People we don't need the the new Korea s4 with snapdragon 800 to use lte advanced since the s4 for Verizon is the only s4 in america right now that is already capable of lte advanced all it needs is an update or firmware update to enable it just thought you should all know this for people who don't know this yet.. every other s4 is not future proof like Verizons.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
I thought that the Verizon version had AWS, which is different than LTE-Advanced...
Right?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Aws= advanced wireless spectrum which technically is the same as lteA = long term evolution advanced
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Correct me if I am wrong but I think LTE-Advanced encompasses AWS as AWS(Advanced Wireless Services) is a spectrum.
If this is true, yes!
A key to the new high speed lte is the smaller fabrication process to emit less heat. Not seeing how this future proof is correct, since the S4 gets hot with current lte. A firmware update will not change the fabrication process. Seems a physics defying premise.
The Snap 800 uses a lower fabrication process for both cpu/gpu and the radios. The hardware jump from the S4 Snap 600 to S4 Snap 800 jump in chipset is bigger than the S3 Snap dual and the S4 Snap 600.
Samsung is being too understated with the new S4 naming. Probably as not to hurt current S4 sales.
gabrielpina4 said:
Aws= advanced wireless spectrum which technically is the same as lteA = long term evolution advanced
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AWS is the name of the spectrum band VZW will be supplementing it's current LTE network with. It has nothing do with LTE-A networks. That's not to say that AWS spectrum cannot be used for an LTE Advanced network.
Last time I checked Verizon had not indicated whether they will deploying LTE-A anytime soon.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about VZW intention to deploy LTE-A.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda premium
Honesty, who needs speeds faster than 20mbs? It's not practical for most people
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda premium
gabrielpina4 said:
People we don't need the the new Korea s4 with snapdragon 800 to use lte advanced since the s4 for Verizon is the only s4 in america right now that is already capable of lte advanced all it needs is an update or firmware update to enable it just thought you should all know this for people who don't know this yet.. every other s4 is not future proof like Verizons.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree.
We won't be getting those speeds for quite some time on Verizon but the new device will be coming to the US. Just not to Verizon
The LTE-A version is not compatible with Verizons AWS. Not the same technology as was pointed out earlier. A naming scheme does not bring technology with it.
What some people don't understand is that the Korean LTE-A S4 will work in the US. You just won't get the LTE-A. You will get 3g or 1x.
Guys don't feed the troll.
gabrielpina4 said:
Aws= advanced wireless spectrum which technically is the same as lteA = long term evolution advanced
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's not. AWS allows for a dual-link, which in theory doubles speeds. LTE-A can hit speeds of up to 1gbps. AWS LTE is NOT LTE-A.
tsangwc said:
Guys don't feed the troll.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Troll = Naysayer to the premise of the OP?
Too much higher speed LTE will run too hot on the current S4 radio, since too high of a fabrication process to efficiently (thermally + power draw) manage the signal. Sorry if I am misunderstanding your post
Added:
Isn't "future proof" with consumer electronics an oxymoron?
jaykresge said:
No, it's not. AWS allows for a dual-link, which in theory doubles speeds. LTE-A can hit speeds of up to 1gbps. AWS LTE is NOT LTE-A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dead on right. +1
rushless said:
Troll = Naysayer to the premise of the OP?
Too much higher speed LTE will run too hot on the current S4 radio, since too high of a fabrication process to efficiently (thermally + power draw) manage the signal. Sorry if I am misunderstanding your post
Added:
Isn't "future proof" with consumer electronics an oxymoron?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Higher speeds make the S4 hotter?? The is no reason it would run hotter at higher speeds at all. It doesn't work that way. Never mind what that guy said about fab process.
Sent from my SGS4. Go Blue!! Buck the Fuc keyes!!
Yea this S4 is such a piece...so slow...gonna have to buy the faster one, this one isn't cutting it
I am a tad confused, since Samsung mentioned that the Snap 800 was a new production process to improve battery and reduce heat and faster LTE, but the Snap 800 uses the same 28nm process. The two differences are the radios and gpu. GPU is a lot faster, but same 28nm. Seems it will run hotter than the Snap 600 unless the radios were improved to a lower fabrication process.
Not adding up. Considering the Snap 600 already plays games butter smooth, we may be hitting a diminished return curve from that regard. The biggie would be radio improvements to reduce heat resistance there.
I think I bit the Samsung marketing BS, since the 800 seems a better chip for tablets that can dissipate the heat better with a bigger footprint.
No real point in waiting for an S4 with the 800 in it. I think the 600 will be a safer chip in regards to heat concerns compare to the 800. 28nm is 28nm, no matter how they spin it. I was duped hard. Added: Not that it is hard to do.
rushless said:
I am a tad confused, since Samsung mentioned that the Snap 800 was a new production process to improve battery and reduce heat and faster LTE, but the Snap 800 uses the same 28nm process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're confusing "new process" with "smaller process." Not every fabrication process change requires going to a smaller process. Snapdragon S600 uses the 28nm LP process, whereas the S800 uses the 28nm HPm process. This allows the CPU to be more battery efficient, which allows it to produce less heat, and therefore, reach higher clock speeds. The 600 peaks at 1.9ghz whereas the 800 peaks at 2.3ghz (yes, good batches can be overclocked further). The process has no effect on the radio. That's a separate component within the SOC.
