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
Battery Life
Battery life remains probably the single largest differentiator for devices lately, and of huge concern to enthusiasts and normal shoppers alike. We’ve already caught a glimpse of how well 8974 fares from a power perspective inside the LG G2, a device that posted some seriously impressive battery numbers. The Note 3 we’re looking at is also 8974 based since it’s a T-Mobile model, and thus we expect the same kind of battery life.
With this generation of Note, battery gets even larger. The Note started with a then quite large 9.25 watt hour battery, then Note 2 moved to 11.78 watt hours, and Note 3 now moves to a very large 12.16 watt hour battery with of course the newest 3.8V chemistry and all that comes along with it. Display size goes up, but those power gains are offset in other places.
After we talked about the panel self refresh features in the G2 a few people reached out and let me know that this feature has been shipping for a while in some phones, and it’s easy to check for. If we look under the display subsystem we can see that the same MIPI_CMD_PANEL type 9 is used, which refers to this type of interface.
Qualcomm HWC state: MDPVersion=500 DisplayPanel=9
define MIPI_CMD_PANEL ‘9’
Our battery life tests are unchanged and consist of a set of popular webpages that are loaded on a schedule with the display set to exactly 200 nits and repeated until the battery runs out and the device dies on both WiFi and cellular data connections. In this case that means T-Mobile LTE which is 10 MHz FDD in my market, I haven’t had a chance to run the Note 3 on HSPA+ yet, or complete the call test (which is starting to get ridiculous, and probably breaks 24 hours in the case of the Note 3).
On LTE the Note 3 does very well, coming just shy of the pack of iPhones, at just over 8 hours. Interestingly enough it’s just north of the G2s as well, which do have a smaller battery but also smaller display. The Note 3 also is the first device to ship with Qualcomm’s QFE1100 envelope tracker solution from the RF360 front end portfolio, which lowers power consumption by up to 20 percent and heat dissipation by up to 30 percent by allowing the power amplifiers to follow the desired output waveform. There’s more on that later in the cellular section.
On WiFi the Note 3 does better by 22 percent, but not the kind of huge jump I’m used to seeing between cellular and WiFi testing. This tells me the Note 3 battery life is really gated by the display, which is almost always the largest consumer of power in a device. That said the Note 3 does very well all things considered, especially in comparison to the APQ8064 (Fusion 3) phones which came before it, like SGS4. New silicon and new process inside MSM8974 definitely helps move battery life forward here with the race to sleep game.
Charging is an interesting story on the Note 3, but primarily because of what doesn’t change. The Note 3 continues to use Samsung’s tablet charging specification and charger, which has 2 amps of maximum output. The Note 3 draws 2 amps over a considerable amount of the charging curve, like other Samsung devices (in the linear part of the charge curve). USB 3.0 doesn’t change things up here quite yet with the new supported charge voltages that are coming eventually with the power delivery specification.
The Note 3 does charge faster overall compared to the SGS4 however thanks in part to the new PMIC (PM8941) which is part of the overall 8974 platform story.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
302 Comments
View All Comments
risus - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
I agree with apiljack80. I would actually like to see this supported with options to run with different loads, throttles, and tasks to simulate different types of real work and then also a boosted all out top score.What I don't care for is that Samsung was not forthcoming with this. Had they given the user to choose profiles they would have received a whole different,and I believe, more positive response. It's the whole reason why this is being labeled a "cheat" because the technical action is not a cheat at all.
But alas this is getting so much publicity and with some other phones adopting this I think we are headed for a profile labeled benchmark anyways. Scrutiny in the mainstream tends to have it's audiences aware and vocal. But for my OC'ing (when avail for n3) I'm flipping on all cores, disable all power save, keep the thermal conservative and lets see how high we can get that bar!
