-1.2MBPS download on the 2.16 ROM. Funny thing is that, when i switch from opera mini to Opera Mobile, or IE, i get really slow speeds, maybe top at 1MBPS but usually like 500KBPS. Its like only opera mini can use the Rev.A while the other two stick with the Rev.0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember that Opera Mini goes through a server and strips some data from the images so they load faster on your device, which in turn shows inflated download speeds. Opera Mobile and IE are loading the raw data so it takes longer, thus yielding the "real" speed results.
I thought that Rev A was supposed to support simultaneous Data and Voice connections? I was not able to load a website while on a call. Is this something that needs to be activated by the carrier? Should I be able to do both on the new ROM? I see that there is still a CDMA1X connect that happens when I load a webpage, or at first data usage...any ideas?
dadishman said:
I thought that Rev A was supposed to support simultaneous Data and Voice connections? I was not able to load a website while on a call. Is this something that needs to be activated by the carrier? Should I be able to do both on the new ROM? I see that there is still a CDMA1X connect that happens when I load a webpage, or at first data usage...any ideas?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be EVDV not REV A.
Here is a good explanation of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000
Y'all probably thought this was another one of those "OMG my speeds are terrible! the photon 4g's speeds aren't terrible so why are my speeds garbage?!?!?!?!" If that's what you expected...well...I'm sorry that's what our General section has become. Anyways, let me go to my point:
So I was looking into my 3G speeds..they've been terrible lately (of course)..so I'm just dicking around with my phone trying to get it right...
I found out that the 3G speeds on the dual core kernels is a lot better than stock. So that got me wondering "maybe the 3G relies more on the second processor and the reason why the dual core kernels have better speeds is because the second processor is always active." I've been going back and forth on dual core and stock and it looked like it was holding up but I started thinking "that can't be right" so...I went with the stock kernel and just put it on performance and went back to testing...and sure enough, the 3G speeds are better. Not insanely better but before putting it on performance my ping was around 1200-1800ms...after, its around 700-900ms.
Here's why I think our speeds suck...it's because HTC is actually making decent kernels. Our phones sleep like babies and with the ondemand governor...the up threshold is at 90 by default...so that prevents the phone jumping up to 1.2GHz all of the time. But I'm thinking that's actually hurting us because our phones actually have to do some real work before it goes from 400MHz to 1.2GHz. So we could be in the browser with the ondemand governor and the up threshold at 90 and trying to open a page...our processor might jump to 800MHz but since that's not a lot of power...our 3G speeds will suffer. Now if it were just at 1.2GHz to begin with, it'd be a lot better.
So if what I'm thinking is right...we probably aren't even benefiting from having our CPU's hang around lower frequencies because if my ping is 1800ms...my 3G has to be on longer just to load up a page when compared to a phone with a ping of 900ms...So I'm starting to think that we are actually hurting ourselves by trying our hardest to save as much battery as possible.
Ill flash a dual core kernel now and post before and after results.
Thanks for the info. My 3g speeds are making me mental (I didn't update prl either)
chefdave12118 said:
Ill flash a dual core kernel now and post before and after results.
Thanks for the info. My 3g speeds are making me mental (I didn't update prl either)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you sir. My speeds are making me crazy as well...and I just decided to post this because I know it'll get people testing on it too that way we can all come to a conclusion on SOMETHING. We've all been saying our 3G speeds suck for a while and now it's time to pinpoint the problem.
And I think I owe the thread this much:
I live in Dallas and at my house I was working with 3-4 bars when using the speedtest app.
First I just used the ondemand governor at 1.2GHz and up threshold of 90 and got ~1200ms the first and second time and then ~1800ms the third time.
I went to the dual core kernel that I think smokey made...and I used his VOC one (because you can mess with setCPU with that one) and my ping was around 400-600ms.
I went back to my stock kernel and lowered the up threshold to 40 and I was still getting around 1000ms-1500ms...averaging basically 1200ms.
I put it on performance and at first got ~700ms then ~900ms then 400-600ms and I got a best of ~300ms.