As for the radio, Snapdragon devices have long been lauded for having a built-in radio on the SOC. The S4 Pro (used in Nexus 4, Droid DNA, Xperia Z, etc.) has a built-in radio compatible with GSM, UMTS, CDMA, and LTE (so long as it's paired with the right antenna, amplifier, and firmware). The Snapdragon 600 does NOT have built in radios. The radio is separate. So, Snapdragon 600/SOCs are typically paired with a radio (usually also made by Qualcomm) that suits the needs of the network(s) targeted by that device. The Snapdragon 800 comes in versions with and without the radio/modem. The one that comes with it supports GSM/UMTS/CDMA/LTE w/carrier aggregation up to 150mbps (IE, AWS spectrum, though it's not the only example). The Snapdragon 800 does not have on-die LTE-Advanced support. That still requires a separate chip. A future teardown of the S4 LTE-A model will show this.
Related
So, we've all seen Big Red's LTE capabilities and it's extremely impressive. Anybody care to speculate on what Sprint's LTE will be like, considering the much higher frequency it will initially be running on? Think about penetration (no homo), range, speed, and the never-ending rumor of potential bandwidth caps/throttling.
Speed, no clue. Penetration obviously won't be anywhere near as good until they get it on the iden frequency. 1900 seems only a pinch less sucky than Clear's current frequency to me.
If I understand right the iden frequency is 800mhz? I thought sprint was only going to use this for voice calls?
brownhornet said:
Speed, no clue. Penetration obviously won't be anywhere near as good until they get it on the iden frequency. 1900 seems only a pinch less sucky than Clear's current frequency to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The penetration will be the same as 3g as the 1900 is what it uses in most places not as good as 800 but alot better than 2500
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Sprint had commitments for iden till 2012, this year, they can shut off the nextel iden network and roll out LTE on the 800mhz frequency this year and likely will do so with that new hybrid box they have been working on. This won't go in all at once, they will roll it out in stages by city and will likely take two years to get it mostly out and another 5+ to hit 95% of market coverage converted.
Nanan00 said:
Sprint had commitments for iden till 2012, this year, they can shut off the nextel iden network and roll out LTE on the 800mhz frequency this year and likely will do so with that new hybrid box they have been working on. This won't go in all at once, they will roll it out in stages by city and will likely take two years to get it mostly out and another 5+ to hit 95% of market coverage converted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought that sprint is going to use the 800 mhz band for voice only?
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/32-network-vision-explained/
I believe 1.9 will be used for LTE, CDMA Voice / Data
800 will be used for CDMA Voice / Data and in the future possibly LTE.
IAmSixNine said:
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/32-network-vision-explained/
I believe 1.9 will be used for LTE, CDMA Voice / Data
800 will be used for CDMA Voice / Data and in the future possibly LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice!
Beat me to posting that site...S4GRU.com is by far the most indepth and best resource for all things Sprint network related right now.
DarkManX4lf said:
I thought that sprint is going to use the 800 mhz band for voice only?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I was told, Sprint is building boxes that can push LTE and CDMA on 800 and 1900. How Sprint actually allocates the bandwidth I have no clue but it looks like they are leaving it open for any combination of the two, my guess would be that it depends on load.
Nanan00 said:
From what I was told, Sprint is building boxes that can push LTE and CDMA on 800 and 1900. How Sprint actually allocates the bandwidth I have no clue but it looks like they are leaving it open for any combination of the two, my guess would be that it depends on load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I was told its going to be dependent on the tower location what freq will be used ... In Areas where towers are closer like major metro areas they will use 1900 in more rural areas the will use 800 because the signal will travel further and you can cover more with less towers...but the hardware is going to have all the same in every tower....as redundant backup also....
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Epix4G said:
The penetration will be the same as 3g as the 1900 is what it uses in most places not as good as 800 but alot better than 2500
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signal wise it should be roughly the same but from what some of the LTE testing has shown is that the performance degrades much more with LTE than it does with EVDO over the signal.
http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/5...coming-800-band/page__view__findpost__p__7857
Epix4G said:
From what I was told its going to be dependent on the tower location what freq will be used ... In Areas where towers are closer like major metro areas they will use 1900 in more rural areas the will use 800 because the signal will travel further and you can cover more with less towers...but the hardware is going to have all the same in every tower....as redundant backup also....
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, when it comes to metro areas, places like a big city with a large down town district, 800mzh overlay with the 1.9 is the ultimate solution.
800 will penetrate deeper into the buildings and overall give a better in building coverage. So densly populated areas would be a great candidate for both 800mhz and 1.9mhz.
Also there is only so much spectrum that each carrier owns in a given location. So if loading is an issue, they can offload some of the usage to the 800mhz spectrum if or when necessary.
Whatever happened with the rumored upgrade to EVDO Rev B?
mike.r.olson said:
Whatever happened with the rumored upgrade to EVDO Rev B?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
was never anything but a rumor at the least. mainly b/c of the fact that the phones supported it.
Sprint will be doing do-advanced though more likely as they have at least talked about that.
