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
Spunjji - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link
Says you.kapg - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I really respect Anandtech and consider it to be the top benchmark for all tech related stuff.That said I am not sure of a couple of the following things and would really appreciate if someone can please throw some light on these to help me understand these better:
- Browsing benchmarks like Sunspider Javascript Benchmark 1.0, Google Octane Benchmark v1, Mozilla Kraken Benchmark – 1.1 & Browsermark 2.0...are these dependenton/affected by the screen resolution, if so then should they not be run on the same resolution for different devices to provide an ideal representation of the CPU??
- Why is it that all benchmarks that Anantech runs are not run with the same set of devices, some benchmarks are with a certain set and with other benchmarks devices are added. I can understand that not all devices support the same set of benchmark tools but as that is the case should we not test only on those benchmarks that are common to all devices (or on which all devices can be made to run/simulated).....this is just coz it is pretty confusing for a non-expert as me to compare two devices (say Apple iPhone 5s vs Nokia 925 vs Samsung S4)
Am sorry if these querries are noobish as I do not understand the in-depth details of these benchmarks and hope someone can clarify.
peace,
~kg
thunng8 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
JavaScript and browser benchmarks are not dependent on screen resolutionSamunosuke - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
In the pc world, if it was discovered that Sager's GT780m consistently benched higher than equivalent Alienware/MSI/Asus etc 780m but yet performed the same in games, what would be the reaction? I was surprised when the galaxy s4's benchmark boost was glossed over just because some of samsung's apps were included. That doesn't make it acceptable. The cpu/gpu is a known factor and should be the same for all apps regardless of origin or use. Boosting benchmarks is wrong, plain and simple. All manufacturers who do it should be called out. There are several ways to curb this:1. Do what arstechnica did and circumvent the benchmark boost by renaming the benchmark software (you can keep that and use on all devices from here on out and updating when necessary).
2. Run battery life tests in the boosted state (by renaming the browser/media player/whatever you use to run the battery life tests to a boosted app).
Its not fair if other devices either have lower battery life due to increased performance or higher battery life due to reduced performance and yet others find a way to inflate their scores and get the best of both worlds.
kapg - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
"2. Run battery life tests in the boosted state (by renaming the browser/media player/whatever you use to run the battery life tests to a boosted app)."I do not agree with running battery life test in the boosted state as that is not the regular mode in which any of those apps will function and thus the results obtained will not be realistic. In my view battery tests should be run with the device(s) in standard state and having the same set of apps across all devices and the same activity being performed (in a loop if needed) across all devices.
peace,
~kg
Origin64 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Sitting here looking at my SGS (1) all I can think is how little has changed in over 3 years. Screens got a little bigger, resolutions went up, so did the prices, but functionality is just the same as it ever was. Really disappointing, but I guess I can blame the extremely limited data plans for that. Bandwidth-intensive mobile applications cost a lot to use, so we're not even doing half of what our mobile computing could do.Good news is that there's still no incentive to upgrade whatsoever. I can wait a second or 2 for an app to open, and I can spend time opening apps because I dont have to work long hours to spend 600 dollars a year on a phone. See how that all comes back together?
Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . comKathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spaceszoob - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Am I missing something? I see a paragraph describing the IR port and headphone jack, but I do not see an accompanying photo.