Also:
"In most constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and only stay briefly in a light idle state"
I read taht from wikipedia. That's why I'm against setCPU profiles with the screen off. It is in fact better to use those profiles with 2.3.x than 2.2 because I remember 2.2 wasn't really killing any apps so if you were awake with the screen off..you pretty much stay awake. But it's also important to note that it does take longer for the processor to go into an idle mode if you are using any governor other than performance because of the fact that you have to scale up...and depending on how the dev decided to "conserve" battery, it might take a really long time.
But at the same time..you're using unnecessary power when at 1.2GHz to handle something real small...but since the whole CPU isn't being used to handle that (according to System Panel), and at an increased frequency like 1.2GHz...you'd be able to knock the task out quicker...idk, I'm just thinking.
Just wanted to show you my before now because it may be a few minutes to post my after.
Notice that teensy weeny 1 bar next to my 3g. That's pretty normal when I'm home (thank god for wifi). Ill be back!
ms79723 said:
Also:
"In most constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and only stay briefly in a light idle state"
I read taht from wikipedia. That's why I'm against setCPU profiles with the screen off. It is in fact better to use those profiles with 2.3.x than 2.2 because I remember 2.2 wasn't really killing any apps so if you were awake with the screen off..you pretty much stay awake. But it's also important to note that it does take longer for the processor to go into an idle mode if you are using any governor other than performance because of the fact that you have to scale up...and depending on how the dev decided to "conserve" battery, it might take a really long time.
But at the same time..you're using unnecessary power when at 1.2GHz to handle something real small...but since the whole CPU isn't being used to handle that (according to System Panel), and at an increased frequency like 1.2GHz...you'd be able to knock the task out quicker...idk, I'm just thinking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's some good thinking and good info.
Rootyourdroid.net. My nephews blog.
I've noticed a little bit of a difference but I also know sometimes it takes time for a kernel to settle in.
Both screen shots are from the same place in my house.
This is a placebo. You can update your prl to 00001 and see a real speed increase. The real problem is with sprints backhaul network. With the same kernel I go from 100 kbps on sprint to 1000 kbps on Verizon. Fact.
Sent from my PG86100
jason62082 said:
This is a placebo. You can update your prl to 00001 and see a real speed increase. The real problem is with sprints backhaul network. With the same kernel I go from 100 kbps on sprint to 1000 kbps on Verizon. Fact.
Sent from my PG86100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are the chances of sprint finding out? I really don't want to send one of my kids to Verizon so I can keep the Evo 3d.
Rootyourdroid.net. My nephews blog.
chefdave12118 said:
What are the chances of sprint finding out? I really don't want to send one of my kids to Verizon so I can keep the Evo 3d.
Rootyourdroid.net. My nephews blog.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You see, the only real problem is that if you roam too much on one of those PRLs (and you're always roaming, technically) Sprint will tell you that you're roaming too much and they'll drop you if it continues. If it does, then they'll send you a letter informing you that your service will be terminated and they give you X amount of days to find a new service before they officially discontinue your service. Those PRLs are great because I get excellent service, but if you plan on using 3G like crazy (even in WiFi spots) expect that letter. I never noticed any difference in my speeds and only used the PRL for a day or two, but if you like it go for it. It should also be noted that some guys have been using the PRL hack for around a year without anything to show for on Sprint's side, in terms of angry letters and whatnot, so you may be fine. It's all preference.
Hmmmmm. I've been with sprint for 10 years. I'm gonna have to think about that one. If I could get 4g from it (I know I can't), it would be a no brainer. But to chance losing sprint may not be worth a few more kbps.
Edit. You know what really grinds my gears? (Everyone knows where that's from). Is my niece is visiting and she has a thunderbolt. I just ran speed tests on her 4g and my 3d over wifi and she wooped me by almost 4 mbps. Just ain't fair.
Sent from my unrooted Galaxy Tab.
chefdave12118 said:
Hmmmmm. I've been with sprint for 10 years. I'm gonna have to think about that one. If I could get 4g from it (I know I can't), it would be a no brainer. But to chance losing sprint may not be worth a few more kbps.