---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------
IAmSixNine said:
Actually, when it comes to metro areas, places like a big city with a large down town district, 800mzh overlay with the 1.9 is the ultimate solution.
800 will penetrate deeper into the buildings and overall give a better in building coverage. So densly populated areas would be a great candidate for both 800mhz and 1.9mhz.
Also there is only so much spectrum that each carrier owns in a given location. So if loading is an issue, they can offload some of the usage to the 800mhz spectrum if or when necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint has very little Spectrum in 800MHz compared to the others.....If I were to guess any off loading will be to Clears 2.5GHz which is supposed to have over 5k sites up by next June if i remember correctly...
MOST off loading will be from 3G to 4G more than anything though....hence the smith mirco deal they signed...
Hi guys,
Can anyone please clarify this inconsistency of news.
Last month, Samsung tells the media that they have no technological problems in using their Exynos 4 Quad chips in the U.S.A.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/03/129_107204.html
``We don’t think there will be big technology-related problems as we have already tested our telecommunications chips in some smartphones and tablets for consumers in North America. Also, Google’s first reference mobile, the Galaxy Nexus, is using Samsung's telecom chips,’’ said the executive.
However, this news this week contradicts of the last month's news.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/04/129_109578.html
``Samsung plans to release its Galaxy S III smartphone according to different specifications and different markets. For European consumers, it will use 3G and the company’s own quad-core mobile APs, while its own solution that combines LTE, 3G and quad-core mobile APs will be used for the Korean version. But only in the United States, will Samsung use Qualcomm chips,’’ said one Samsung executive asking not to be identified.
It'll probably have Snapdragon S4 in the United States to work with our LTE, because the carriers here are idiotic.
souleater11 said:
Hi guys,
Can anyone please clarify this inconsistency of news.
Last month, Samsung tells the media that they have no technological problems in using their Exynos 4 Quad chips in the U.S.A.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/03/129_107204.html
``We don’t think there will be big technology-related problems as we have already tested our telecommunications chips in some smartphones and tablets for consumers in North America. Also, Google’s first reference mobile, the Galaxy Nexus, is using Samsung's telecom chips,’’ said the executive.
However, this news this week contradicts of the last month's news.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/04/129_109578.html
``Samsung plans to release its Galaxy S III smartphone according to different specifications and different markets. For European consumers, it will use 3G and the company’s own quad-core mobile APs, while its own solution that combines LTE, 3G and quad-core mobile APs will be used for the Korean version. But only in the United States, will Samsung use Qualcomm chips,’’ said one Samsung executive asking not to be identified.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this means that only the LTE version (i9500? i9800?) will use the S4, and the non-LTE version(s) will use an Exynos, similar to the SII/Skyrocket line.
I hoping, anyway...
For the slower people among us, Exynos does not support LTE so any market like The US or Canada that has LTE will be using the S4 Snapdragon chip since Samsung (and Nvidia) for some reason don't have the know-how to integrate LTE. Blaming US carriers is really stupid and ignorant. The dual-core s4 beats the quad-core Tegra 3 in a lot of benchmarks, and has better battery to boot since it is smaller and uses less power, has less cores. The new Exynos is still based on the old A9 core, like the Tegra 3, so expecting it to be leaps and bounds above the Tegra 3, or even significantly better than the S4, which has newer more advanced cores, is also stupid. Being stupid is fine, as long as you aren't directing that stupidity in order to hate something.
katamari201 said:
For the slower people among us, Exynos does not support LTE so any market like The US or Canada that has LTE will be using the S4 Snapdragon chip since Samsung (and Nvidia) for some reason don't have the know-how to integrate LTE. Blaming US carriers is really stupid and ignorant. The dual-core s4 beats the quad-core Tegra 3 in a lot of benchmarks, and has better battery to boot since it is smaller and uses less power, has less cores. The new Exynos is still based on the old A9 core, like the Tegra 3, so expecting it to be leaps and bounds above the Tegra 3, or even significantly better than the S4, which has newer more advanced cores, is also stupid. Being stupid is fine, as long as you aren't directing that stupidity in order to hate something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't that completely opposite from some of the news reports?
I'm pretty sure it said exynos with LTE capability will be used in the home market but for the US market, it will lean on Qualcomm once again.
Also Galaxy Tab 7.7 for verizon comes with exynos and LTE capability
ph00ny said:
Isn't that completely opposite from some of the news reports?
I'm pretty sure it said exynos with LTE capability will be used in the home market but for the US market, it will lean on Qualcomm once again.
Also Galaxy Tab 7.7 for verizon comes with exynos and LTE capability
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The LTE that the GS3 supports with its exynos is speculated to only be LTE in countries like Korea, where they use a vastly different spectrum than they do here in the states.
Also: a quick search tells me that the Galaxy Tab 7.7 with LTE is not using a exynos.
degeneration said:
The LTE that the GS3 supports with its exynos is speculated to only be LTE in countries like Korea, where they use a vastly different spectrum than they do here in the states.
