The Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 edge Review: Part 2
by Joshua Ho on July 5, 2016 8:00 AM ESTWiFi Testing with Ixia IoT
As previously discussed, RF testing has always been a major unknown to some extent because environmental factors make it extremely difficult to tell exactly what is going on with the system. I don’t think it really needs to be said but previous reviews and any controversy regarding the quality of RF has always lead to a ring of confusion and back and forth with no clear-cut answers, at least in the public domain. The Transformer Prime and Pixel C reception issues have all been cases where I’ve seen a lot of confusion over whether a problem really existed in the hardware, software, or with the end user.
Most people really don’t have any understanding of how wireless transmission works, probably because it’s not really something you can see. As far as I know, no one is capable of seeing radio waves, even at high frequencies like 60 GHz. Of course, the problem is that for quite some time our testing was also not really ideal for seeing the quality of an RF implementation. While iPerf does provide some useful data, free space testing means that we’re dealing with channel conditions that inherently cannot be controlled. As a result, the only sensible test we could do with iPerf was focus on maximum throughput in the best conditions we could provide. The only thing that this can highlight is the upper bound of efficiency for WiFi due to the carrier sense multiple access scheme in most cases, and rarely detects a whole class of problems that affect user experience on WiFi.
In order to test these things we’ve moved to using a proper testing system that is actually used by at least a few OEMs today, namely Ixia IoT. While we discussed the possibilities for testing, at this time due to the RF isolation chamber used we are limited to AP simulation only, so we can’t properly simulate clients in the channel without restricting ourselves to a single spatial stream for both the AP and client. This wouldn’t be a very useful test if set up in this manner as most devices today that we’re testing have support for two spatial streams, and many routers have three or even four spatial streams at this point.
The first set of results we can talk about that will be of interest is rate vs range. This is a fairly simple test at a conceptual level, as it simply tries to see how well a device can maintain its performance in the face of reducing signal to noise ratio for a given modulation and coding scheme. This is a good high level test of how well a device can maintain a connection as reception degrades. In this test the HTC 10 had an initial RSSI of -28 dBm while the GS7 was at -21 dBm and the iPhone 6s at -22 dBm, which allows us to calculate the path loss and determine the RSSI as a function of the transmit power.
The results of this test are interesting to say the least. Off the bat, every device had different RSSIs measured, so this meant that everything had different levels of path loss. The HTC 10 seemed to have the most path loss, while the Galaxy S7 and iPhone 6s were functionally identical. However it looks like RSSI is really an insufficient metric here because while the iPhone 6s was able to reach maximum throughput using NSS 2 MCS 8, the HTC 10 and Galaxy S7 did its best at NSS 2 MCS 4 or 5. I suspect this may be just due to placement as device positioning strongly affects MIMO as receive-side spatial correlation reduces the gains that MIMO can provide. Regardless, the HTC 10 somehow manages to beat the Galaxy S7 through much of the curve, but for some reason suffers from a reduction in throughput at higher transmit power. It's worth mentioning though that this test doesn't allow for testing of antenna gain or similar tests. Given various levels of futzing about with the device positioning in the test chamber I'm fairly confident that the Galaxy S7 is consistently better with regard to path loss, so even if it doesn't perform as well at a given RSSI it tends to have a higher RSSI than the HTC 10 by about 5 dBm which is fairly significant.
Finally, the other test that we can run at this time is the roaming latency test, which tests how well a device can hop from one access point to another as the received transmit power rises and falls. If you ever rely on WiFi to work as you walk around any building larger than a single apartment unit, you’re going to feel the effects of high roaming latency as VOIP calls or any real-time network application will either experience interruption or drop altogether if roaming is not implemented properly.
In the case of the Galaxy S7, roaming latency is honestly rather wanting. In the best case the Galaxy S7's roaming latency appears to be acceptable, but it's still significantly worse than the best we've seen so far. It seems that Samsung's algorithms have issues with edge cases as I've seen multiple instances so far where the device just can't handle roaming consistently. Despite consistent positioning and identical test setup I've seen cases where the Galaxy S7 has problems with consistent roaming. Even with the simple case of 10 dBm to -45 dBm at 3 dBm drop per second, I've encountered weirdness where the device drops from the network altogether claiming that the password given was incorrect (it wasn't) or a few successful handovers followed by getting stuck on a single access point or dropping from the network entirely. Even in the best set of trials performed I still saw 3 of 64 trials fail to roam correctly. The performance is certainly far better than something like the Google Pixel C, but Samsung should really be focusing on improving here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
266 Comments
View All Comments
ray_cheeno - Sunday, July 10, 2016 - link
Dear Joshua, it's very fine that you point out that the Samsung S7 too expensive compared to One plus 3 and Xaomi Mi5. I have not seen a comment to your favored Apple IPhone 6 and 6S. Therefore I would like to see a Part 3 and more objectivity. Thank you.Lau_Tech - Sunday, July 10, 2016 - link
I feel that going forward Josh should do the Iphone reviews and Andrei should do the Android phone ones.I don't doubt the objectivity of either writer, but Josh's tendency to downplay and undersell android phones and features, as well as to produce late reviews, has undoubtedly contributed to Anandtech's reputation as an pro Apple site.
Splitting up the phones (perhaps android phones require 2 writers, given their volume) will allow for faster and greater variety in reviews.
Ranger1065 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
Now taking bets on whether Anandtech will have a proper Geforce 1080 review within 6 months of release...My bet is NOT.
Even if they do who will care?
As the clicks decrease....
Bye Bye Anandtech.