Edit. You know what really grinds my gears? (Everyone knows where that's from). Is my niece is visiting and she has a thunderbolt. I just ran speed tests on her 4g and my 3d over wifi and she wooped me by almost 4 mbps. Just ain't fair.
Sent from my unrooted Galaxy Tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's so frustrating, Sprint's overloaded network needs a biiiggg tuneup. And that announcement they're supposed to make coming up soon about their network (from an article I read on Engadget a week or so ago) hopefully will let us know about LTE integration or somehow fixing our crawling data speeds... but hey, you could give the 00001 PRL a run and if they tell you that you're roaming too much then drop the PRL, and go back to normal ones. I personally don't think it's worth it but also I spend most of the day in school (with WiFi) or at home (with WiFi) so it doesn't affect me too much. But not even getting 4G at home or school sucks a lot.
so if your saying on demand gov is hurting our 3g, then should setting it on performance get higher speed? considering thata the cpu running at max speed? JW.
I dont get why everyone trusts speed.net or whatever. I ran a test with my evo3d and my samsung transform side by side. the transform always showed higher speeds but always took longer load up or down. my evo would be done way before the transform and would never read as high of speeds. Also tested my nexus and photon and they all avg around the same for me.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
cajones42 said:
so if your saying on demand gov is hurting our 3g, then should setting it on performance get higher speed? considering thata the cpu running at max speed? JW.
I dont get why everyone trusts speed.net or whatever. I ran a test with my evo3d and my samsung transform side by side. the transform always showed higher speeds but always took longer load up or down. my evo would be done way before the transform and would never read as high of speeds. Also tested my nexus and photon and they all avg around the same for me.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only speed test that I'm really aware of.
Rootyourdroid.net. My nephews blog.
Main reason im leaving sprint Ben with them 8 year between paying for premium data and being able to use it and the contract changes in not happy
E3D
chefdave12118 said:
Only speed test that I'm really aware of.
Rootyourdroid.net. My nephews blog.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Xtreme labs has a speed test app too
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Check this out...I think I really was on to something y'all.
I'm running Empire's AOSP rom (he has sound working btw so if you didn't know that, now you know. Go download and support!) and I did a speed test...my ping averages less than 100ms! The most I've seen was ~120ms. Remember what I was saying when I was on Sense? I was getting a best of 500-600ms on a dual core kernel and about 1200-1800ms on stock.
Sense seems to not only be messing up the performance...but its probably tanking our 3G speeds as well. I mean this is ridiculous....from ~1200ms to ~100ms. C'mon HTC Sense...
just ran another test after a reboot...ping was actually over 120ms (it was 148) and my download was 1334kbps and the upload was 635kbps. **** you Sense.
I currently have samsung vibrant ,its battery drains too fast ,might be some problem with it
I have the option of replacing it with another vibrant or samsung galaxy s 4g
which one is better ?
I have heard that samsung galaxy s 4g has only 512 MB internal while the vibrant has 16GB
is that too little to the way that makes it defective or to impede downloading apps on it (since most of the apps should be downloaded on the internal memory )?if so is there any solution for that rather than rooting the phone?
I love the idea of having a front facing camera and a better battery life
but im concerned about that memory issue
denverguy said:
I currently have samsung vibrant ,its battery drains too fast ,might be some problem with it
I have the option of replacing it with another vibrant or samsung galaxy s 4g
which one is better ?
I have heard that samsung galaxy s 4g has only 512 MB internal while the vibrant has 16GB
is that too little to the way that makes it defective or to impede downloading apps on it (since most of the apps should be downloaded on the internal memory )?if so is there any solution for that rather than rooting the phone?
I love the idea of having a front facing camera and a better battery life
but im concerned about that memory issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're mixing up internal storage (16gb) and RAM (512mb). I don't think you need to worry since those totals are exactly the same as the regular vibrant.
Sent from my T959 using xda premium
HeavyA said:
I think you're mixing up internal storage (16gb) and RAM (512mb). I don't think you need to worry since those totals are exactly the same as the regular vibrant.