Also: a quick search tells me that the Galaxy Tab 7.7 with LTE is not using a exynos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol i have one and it certainly does use Exynos. Initially it was announced with Snapdragon but it was actually released with Exynos
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/21/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-verizon-wireless-lte/
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-galaxy-tab-77-lte-for-verizon-review
ph00ny said:
lol i have one and it certainly does use Exynos. Initially it was announced with Snapdragon but it was actually released with Exynos
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/21/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-verizon-wireless-lte/
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-galaxy-tab-77-lte-for-verizon-review
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure why that is "lol" worthy, but ok.
Anyway, doesn't really matter since they probably won't use the same processor, so it could still lack the capabilities. Again, from the speculations I have read (which are only that), the new soc will only support LTE like that used in Korea, which isn't similar to anything used in the states.
.Arkham said:
I think this means that only the LTE version (i9500? i9800?) will use the S4, and the non-LTE version(s) will use an Exynos, similar to the SII/Skyrocket line.
I hoping, anyway...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we might be getting both Exynos and the S4 chip in Canada. Like what Bell did with the Galaxy S2, they got the non-LTE version first and got the LTE version after.
ph00ny said:
lol i have one and it certainly does use Exynos. Initially it was announced with Snapdragon but it was actually released with Exynos
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/21/samsung-galaxy-tab-7-7-review-verizon-wireless-lte/
http://pocketnow.com/android/samsung-galaxy-tab-77-lte-for-verizon-review
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It uses an Exynos 4 with a separate LTE chip (also made by Qualcomm). The Snapdragon S4 will have embedded LTE support.
The dualcore S4 has higher clock speed, 28nm and is based on the ARM's newer A15. We don't know which is better until there are some reputable benchmark comparison between the two. And this puts a brake on my idea of getting the SIII as soon as its released, because I would like to know how it gauges against S4, performance and battery life, and I don't want to drop $800 on a phone that is not up to par compared to stuff already out (re: Galaxy Nexus).
The s3 is going to be a beast. If it has pentaband like the galaxy nexus. I'll buy besides whats the point of having LTE speeds when data plans are limited. My Galaxy Nexus is plenty fast on tmobile Speeds up to 9mps down and 1.5 mps up. Exynos quad core over snapdragon anyday. I'll be buying the int'l unlocked version.
the Tmo version for AWS 1700 will most likely have the S4 for the qualcommn chip to use the 42Mbps network
the international and USA market will have the regular Exynos version
unless AT&T pulls another goofy release and use S4 also on their LTE version, while releasing a non LTE version on Exynos
like they did when release both SGS2 standard, and SGS2 LTE
katamari201 said:
The new Exynos is still based on the old A9 core, like the Tegra 3, so expecting it to be leaps and bounds above the Tegra 3, or even significantly better than the S4, which has newer more advanced cores, is also stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With today's announcement of the GSIII, we are starting to see a comparison of performance results between its processor, (presumably) the Exynos Quad 4, and the other big guns which have recently entered the scene, the Snapdragon S4 and Tegra 3. This post is in response to the one quoted above, and relates to the OP in that it is an attempt to clarify the significance of the OP's question. Here are just a few results I've spliced together from a couple of sources.
Quadrant:
1. Samsung GSIII (Exynos Quad 4) @ 5642
2. HTC One XL (S4) @ 4952
3. HTC One X (Tegra 3) @ 4842
SunSpider (lower is better)
1. GSIII @ 1479
2. One XL @ 1608
3. One X @ 1757
BrowserMark
1. GSIII @ 169811
2. One X @ 110038
3. One XL @ 102640
Of course, there are many more benchmarks that are yet to be tried. And, at any rate, nearly all bench apps are notorious for inconsistency, so time will make all this clearer. I expect to see the S4 slaughter the Exynos Quad 4 in something like Linpack, which is simply CPU data I/O, whereas Samsung's Mali-400 GPU will save their reputation whenever graphics are concerned. Regardless of such speculation, the little data that we currently have suggests that the Exynos Quad 4 is not your average A9 chip, and it may well give the earliest released A15 dual-cores a run for their money. Is it really stupid to hope that a highly optimized quad-core A9, which is based on 32nm technology (instead of the normal A9 45nm), and which supports 128-bit instruction (just like the S4), could out-perform a first-release dual-core A15? Well, I suppose I'm just one of those stupid people.
Sites referenced:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_flexes_muscles_on_benchmarks-news-4201.php
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-one-xl-benchmark-snapdragon-s4-tegra-3-67678/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5779/htc-one-x-for-att-review/4
eksasol said:
It uses an Exynos 4 with a separate LTE chip (also made by Qualcomm). The Snapdragon S4 will have embedded LTE support.
The dualcore S4 has higher clock speed, 28nm and is based on the ARM's newer A15. We don't know which is better until there are some reputable benchmark comparison between the two. And this puts a brake on my idea of getting the SIII as soon as its released, because I would like to know how it gauges against S4, performance and battery life, and I don't want to drop $800 on a phone that is not up to par compared to stuff already out (re: Galaxy Nexus).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totally agree with you. Only reason to ditch my GS2 for this would be if improvement is not incremental but leap forward.
I predict T-Mo and AT&T version will use S4 because T-Mo requires 42mbps HSPA radio that Samsung can't produce and AT&T wants single radio fall back (LTE to HSPA) of Qualcomm chip.