AngryCTO - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Besides the reviewer, how many people here actually played a bit with a Galaxy Note 3, before issuing opinions? I would advise anyone against purchasing a $650 phone without playing with it for a while. I have owned a Note 2 and felt reasonably certain to order a Note 3 without trying it in a shop before.30 minutes after I opened the box, I repackaged it and sent it back, because I find it very unpleasant to hold. Not because of the size, as some might say, but because the plastic/rubbery back feels dusty and I get the feeling I am getting my hands dirty just by holding it. The rim also feels edgy and looks like a very cheap third rate Chinese thingy. Same for the pen. People do have the touch sense too, you know. But to see what terrible crap packaging Samsung is selling, you have to open the battery compartment, at which moment all pretensions of class disappear.
The phone does feel very fast and the image quality is pretty good. The software is so bloated it is confusing to use. If they could only fix their packaging attitude to use some premium materials and streamline the software.
Until then I am buying an Xperia Z Ultra, which is cheaper but has a much better display and looks. I will be much more careful with buying Samsung from now on.
ESC2000 - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
You do know that you can replace the back of the note III, right? You arent stuck with the fake leather back.AngryCTO - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
This review bothered me so much, that it looks almost like paid advertising. It is abnormal to compare the specs of Note 3 vs older Samsung phones (page 1), and not include other competing phablets, such as Sony Xperia Z Ultra, HTC Max, Nokia 1520 (which is going coming out this October). Of course, Xperia Z Ultra would wipe the floor with Note 3 with its build quality and superb glass covering, not to forget that Triluminos is the best screen technology on the market right now (and larger). This while Lumia 1520 would provide a much better and saner software experience to the overbloated TouchWiz GUI. Of course, the reviewer totally skipped the Software and User Experience part of the review, but he did compare the CPU and luminosity of such "stalwarts" like HTC One X, which is 18 months old. I could not discover in the entire review any negative comments, neither any suggestions for improvements. This phone looks perfect in the review, which is not, as I very well know after returning one. Having done my shopping research as well as possible for purchasing such an expensive phone, I would not compare a phablet with anything else but a phablet. This review is lacking competitive comparisons and relevancy.wales - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Brightness Question.I've been looking for comments on this and became exhausted by the repetitive cheating discussion and gave up, so forgive me if I missed it. Brightness (or lack thereof) has always been a concern with Samsung and AMOLED displays when compared to LCDs like the HTC One, LG and IPhones. The lack of visibility outdoors in particular has been a dealbreaker for some. So I was surprised that it wasn't even mentioned in the review. Only a chart was given, showing the Note 3 well down the list at 326 nits, making it one of the only specs that may steer you away from the phone.
If that was it I'd just conclude, "ok, brightness still sucks," but a detailed display review from Displaymate comes to the opposite conclusion and touts the far superior brightness of the Note 3 compared to the Note 2. (link: http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note3_ShootOut_1... It even gets measurements of 628 nits in movie mode(!). That is a "peak brightness" measurement that Anand does not perform and may be meaningless, but the Displaymate review does note that by checking the automatic brightness box the display is capable of far higher brightness in high ambient light (i.e., sunny outdoors) environments. If true, this would largely dispel the concern with using the Note 3 outdoors, a concern reinforced by the low brightness measurement in the Anandtech review.
Anand or Brian, can you repeat the brightness measurement using automatic brightness? That would seem to be key information and potentially much more relevant than a measurement without automatic brightness checked. I understand why you would not generally take this approach, because checking auto brightness will often cap the brightness level rather than unleash it, but in this case Samsung may have reversed the approach.
If I'm off on this and Displaymate's data is wrong, my apologies.
diendanforex - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
The success of the Galaxy Note has increased our belief that consumers want to experience the high-quality features on the devices more intelligent and that their lives become better . Dien dan forex: http://fxvnol.comDavidjan - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Cool! it must support Meenova reader to add storage like other Galaxy phone: http://goo.gl/U6IyYmeliketrolls - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Apple does better things than Samsung.iOS is soooo much better than Android.
josephandrews222 - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
...all of these comments by in-hiding Apple guys are (unintentionally) revealing--the Note 3 must be, in their minds, a really good phone.Full disclosure: I do not own either an Android phone or an Apple phone
rampantarmadillo - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Anyone have one of these and know whether it has opengl es3 support?