Sent from my T959 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no the internal storage of the samsung galaxy s 4g in only 1 GB of which only 512 mb for apps ,tmobile usually take about 200 mb to preload apps on the phone !
I think you are confused about the memory issue.
Anyway, find out which phone has more dev support, and get that one.
SamsungVibrant said:
I think you are confused about the memory issue.
Anyway, find out which phone has more dev support, and get that one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vibrant has more dev support but 4G have more official support but the memory is a huge problem because it will be hard to update the phone since it has so little space
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Same devices internally,
Vibrant = 16GB Internal Mem w/expandable possible, No FFC
Galaxy S 4G = 1GB Internal w/expandable possible, w/FFC
Only difference....
I have both and there are some good roms out there for the sgs4g way better batt life and apps will save to sd
Sent from my Dell Streak 7 using XDA App
ricobudz123 said:
I have both and there are some good roms out there for the sgs4g way better batt life and apps will save to sd
Sent from my Dell Streak 7 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4G has 1650mah battery 3G 1500 not all apps can go to sd an roms have to go to internal memory
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Vibrant is better except gps and stock Rom performance.
Oh, and the ffc.
Hspa+ download speeds are not consistently good enough that you will beat the vibrant 3G consistently, since I could get almost Mbps down with mine in hspa+ market.
Maybe I'm being ignorant, but if a 3G vibrant can't hit 7.2 down, neither will any "4g" vibrant.
That's why I'm not into high speed hspa+ devices. You get terrible battery life on them for not much, if any benefit.
I think the only benefit is better upload speeds but my 3G vibrant uploads at 2.5+ Mbps in an hspa+ market which is fast enough for most any task.
Get a 3G vibrant cheap and install a custom rom of you like to tinker. It's a better value for the monetary investment, IMO.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
I have both and Galaxy S 4G is simply better than Vibrant.
1. Better battery life
2. Better GPS
3. Better speed (best 14.3 MBits/s vs 6.2 MBits/s on Vibrant)
4. FFC
5. Better display (personal opinion)
After deleting bloatware, without doing FOTA mod, I have availaible 274 MB.
Krzysiek_CK said:
I have both and Galaxy S 4G is simply better than Vibrant.
1. Better battery life
2. Better GPS
3. Better speed (best 14 MBits/s vs 6.2 MBits/s on Vibrant)
4. FFC
5. Better display (personal opinion)
After deleting bloatware, without doing FOTA mod, I have availaible 274 MB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, the vibrant is a 7.2 mbps device. The 4g will not consistently get over 7.2 for the vast majority of people so that's a wash IMO.
Battery life isn't that much better. Its only a 10% increase in battery size.
The GPS is the biggest gain IMO, but the storage is more important. I find the vibrants GPS is fine for accuracy. Where it actually fails is how damn long it takes to lock. This affects people which turn GPS on and off on an as needed basis a lot more than those that leave it on all the time since the phone will almost always do a lock on boot which lessens the time it takes to get later locks for that latter crowd.
The ffc is a win on the 4g, though. Can't argue with that at al. Losing that much space is not worth it IMO. I'd still get the vibrant over the 4g just for the extra > 12g storage in it!
In the end which one is better will ultimately depend on how you use your phone.
N8ter said:
First of all, the vibrant is a 7.2 mbps device. The 4g will not consistently get over 7.2 for the vast majority of people so that's a wash IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your opinion doesn't hold water (as usual!)
The higher modulation that comes with "4G" allows for higher peak speeds. The Vibrant has overhead, 7.2 Mbps is only under optimal conditions, never really ever happening. 21Mbps is also only under optimal conditions, but the higher ceiling allows for higher peak speed.
N8ter said:
First of all, the vibrant is a 7.2 mbps device. The 4g will not consistently get over 7.2 for the vast majority of people so that's a wash IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I consistently get 8-10 MBits/s on 4G, I guess I'm the vast minority. Also, I live 2 blocks away from the T-Mobile store that has 4G tower.