Since Verizon and Sprint require two separate radio interfaces anyway (CMDA for voice and LTE for data), Exynos 4 will be used for these two variants.
AtlanM87 said:
totally agree with you. Only reason to ditch my GS2 for this would be if improvement is not incremental but leap forward.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm confused how people keep posting stuff like this. Whatever model number is stamped on the internal parts, it obviously crushes the GS2 in benchmarks. There's a thread in this forum with over 30 improvements over it.
How that's even a serious question at this point baffles me.
You can say that you're happy with what you have, and that's a plenty valid opinion. Saying it's not a leap in sheer power is being willfully ignorant of facts.
SG3 on Sprint
foxbat121 said:
I predict T-Mo and AT&T version will use S4 because T-Mo requires 42mbps HSPA radio that Samsung can't produce and AT&T wants single radio fall back (LTE to HSPA) of Qualcomm chip.
Since Verizon and Sprint require two separate radio interfaces anyway (CMDA for voice and LTE for data), Exynos 4 will be used for these two variants.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am interested to see what will happen if the SG3 releases on sprint. I know that sprint is doing a network makeover (Network Vision I think it is called). I hear that Samsung is one of the major suppliers for the new 4G LTE equipment that sprint is using to update their network infrastructure. If that is true, then we could easily see a SG3 with they exynos 4 running on sprint. Why would Samsung make equipment for the carriers in the united states and not allow its mobile devices to connect to their equipment?
Another interesting point, LTE release 10 is designed to carry voice as well as data. Sprint Network Vision states that it will be one of the first to have a feature called "HD Voice". I assume that this will be provided by VoLTE(Voice over LTE) This could help sprint (and verizon I guess) get rid of the extra chips in the phones for mulitple band support.
Add all this on top of the plan for sprint to axe its iDEN network (800MHz band) and allocate it to LTE. That should provide way better signal in houses. It sucks to be on sprint now but I think it is going to get really good soon.
I know there is a lot of speculation here but if anyone wants to hear some of the sources where I have read this stuff then let me know and I will post it.
Nick0703 said:
I think we might be getting both Exynos and the S4 chip in Canada. Like what Bell did with the Galaxy S2, they got the non-LTE version first and got the LTE version after.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dissagree, I see the announcement on the bell website and it shows the sgs3 with no specs but shows to be HD & LTE so im sure they will do like the note. I had some questions before getting the canadian note with snapdragon 3 over the exynos anf i learned that to my user experience i never encounter anything that made my note lag or cannot do smoothly so i even if worst case senario we get snapdragon 4 it will still be better than the note making me real happy with it.
Btw ill never trade my note for any other phone than the note 2 im just shopping for my girlfriend phone
Send from the Noteorious BIG 5.3" Bell Canada
lurchbyrep said:
With today's announcement of the GSIII, we are starting to see a comparison of performance results between its processor, (presumably) the Exynos Quad 4, and the other big guns which have recently entered the scene, the Snapdragon S4 and Tegra 3. This post is in response to the one quoted above, and relates to the OP in that it is an attempt to clarify the significance of the OP's question. Here are just a few results I've spliced together from a couple of sources.
Quadrant:
1. Samsung GSIII (Exynos Quad 4) @ 5642
2. HTC One XL (S4) @ 4952
3. HTC One X (Tegra 3) @ 4842
SunSpider (lower is better)
1. GSIII @ 1479
2. One XL @ 1608
3. One X @ 1757
BrowserMark
1. GSIII @ 169811
2. One X @ 110038
3. One XL @ 102640
Of course, there are many more benchmarks that are yet to be tried. And, at any rate, nearly all bench apps are notorious for inconsistency, so time will make all this clearer. I expect to see the S4 slaughter the Exynos Quad 4 in something like Linpack, which is simply CPU data I/O, whereas Samsung's Mali-400 GPU will save their reputation whenever graphics are concerned. Regardless of such speculation, the little data that we currently have suggests that the Exynos Quad 4 is not your average A9 chip, and it may well give the earliest released A15 dual-cores a run for their money. Is it really stupid to hope that a highly optimized quad-core A9, which is based on 32nm technology (instead of the normal A9 45nm), and which supports 128-bit instruction (just like the S4), could out-perform a first-release dual-core A15? Well, I suppose I'm just one of those stupid people.
Sites referenced:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s_iii_flexes_muscles_on_benchmarks-news-4201.php
http://www.androidauthority.com/htc-one-xl-benchmark-snapdragon-s4-tegra-3-67678/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5779/htc-one-x-for-att-review/4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good links,...but One X is running 4.0.3 while Samsung 4.0.4 which is speedier imo so isnt a fair comparison between the two buddy. Wait till both run same version, but ya Samsung optimized the browser very well, so expect Galaxy S3 to continue outperform HTC in browsermark
katamari201 said:
For the slower people among us, Exynos does not support LTE so any market like The US or Canada that has LTE will be using the S4 Snapdragon chip since Samsung (and Nvidia) for some reason don't have the know-how to integrate LTE. Blaming US carriers is really stupid and ignorant. The dual-core s4 beats the quad-core Tegra 3 in a lot of benchmarks, and has better battery to boot since it is smaller and uses less power, has less cores. The new Exynos is still based on the old A9 core, like the Tegra 3, so expecting it to be leaps and bounds above the Tegra 3, or even significantly better than the S4, which has newer more advanced cores, is also stupid. Being stupid is fine, as long as you aren't directing that stupidity in order to hate something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used a tegra 3 hox and compared it to the s4 benchmarks being posted and it beat them quite easily so I disagree with your s4 is better than tegra 3
Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using XDA
Can someone shed some light on this for me? I just don't understand why we get to watch HTC come out with the "amazing" quad core One X just to find out that the U.S. carriers only get the dual core version. And now the exact same thing is happening with the Galaxy SIII.
