Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTNAND Performance
The Galaxy S 4 ships with either 16GB or 32GB of NAND on-board, but allows for expansion via a microSD card slot. The latter is a quickly disappearing feature on modern smartphones, but it remains a point of differentiation offered by Samsung. We were sampled a 16GB version of the Galaxy S 4, which arrived with 9.62GB of usable space after the OS and app pre-load.
As always we're using Androbench (with modified settings) to quantify NAND performance. Thankfully NAND performance has been steadily improving on modern smartphones/tablets, and the Galaxy S 4 is no exception. Sequential read performance actually sees a tremendous boost compared to most of the other devices in our charts here. Optimizing for sequential read performance makes a lot of sense, but it's good to see Samsung being competitive on all fronts here.
It is worth pointing out that NAND is treated very much as a commodity in these devices, and it's entirely possible that you'll see performance deviate from what we've shown here depending on what controller/NAND/firmware combination you get in your device.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
K_Space - Sunday, April 28, 2013 - link
HTC 32Gb unlocked costs £540 newS4 16Gb unlocked costs £615 (refurbished!) (source: amazon.co.uk)
Is the spec difference (including SD card and removable battery which I have never removed) worth ~$100? No...... not for me at least.
But horses for courses.
RiotSloth - Saturday, April 27, 2013 - link
Bizarre, had to read that twice to make sure you weren't joking. Have you read the HTC One review? Seriously, you think removable battery and sd card slot is a game breaker? Jokes....GotThumbs - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
IMO whether a phone has a plastic or aluminum shell adds absolutely zero to the daily functionality of any phone. If one can make a case for increased signal strength or something other than just that its NOT metal, I'd see that as an acceptable functional difference. It just comes off as unnecessary filler IMO.Most users will be wrapping thier phones in what.....whats that....some form of plastic or rubber protectors? For those of you who are very good at caring for your phones and choose not to use any form of additional protection, what are the real world odds that the metal case will be better protection over plastic? Perhaps there should be a rigorous test scenario set up by Anandtech to test the reality of true protection using metal over plastic cases?
The 2014 Ford Mustang comes with either a 3.7L V6 (305 HP) or a 5.8L supercharged v8 (631 HP) while the core frame and shell are both the same. My point is.....It's what's under the hood that really counts.
Same with mobile phones today. Please stop focusing on case materials if they have zero to do with operation/specs.
GotThumbs - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
My point using the Mustang...would you prefer the V6 or the v8?No factoring cost of fuel of course.
Best wishes you whatever you select as your mobile phone.
Zeratul56 - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Your argument is ridiculous. The 2014 mustang is something most people can agree is well designed and beautiful car.A better comparison would be would you rather have that supercharged v8 in the body of The current mustang or an old 90's beater.
kevith - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Correction: Most people = Most AmericansCoryS - Friday, April 26, 2013 - link
Correction...some Americans.Crono - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Last time I checked, I don't hold my car in my hand. Plus the comparison should between a Mustang and an uglier higher HP car.And I do prefer the V6 as a daily driver. You can't just leave fuel cost out of the equation because you want to.
HTC One and 2012 Mustang V6 owner.
Kutark - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
What you failed to mention in your example is that the base v6 mustang looks almost nothing like the GT500. People would NOT pay the premium for the GT500 if the only difference was the engine/drivetrain. Aesthetics are extremely important to people and not just for outward reasons. The gt500 looks absolutely amazing, the base v6 while it doesnt look bad, is only moderately attractive, but still very "meh". A little goes a long way. Just like why HTC's plastics felt better than Samsungs.I am a fan of engineering. Its why i tend to prefer german cars over american cars (though there are some im impressed with, cadillac CTS-V for example). If something has brushed aluminum or magnesium, or billet aluminum, etc etc. I'm all about it. And it has nothing to do with what other people think.
Also, like someone else said, cost benefits are meaningless unless they are passed on to the consumer, which they typically arent. This phone will likely cost as much as the HTC One and frankly its not a better phone. Its more like comparing oranges to tangerines. Basically IMO if you dont care about a replaceable battery or an SD slot, get the HTC One, if those two features are important to you, get the samsung. Im sure people would be pleased with either phone.
beluga - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
I am fine with the choice of materials. The GS3 looks fine to me. I don't treat my phone like a precious jewel but take it into rough conditions. Plastic is softer than metal so when it drops it acts as more of a bumper for the fragile parts inside. If it gets scratched up I get another back off ebay for a few bucks. And most importantly - it makes the back easily removable to access battery and storage without using tools.