N8ter said:
Battery life isn't that much better. Its only a 10% increase in battery size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is more too it then you think, and it translates to a much better battery life than 10%.
N8ter said:
The GPS is the biggest gain IMO, but the storage is more important.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In your personal opinion but not in mine. Storage is cheap, broken GPS wastes time. I currently have 16 GB card in Galaxy S 4G and it is more than I need.
N8ter said:
I find the vibrants GPS is fine for accuracy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since you like to respond for others, let me do the same. The vast majority of people have issues with Vibrant GPS that wonders by blocks and occasionally by miles.
N8ter said:
Where it actually fails is how damn long it takes to lock. This affects people which turn GPS on and off on an as needed basis a lot more than those that leave it on all the time since the phone will almost always do a lock on boot which lessens the time it takes to get later locks for that latter crowd.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I work in a high-rise and leaving GPS on all the time kills battery since it tries to connect all the time. Strangely enough, you also made a comment regarding the batter life.
N8ter said:
Losing that much space is not worth it IMO. I'd still get the vibrant over the 4g just for the extra > 12g storage in it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I beg to differ.
I would get the newer model if it had miui support. I don't think I can live without miui ever again.
Krzysiek_CK said:
I consistently get 8-10 MBits/s on 4G, I guess I'm the vast minority. Also, I live 2 blocks away from the T-Mobile store that has 4G tower.
There is more too it then you think, and it translates to a much better battery life than 10%.
In your personal opinion but not in mine. Storage is cheap, broken GPS wastes time. I currently have 16 GB card in Galaxy S 4G and it is more than I need.
Since you like to respond for others, let me do the same. The vast majority of people have issues with Vibrant GPS that wonders by blocks and occasionally by miles.
I work in a high-rise and leaving GPS on all the time kills battery since it tries to connect all the time. Strangely enough, you also made a comment regarding the batter life.
I beg to differ.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I said the battery was only 10% bigger. I can get over 11 hours on my vibrant. It's on the charger before it can die. Battery life not a factor for me on these phones. I'm aware leaving gps on drains battery.
16g isn't enough to hold my music and videos. The extra 12 in the vibrant is huge cause 32 gb cards are still too expensive IMO.
And yes very high speeds aren't all that common even Verizon lte customers don't get anything near the theoretical max. I can get ~4 down on my vibrant anything more than that I won't notice much since I don't tether or download ridiculously large files on my phones.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
N8ter said:
I said the battery was only 10% bigger. I can get over 11 hours on my vibrant. It's on the charger before it can die. Battery life not a factor for me on these phones. I'm aware leaving gps on drains battery.
16g isn't enough to hold my music and videos. The extra 12 in the vibrant is huge cause 32 gb cards are still too expensive IMO.
And yes very high speeds aren't all that common even Verizon lte customers don't get anything near the theoretical max. I can get ~4 down on my vibrant anything more than that I won't notice much since I don't tether or download ridiculously large files on my phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, I guess you like your Vibrant. That is perfectly fine, yet it does not make Vibrant better than Galaxy S 4G.
I used to have a vibrant before the insurance got me the galaxy 4g. I can definitely say that the 4g is better. My speeds doubled which is almost the same speeds as my cable
internet. I don't have a problem with my battery especially since the 1800mah battery from the epic 4g touch is working wonders. I do miss the 16GB on board but I have a 32gb card and never had a problem of having low internal storage. We also have some great developers so not worried about development. Also we have official gingerbread!
Sent from my SGH-T959V using XDA App
I had both and I think modified vibrant is better.
Some apps on 4g were losing their settings after reboot.
Inernal memory on Vibrant is faster than external SD on 4G.
Also 4g drains more power than 3g.