http://androidspin.com/2012/06/01/t-mobile-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-appears-looks-great/
What is the deal with this? Who/what is preventing the quad core version from being offered by the mobile carriers here in the U.S.? Obviously, we can still go buy the GSM version to solve this but then it's not backed by the carrier and there is little to no warranty options for damage/theft. Plus the price difference is really quite large ($200 on contract vs $700 GSM).
So, what's the deal?
the quad core does not play nice with the LTE radios
essentially not working with Verizon and ATT's LTE 4g
But with T-Mobile running on HSPA+ the quad core should work just fine. Why do T-Mobile customers have to suffer due to their competitors inability to adapt?
sn0warmy said:
But with T-Mobile running on HSPA+ the quad core should work just fine. Why do T-Mobile customers have to suffer due to their competitors inability to adapt?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess that is T-Mobile's decision not to grab the quad core over the dual core.
The international phone will work with ATT 3G and T-Mobile, but does not work for LTE Networks.
So technically ATT & T-Mobile could have opted for the quad core
kls629 said:
I guess that is T-Mobile's decision not to grab the quad core over the dual core.
The international phone will work with ATT 3G and T-Mobile, but does not work for LTE Networks.
So technically ATT & T-Mobile could have opted for the quad core
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm, I wonder if it was cheaper for ATT & T-Mobile to go with the dual core from Samsung over the quad core. They probably also didn't feel it was necessary to pay additional for the quad core since their U.S. competitors aren't going to offer it anyway...
Either way it's annoying, but such is life.
Unless I'm mistaken, to make up for the lack of quad core, the USA model gets 2GB ram.
Personally, I think the handset situation in America is terrible, they have to get locked handsets and pay to receive calls. It's appalling, feel sorry for the customers
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Paid £500 for this "Superphone" and it's gonna be fit for the bin when we eventually get 4g, but I guess it's a good way for Samsung to make more money.
Aren't the dual cores used on the USA version a more advanced cpu than the quadies found on the International s3? I have a feeling the difference in performance between the 2 will be negligible
I'm curious about the technical reasons why the quad core doesn't play with the LTE radio. Does the S4 have functions that the Exynos cannot do or is something about more cores bad for the 4G radio?
Edit: Found out why. Qualcomm is the only one with a modem certified for DC-HSPA
Source: http://www.tmonews.com/2012/05/editorial-why-a-snapdragon-s4-galaxy-s-iii-is-awesome/
Michael_P said:
Paid £500 for this "Superphone" and it's gonna be fit for the bin when we eventually get 4g, but I guess it's a good way for Samsung to make more money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should enquire about the JUMP tariff....you get to upgrade every 6 months
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
sn0warmy said:
But with T-Mobile running on HSPA+ the quad core should work just fine. Why do T-Mobile customers have to suffer due to their competitors inability to adapt?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
42 Mbps HSPA+ support apparently also requires a Qualcomm radio.
So... Galaxy SIII in Europe comes with quad core processor - or so I've read... Why does the US only get dual core?? Can I use a European SIII on US T-Mobile network if I can get one?
svavrek said:
So... Galaxy SIII in Europe comes with quad core processor - or so I've read... Why does the US only get dual core?? Can I use a European SIII on US T-Mobile network if I can get one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The US version has qualcomm chip which supports LTE, the Exynos does not... INTL version has 1GB RAM, and qualcomm has 2GB RAM, yes you can use an unlocked INTL I9300 on T-Mobile but will not get LTE and have less RAM... The trade-offs are up to you...
svavrek said:
So... Galaxy SIII in Europe comes with quad core processor - or so I've read... Why does the US only get dual core?? Can I use a European SIII on US T-Mobile network if I can get one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because the Exynos processor doesn't work with T-Mobile's non-standard 42Mbps on AWS (1700 MHz) and it also doesn't work with the LTE. You can use the international one on T-Mobile but you'll only get EDGE data. If you use it on AT&T though you'll get up to HSPA+ because most of Europe uses the same bands as AT&T (850/1900 MHz). If you want to use international phones, T-Mobile is the worst carrier to be on in terms of data speeds, but they're moving to the same frequency as AT&T, so eventually you'll be able to use it on T-Mobile with up to 21 Mbps.
