Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Review
by Brian Klug on October 1, 2013 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Samsung
- Mobile
- Android 4.3
- galaxy note 3
Conclusions
The Note 3 is an iterative product, that’s absolutely true, but the improvements in the Note 3 are pretty dramatic. It really does feel better, thinner, lighter all while having a bigger, more usable display. The silicon inside is incredibly quick, easily the fastest in the Android camp. It's also good to see Samsung on the forefront of RF technology here, implementing an envelope power tracker alongside Qualcomm's 3rd generation LTE modem. The combination results in a fairly robust, very high-end platform that is modern on both compute and modem/RF fronts. Given my affinity for the latter, I'm happy.
Battery life benefits from the large chassis and associated battery, as well as Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 platform which seems to manage power a lot better than the outgoing Snapdragon 600. I was also impressed by the Galaxy Note 3's IO performance. Although it didn't beat the Moto X in random write IO performance, it came extremely close and absolutely destroyed everything else in sequential write speed. Samsung clearly went all out with the Note 3 and pretty much tried to win all of our tests. The beauty of that approach is it should lend itself to an awesome user experience.
The S Pen experience continues to improve and I don't really have any major complaints about it on the Note 3. It's a novel addition that I can see resonating very well with the right type of user. Approximating pen/paper is tough and no one has really done a perfect job there, but the S Pen can be good enough in the right situations. The good news is that even if you don't use the S Pen much, it hides away quite unobtrusively and you can go about using the Note 3 just like a large Android device.
There are only three issues I'd like to see addressed with the Note 3. The move to USB 3.0 is interesting and could be a big benefit when it comes to getting large files off of the device (the NAND/eMMC isn't quick enough to make USB 3 any faster at putting data on the phone), but the hardware or software implementation of USB 3 on the Note 3 doesn't actually deliver any performance advantage (Update: In OS X, in Windows you can actually get USB 3.0 working). For whatever reason 802.11ac performance on the Note 3 wasn't as good as it was on the SGS4 or other 802.11ac devices we've tested. It's not a huge deal but for an otherwise very well executed device I don't like to see regressions. And finally, I would like to see Android OEMs stop with manual DVFS control upon benchmark detect, but that seems to be an industry wide problem at this point and not something exclusive to the Galaxy Note 3.
Whereas previous Notes felt like a strange alternative to the Galaxy S line, the Galaxy Note 3 feels more like Samsung's actual flagship. It equals the Galaxy S 4 in camera performance, but exceeds it pretty much everywhere else. There's a better SoC, better cellular/RF and even better industrial design. I suppose next year we'll see the Galaxy S 5 play catch up in these areas, but until then it's clear that the Note 3 is the new flagship from Samsung. Although you could argue that the improvements within are incremental, the Note 3 really defines what incremental should be.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
302 Comments
View All Comments
Puddlejumper - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
The disappointment here on this site isn't that Samsung is cheating, the problem is that AnandTech, which some of us considered the site with the most in depth and objective analysis, is aiding and abetting Samsung.Read the review. "More or less the fastest Android smartphone we have tested". "Isn't quite as fast as the iPhone 5s but in same cases it comes close". "Note 3 manages to get the edge over the powerVR G6430 in the iPhone 5s." And worst of all many screen of benchmark date that AnandTech knew was corrupted by Samsung but couldn't be bothered to even put an asterisk bedside the phones that they knew cheated on benchmarks. Instead, the explanation in the comments is that lots of phones are doing it so we will ignore it. Pity LG, Apple, and the rest of the manufactures who tried to play straight. AnandTech is telling them to bad, you should have cheated too.
It's clear why Samsung did it. I'm just extremely disappointed with AnandTech and their defense of their actions.
golemite - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
It's a sad day when Anandtech condones cheating, and let's be honest- publishing poisoned benchmark results is exactly what that is.It used to be that I trusted Anandtech to deliver straight forward and honest reviews, but apparently everyone has their price.
fusoyaii - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Thanks to whoever mentioned the Ars review. I've never really gone to their site before, but after reading their REAL review of the Note 3, I think I'm switching to them as my main review site. I've been surfing AnandTech for years upon years and always looked forward to reviews here. I read entire articles for tech I'm interested in and knew about the "optimizations" that Samsung does, but it still makes a difference when you post charts/graphs showing unrealistic "tweaked" benchmarks.You guys should look at the Ars review of the Note 3 and learn from what they're doing. Including that video showing the real world lag of the software. Waiting for the Nexus 5 now...
Spunjji - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
Why not read both and make your decisions that way..?tabascosauz - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
The G2 came close to the iPhone 5S's results; it's nice to see the Note 3 take the prize for Qualcomm.I guess the 5S should really get some higher clocks.
ciparis - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Brian & Anand,I suppose it's obvious from the comments: people expect you to take a stand against cheating.
Unlike you guys, HardOCP was never known for their journalistic prowess. But I have to give them credit: when someone cooked the books, these guys would come unglued. Every aspect of the cheat would be laid bare for all to see, with the community in witness. The results speak for themselves: cheating on benchmarks by altering performance characteristics is not acceptable.
The industry will only do this as long as you let it. Sometimes you have to draw a line, and take a risk. There's no guaranteed outcome. But as a reader, I have come to expect that from you. It's a compliment (I hope).
ciparis - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
One more note, in case it isn't obvious: these published benchmarks on Anandtech are taken as a statement of record.As such, it seems to me that the only thing people should be seeing here are results with no performance adjustments, or where you have defeated the measures -- since the entire point is to establish the relative performance people can expect in actual use.
Blairware - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I didn't have time to read 18 pages of comments, so I hope that I'm not being redundant in mentioning a mistake in the review. There are only 2 microphones for noise cancelation. the third small hole is for temperature / humidity sensor, just like the 3rd hole on the GS4. I was surprised to see this type of error on Anandtech of all places.jgrnt1 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Though I rarely comment, I've been coming to AnandTech for years for objective, in-depth reviews. I have to say I was concerned when AMD "bought into" the site a few weeks ago. It seemed sort of like the big donor who backs a political candidate. The candidate will always claim that no influence was bought by the donation, but it will always be in the back of your mind. Integrity and trust suffer. The minimizing of Samsung's benchmark cheating is a sign that we need to question the integrity of the reviews presented here.Anand, I realize you need to monetize the site. It is your business. You have to pay the bills. However, people have come to your site over the years only partially because of the depth of your reviews and analysis. They have also come because they believed in your integrity. They trusted you. As others have said, by posting the benchmark results in your review without strongly calling out Samsung for cheating, you have rewarded the behavior. People who read the review, but who do not read the comments, will have a much more favorable opinion of the device and of Samsung's business practices than those who go to Ars and read their article. You have let down the people who trust you to be objective.
This morning, I read the Ars article. I was then on Gizmodo and, after reading their review of the Note 3, pointed to the Ars article in my comment. Then I came here, looking forward to seeing the review doing what I knew it would do. I expected an article with a lot more depth than the Ars review, but with the same tone. Cheating is unacceptable and must be called out loudly when it occurs. Instead, there was a brief mention and then the benchmarks were presented with the inflated numbers.
I think you should redo the review with corrected benchmark results and call out Samsung for cheating. Trust in your integrity built this site. Distrust will ruin it.
Squuiid - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
+1