In 4g they made 2 copper GPS contacts in vibrant it is only one
Sent from my T959 using XDA App
my question...are there roms specifically for the vibrant 4g? or do any of the normal vibrant roms install and work the same on the vibrant 4g? just had to do an insurance claim on my vibrant and had to get the 4g. i rooted it, but dont want to go any farther without consulting from the knowledge of xda!
itstheshawnp said:
my question...are there roms specifically for the vibrant 4g? or do any of the normal vibrant roms install and work the same on the vibrant 4g? just had to do an insurance claim on my vibrant and had to get the 4g. i rooted it, but dont want to go any farther without consulting from the knowledge of xda!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they are different. Don't install a Vibrant rom to the Galaxy S 4G...bad news
Been looking at the skyrocket not sure if I want to get it. I live in Phoenix we Verizon lte but don't know when we are getting it. I know that the gs2 is better then the
Skyrocket, processor wise. So can anyone help our give done insight
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
if you dont have AT&T LTE in your area, dont get the skyrocket.
No, there are other things...
Our radio actually works - lots of reports are coming in that the Skyrocket is having tons of connectivity issues.
Our battery life is excellent - A number of ****rocket owners are reporting that battery life on LTE is horrible.
Our phone isn't a gigantic fatty.
Our device is faster - it's not the launcher - the Snapdragon is consistently slower in every workload anyone has tested, whether it is the "feel" of the user interface, or if it's a benchmark. As much as I hate benchmarks, when they are consistent with subjective user interface responsiveness experiences, it does say something.
I just copy/pasted from entropy512 thanks....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
I have been contemplating this same thing....
I am in the Chicago market (LTE) I am going to stay with the OG. Already ordered the car dock from Samsung.
I can stream Hulu+ just fine with the OG.
go to the store and compare two phones
do a speed test in the store as well
do a benchmark test as well.
It is too late for me to change to Skyrocket so I say OGGSII is better
igotdez said:
No, there are other things...
Our radio actually works - lots of reports are coming in that the Skyrocket is having tons of connectivity issues.
Our battery life is excellent - A number of ****rocket owners are reporting that battery life on LTE is horrible.
Our phone isn't a gigantic fatty.
Our device is faster - it's not the launcher - the Snapdragon is consistently slower in every workload anyone has tested, whether it is the "feel" of the user interface, or if it's a benchmark. As much as I hate benchmarks, when they are consistent with subjective user interface responsiveness experiences, it does say something.
I just copy/pasted from entropy512 thanks....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Enough said /thread.
+1 I think the GS2 is better, just go to the development section and see the support already from the devs
This is the exact question facing me. I am in a Non-LTE area.
From the data I have seen, Both phones have advantages and disadvantages. The OGSII has better performance, FM. The Skyrocket has Better GPS, Network Speed (In Non LTE areas, APN related ??)
None of the reviews seem to address whether the Skyrocket battery is better or worse than the OGSII. Also another thing in question is how is the radio, voice signal , data signal in marginal signal areas.
Can any one elaborate if there is any existing info on these.. ?
igotdez said:
No, there are other things...
Our radio actually works - lots of reports are coming in that the Skyrocket is having tons of connectivity issues.
Our battery life is excellent - A number of ****rocket owners are reporting that battery life on LTE is horrible.
Our phone isn't a gigantic fatty.
Our device is faster - it's not the launcher - the Snapdragon is consistently slower in every workload anyone has tested, whether it is the "feel" of the user interface, or if it's a benchmark. As much as I hate benchmarks, when they are consistent with subjective user interface responsiveness experiences, it does say something.
I just copy/pasted from entropy512 thanks....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I made the mistake of returning my I777 for the Skyrocket. It was a pain but I'm back with the original galaxy S2. I could deal with the other draw backs of the skyrocket, but it does have major connectivity issues in a non LTE area. The Speedtest app took me 16 minutes to download.
Real world testing and data comparisons show very little difference between the snapdragon S3 and the Samsung E* processor. Granted it runs at 1.5GHz (max of course) compared to the 1.2GHz (max), I still think it's worthwhile especially since I'm in an LTE area.
I'm going to go trade in my SGS2 tomorrow. YMMV, obviously.