_Aaron_ - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
--- Anandtech Galaxy S7 Review: "Although the G5 seems to have started an AF run in the middle of the capture, the areas where the photo is actually focused are arguably better than what the Galaxy S7 can put out. Even next to the G4, the Galaxy S7 falls short. I’m honestly not sure why LG doesn’t get more credit here, because next to Apple they seem to have the best image processing algorithms in the industry.Unfortunately, the Galaxy S7 is just a bit disappointing here. The LG G5 is just clearly better here as noise reduction is better in pretty much every way and it looks a lot more natural due to less obvious sharpening halos. I would also argue that the HTC 10 is also better here due to its better texture detail and better handling of shadow detail, even if edges are softer.
However, with that said the output of the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge’s camera is not that impressive. I would argue that while it’s not worse than the iPhone 6s Plus, it is basically comparable. The real competition in this space comes from the HTC 10 and LG G5, the two of which manage to deliver arguably better still image output ".
--- Anandtech LG G5 review: " When it comes to noise in bright outdoor conditions, the G5 sits about in the middle of this pack the G5 sits about mid pack, with the iPhone 6s Plus, Huawei P9, and Galaxy S7 edge all performing just a little better.
In both scenes, the Galaxy S7 edge takes the brightest picture despite using the fastest shutter speed. The G5’s images are a little darker than the G4’s because it favors a shorter exposure, but it still produces brighter images than the Moto X and Nexus 6P.
The Galaxy S7 edge shows no vignetting, while the Nexus 6P suffers from this issue to a mild degree. All of the other phones, including both of the G5’s cameras, show negligible vignetting.
In bright daylight, the G5 equals the Galaxy S7 edge, producing excellent looking photos. When there’s less light available, like on cloudy days or when moving indoors, the G5 starts to struggle. It still does pretty well setting white balance and exposure, although the iPhone 6s Plus consistently does better. Image noise, however, is a serious problem for the G5. Its images show significantly more noise grain than other flagship devices, degrading image quality ".
Ok, now, I'm confused: should I follow Anandtech's words, or Anandtech's words?
isik - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
www.egemenweb.com thankspeterApinto - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link
The whole review spells "NOT BIASED!" in every part.Why? Because the author is actually able to document his allegations, transforming them into arguments.
In fact, this review is really close to being an actual analysis, where the author breaks down all the relevant parts of the S7 and its functions, in order to produce a solid evaluation. And he does this by using solid test tools and techniques, so the results can be recreated by others. This is as close to science as I imagine any tech site is able to get.
So - you can disagree on his conclusion, but calling this review biased just shows that it is you who is biased. Really.
KoolAidMan1 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Reality is biased for emotional ideologues who worship Android as their god.IDGI
StimulatedBoy - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
Thx, Joshua. This kind of analyses, eye for details and objectivity is what has drawn me to Anandtech for the last 10-15 years. Keep up the good work!Aaight - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Lol, er du her og grupperunker også :D Synd du bommet på 3 av 3, hehe!pukemon1976 - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link
I see the comments mention bias a lot. Me? I think the author is trying to get a job at apple like Klug and Shimpi. Geez. Can you not make it anymore obvious? I think some of us that are fanboys of android pretty much know that apple makes a good all around overpriced phone. Cpu? Winner by efficiency and architecture. GPU? Not necessarily winner but powerVR uses different method of drawing graphics and that is drawing what is only shown. Nonetheless, powerVR makes a damn good efficient GPU. A lot of things are just details. Like battery life? Author gets away with mentioning but x phone has a bigger battery. What about iPhone uses less lines of resolution in both their models so battery life comparison is just details. Cameras? I can't comment really on quality of s7/s7 edge but do know they focus really fast and process fast. Especially exynos version. Iphone camera? I've seen some really.bad pictures from my friends as of late. And some admittedly know their camera isn't all it's cracked up to be. If I'm taking pictures with my note4 at some memorable event usually my friends and family want copies of my pictures, no matter what phones they have. And work just issued us iPhone 6+ a few months ago. Geez. Impressed with sunny day shots. But I work in dark environments often. I'm pulling out my note4 camera or somebody is asking me to take an important picture if only iphones around most of the time. And I wish author and company would take a better approach to wifi and lte battery tests. My note4 with the first modem to use power enveloping for LTE is noticeablyore efficient than WiFi. I've proven it over and over and over. Even my geek friends are befuddled by it. And how come author never mentions iPhone dropping frames or lagging? I do admit though iPhone does have great memory management, not to mention noticeably faster internal storage. My micro SD though... oh wait... have to pay super premium for extra storage. Really wish author and friends were less biased. I'm fine with opinions. Anand wrote great articles and his iPhone bias didn't ruin it for me. Methinks, the reviews take so long because anandtech isn't anandtech anymore. Me also thinks author and friends so jealous they meticulously spend a ridiculous amount of time making apple proud of their review so they too can go work in Cupertino one day. Unbelievable how shoddy this review was. Really? When you couldn't say apple was the best bar none in a certain department you digressed to other Android phones, probably meaning apple isn't even close to the top, since you have to resort to that. And some of you apple fanboys need to lay off the apple look aid. It has been so obvious as of late. I know apple does a lot of things well. And some they don't. And then there's so much customization in amdroid, especially with root, even moreso with unlocked bootloader. I think some of you guys never read Klug's and shimpi's reviews. Even though they showed their apple bias, they did some really good reviews. Reviews I would come back for. Even read the iphone reviews. I know why I've hardly been coming to anandtech lately but this review I know I'll be coming even less. No more bookmarks or waiting g for the other stuff l liked to read about like Intel, nvidia, and, ssd tech. Until next time, might be awhile, and hopefully better reviewers, peace out.