B-Naughty said:
The qualcomm chip supports LTE, the Exynos does not... INTL version has 1GB RAM, and qualcomm has 2GB RAM, yes you can use an unlocked INTL I9300 on T-Mobile but will not get LTE and have less RAM... The trade-offs are up to you...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair, the i9300 is a lot faster than the US models. But to be honest, unless you game, you won't notice a different. The 2GB of RAM was a "whoops, my bad" from Samsung for having to switch processors; RAM does not affect performance unless you have too little RAM. Even the Nexus 7 comes with 1GB of RAM. But anyways, it depends how you use your phone. The other big thing is that the US models have the "bug" or "feature" where you might lose your IMEI when flashing anything to the phone, with no chance (so far) to get it back, meaning you'd have to do a warranty swap to get a working phone. The i9300 also gets major updates first. Development, I would say, is about the same for both though.
svavrek said:
So... Galaxy SIII in Europe comes with quad core processor - or so I've read... Why does the US only get dual core?? Can I use a European SIII on US T-Mobile network if I can get one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll try to reply in a nice way before you get flamed by someone. The quad core version (International) does not support LTE, hence we have the dual core setup which does support LTE. You can use an international device on ATT and T Mobile minus LTE. If I recall correctly you may not even get HSPA + either but I don't know if that is true or not.
---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------
Product F(RED) said:
Because the Exynos processor doesn't work with T-Mobile's non-standard 42Mbps on AWS (1700 MHz) and it also doesn't work with the LTE. You can use the international one on T-Mobile but you'll only get EDGE data. If you use it on AT&T though you'll get up to HSPA+ because most of Europe uses the same bands as AT&T (850/1900 MHz). If you want to use international phones, T-Mobile is the worst carrier to be on in terms of data speeds, but they're moving to the same frequency as AT&T, so eventually you'll be able to use it on T-Mobile with up to 21 Mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn you beat me to it.
Damn we be on this one... LOL
Slight correction. There is a quad-core Exynos that supports LTE. Korea got it, but it wasn't completed by the time the US variants were in full production.
The Root said:
Slight correction. There is a quad-core Exynos that supports LTE. Korea got it, but it wasn't completed by the time the US variants were in full production.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because the LTE radio is separate from the Exynos SoC. The Exynos itself does not support LTE. Think HTC Thunderbolt. What this results in is horrible battery life. The Galaxy Tab 7.7 did the same thing with the Exynos dual-core, adding a separate LTE radio with the Exynos processor. If you need LTE, you're better off with the Snapdragon S4 (which is no slouch btw). We're at a cell phone generation where all CPU's perform pretty much the same (current gen meaning S4 - Tegra 3 - Exynos Quad) until you really push them. So again, unless you're benchmarking or heavily gaming, you won't notice a difference.
Also, yes you'll get HSPA+ on AT&T (I'm using my i9300 on Straight Talk), but only EDGE on T-Mobile.
Product F(RED) said:
The other big thing is that the US models have the "bug" or "feature" where you might lose your IMEI when flashing anything to the phone, with no chance (so far) to get it back, meaning you'd have to do a warranty swap to get a working phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm starting to think even Samsung doesn't have a clue what's really going on with that... or a very ingenius way to sell some phones at full price... Hasn't deterred me any...
B-Naughty said:
I'm starting to think even Samsung doesn't have a clue what's really going on with that... or a very ingenius way to sell some phones at full price... Hasn't deterred me any...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung supports developers. They gave the entire CyanogenMod team Galaxy S II's when they first came out. They hired Steve Kondik (Cyanogen), and they worked with XDA devs to try and fix the ICS recovery perma-brick issue on the SII, Note, and other phones. It's probably the carriers that messed with the software without knowing what they were doing.
if you haven't heard already from previous posts the USA s3 supports lte and the UK one doesn't and we also have 2gb of ram they do not but they have a quad core chip to even it out and to be fair.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2
I saw a blog via Blinkfeed today saying the Galaxy S4 would support Verizon's new AWS data band.
Will our DNA be able to use it?
Sent from my HTC DNA
That's a big no
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
is the LTE radio in the DNA restricted to just the 750 MHz frequency? Because the DNA antenna can hear 1900mhz and 2100 MHz, which is the AWS frequencies.
verizon stated the S4 is the first device to support the new spectrum so no previous phone will get it and even the S4 will need a software update first
I hope the frequency change will improve the signal's ability to penetrate into buildings where I work. My service is magnificent, except for at work. There, it is positively dreadful.
Sadly, looks like it's a moot point anyway, til I upgrade to my next device.
Sent from my HTC DNA
Right now Verizon runs on 750 mhz which which is very good at penetrating buildings. The new freq they are moving to is 1.9 ghz and 2.1 ghz which will not penetrate objects as well or travel as far through open space. The higher the frequency the bigger impact objects, trees, and distance have on your connection. But higher frequency also allows for more throughput so look for better LTE speeds
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Aww shux
HTC DNA
---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------
Should have bought the gs4 aye?
HTC DNA
I'm wondering what Big Red and HTC will have in store for us in about 6 months.
Til then (thanks to this development community), I am quite happy with this phone.
I hope that Newt, Z, Nit, Vin, Micro, Joel, and all the other great devs here stick around for a while.
Sent from my HTC DNA
Personally I think Verizon is crazy to be giving up 750 MHz spectrum to go with 1.9 ghz and 2.1 ghz spectrum. I think they're doing it because you can place more towers in closer proximity using higher frequencies than you can using 750 MHz. The signal traveling further in 750 MHz also causes you to interfere with yourself, so by going to higher frequencies they can place more towers, which enables them to distribute the bandwidth across multiple towers.