Real world testing:
(note the HTC Sensation uses the same/similar Snapdragon processor)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqqQgoCiupM
My money is on the OGSGS2 (literally)
Thanks for all info guys really appreciate it. Im still well within my 30 days from target. I did get my
Gs2 for 99.00 so that's a big plus. lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
You can't compare an HTC phone that doesn't even make use of TW 4.0... So what if it has the same processor? Does it utilize the same system ram, the same software interface, etc.? Not trying to be rude, just stating my opinion. If you're going to compare apples to apples, do it with the Samsung Galaxy Skyrocket, not an HTC phone.
The HTC phone looks bad in the video, I am trying to understand if the Skyrocket will behave the same, Without the Htc sense overlay, and with a faster clocked snapdragon 1.2Ghz->1.5Ghz processor compared to the Sensation.
igotdez said:
No, there are other things...
Our radio actually works - lots of reports are coming in that the Skyrocket is having tons of connectivity issues.
Our battery life is excellent - A number of ****rocket owners are reporting that battery life on LTE is horrible.
Our phone isn't a gigantic fatty.
Our device is faster - it's not the launcher - the Snapdragon is consistently slower in every workload anyone has tested, whether it is the "feel" of the user interface, or if it's a benchmark. As much as I hate benchmarks, when they are consistent with subjective user interface responsiveness experiences, it does say something.
I just copy/pasted from entropy512 thanks....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My radio on my skyrocket has not droped 1 call ....my ogsg2 droped calls everyday.... Not to mention blazing fast internet in and out of my LTE area.
My battery last all day with moderate use ... So what more do you need ...
Phone does not feel fat or awkward to handle.
Id go with the skyrocket
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
I say go with the Captivate.
Lmao
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
Here's a poll
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1332266
david032766 said:
My radio on my skyrocket has not droped 1 call ....my ogsg2 droped calls everyday.... Not to mention blazing fast internet in and out of my LTE area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The radio problems with the Vivid and Skyrocket are in HSPA (3G) areas. They can drop to EDGE speed or lose data completely. If you're in an LTE area and don't travel it's not a problem. A co-worker with a Skyrocket just got back from a multi-state trip and got EDGE speeds in 3G areas. AT&T’s supposedly working on a fix. Here's a link to the discussion in the Vivid forum. That they're both experiencing similar radio issues isn't surprising considering they're both using similar Qualcomm chips.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1337062
Loved my gs2. Really did. I work with all the carriers so I always have envy of the larger screen on the sprint gs2. Zero complaints about the gs2.
My area should have lte in a couple months. I prefer the larger screen. I've have zero connectivity issues. My h+ is faster with my skyrocket somehow. Zero lag. Screen looks just as great.
It comes down to preference but do not let someone tell you the skyrocket is less of a quality choice or that it's slow and the screen is garbage. Benchmarks mean nothing. In real life I've noticed zero difference.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
I read the Vivid posts and it sounds like a network or APN problem, not a device issue. I went from an i9100 to the SR and it's faster on HSPA+ everywhere. I have noticed issues with the pta APN. I switch to phone it works fine.
I just did a test on my GS2 vs My wife Infuse and Her's is pulling over 10 Down and 3 UP. while mine is doing 6 down and 3 up!! what give? I thought our phone would better data speed then the Old Infuse!! Both phone running CM7
Same here, my GS2 runs 2.5 down and 1 up, my girlfriends infuse runs 5.5 down and 1.5 up both with stock roms and custom kernels, with my GS2 having better service! About ready to go back to an infuse. Seems strange though, tried different modems, same speeds, so i'm thinking hardware differences, plus my GS2 crashes with overclock regardless of what rom or kernel, her infuse runs 1.8 overclock with no crashes:-(
Sent from my GT-P7510 using xda premium
Sitting at the same spot.
Over H+ netwk, 5354kbps / 903kbps for download / upload respectively.
Over home wifi, 18697kbps / 3617kbps for download / upload respectively.
On my lappy over home wifi, 23.21Mbps / 3.60Mbps, data pulled to/from Boston, MA
My i777 gets 50% better speed than my old captivate. However, many times using the speed test app they would be the same, or captivate would win. When I use a browser based test the i777 is always the winner.
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)