So look for higher speed capabilities, and also more consistent speeds. It should improve the reliability if they are in fact going to put up more towers. Just don't expect to get much better performance than ATT or TMobile inside, since these are similar frequencies to what they run on.
jodell22 said:
Personally I think Verizon is crazy to be giving up 750 MHz spectrum to go with 1.9 ghz and 2.1 ghz spectrum. I think they're doing it because you can place more towers in closer proximity using higher frequencies than you can using 750 MHz. The signal traveling further in 750 MHz also causes you to interfere with yourself, so by going to higher frequencies they can place more towers, which enables them to distribute the bandwidth across multiple towers.
So look for higher speed capabilities, and also more consistent speeds. It should improve the reliability if they are in fact going to put up more towers. Just don't expect to get much better performance than ATT or TMobile inside, since these are similar frequencies to what they run on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're not "giving up" anything. The AWS bands will be an overlay in congested areas.
They're giving up frequencies in the 700 MHz band that they acquired in 2008 in an auction. I'm not saying they are doing away with 700 MHz altogether, but they are giving up channels in the 700 MHz band. Hopefully the hand off between their "AWS" and LTE network (aws just being the license name of the frequencies) will be more seamless than the hand off from 3g to LTE. Otherwise we will have 3g, LTE, and "AWS" that our phones will search for and need to jump between. Every time you enter a building you'll drop AWS, try to get LTE, may or may not get LTE, then drop to 3g...
Anyone that used Sprint WiMAX can tell you how bad higher frequencies penetrate buildings.
fr4nk1yn said:
Anyone that used Sprint WiMAX can tell you how bad higher frequencies penetrate buildings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They sucked.... Hard
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using xda app-developers app
BBEgo said:
I hope the frequency change will improve the signal's ability to penetrate into buildings where I work. My service is magnificent, except for at work. There, it is positively dreadful.
Sadly, looks like it's a moot point anyway, til I upgrade to my next device.
Sent from my HTC DNA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Xenoproctologist said:
They're not "giving up" anything. The AWS bands will be an overlay in congested areas.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GOD I hope they don't drop the 700 series down the road. I went with them strictly for the building penetration (I work in a hospital). T-mobile would give me zero signal indoors.
I can't see them giving it up completely until at least 2 years after they stop making phones those radios.
jodell22 said:
They're giving up frequencies in the 700 MHz band that they acquired in 2008 in an auction. I'm not saying they are doing away with 700 MHz altogether, but they are giving up channels in the 700 MHz band. Hopefully the hand off between their "AWS" and LTE network (aws just being the license name of the frequencies) will be more seamless than the hand off from 3g to LTE. Otherwise we will have 3g, LTE, and "AWS" that our phones will search for and need to jump between. Every time you enter a building you'll drop AWS, try to get LTE, may or may not get LTE, then drop to 3g...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're giving up lower A and B block licenses that they never did anything with anyway, due to the antenna design issues. Their existing 700mhz footprint will be entirely unaffected.
I have to assume that cross-band LTE handoff is much more robust than failover to 3g. It has to be, if they're expecting to use this network as the basis of VoLTE.
Its all in how its handed off. If you think about it as going between 2.4 ghz and 5.8 ghz on a router using the same technology just different frequency the handoff isn't smooth at all. Time will tell.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
So jodell..your saying that the DNA does have the proper radio?what can of speed can we expect?
I'm glad I have hung to my unlimited
I'm not saying we have the right radio, I'm just saying we have the right antenna. Our antenna is tuned for the right frequency, but whether or not our radio can demodulate LTE at those frequencies is a whole different story. I don't know enough about cellular wireless technology to tell you for sure.
Also, I believe other carriers are already running close to 2ghz LTE networks, so I would expect to see speeds similar to theirs. I think ATT, TMobile, and Sprint are all licensed for LTE at around 1.7 ghz - 2.1 ghz
Personally I wouldn't buy the first phone capable of running between the two different bands until it's proven itself. And I hope our phone isn't capable of running in the new bands.
Anyone know if our phone is capable of doing this? Verizon just rolled it out in Seattle (where I'm at) and my friend on his Note 3 had to go into his "Service Mode" and enable it manually but is getting 78megs down and 26 megs up (first test in a congested area). Here's a link to the article he had to read in order to enable it: http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...enable-band-4-aws-sm-n900v-requires-root.html
After doing some searching it looks like we're SOL. Can anyone confirm? It's been a while since the last post in this thread so I am assuming things may have changed since this last post.
Bsanborn said:
Anyone know if our phone is capable of doing this? Verizon just rolled it out in Seattle (where I'm at) and my friend on his Note 3 had to go into his "Service Mode" and enable it manually but is getting 78megs down and 26 megs up (first test in a congested area). Here's a link to the article he had to read in order to enable it: http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...enable-band-4-aws-sm-n900v-requires-root.html
After doing some searching it looks like we're SOL. Can anyone confirm? It's been a while since the last post in this thread so I am assuming things may have changed since this last post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://androidcommunity.com/verizon...206/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews