Back to Article

  • mavere - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    The performance is damn impressive. If only the phone's externals matched the internals... Reply
  • deadsix - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    This, I think the Galaxy Nexus and HTC One X all look better. It looks really cheap. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I think it looks better in white than in dark blue. If you get a nice after market carbon fibre cover for the back, it'll look like a large iPod touch, which is not too bad imho.

    Also, sometimes products look ugly in pictures but look a lot better in person. The performance sure is impressive though.
  • B3an - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I've watched some hands on videos on Youtube of this phone, it does look nicer in the vids. I have a S2 and think the S3 looks nicer. The thing thats always bothered me about my S2 (international version) is the bump that sticks out on the bottom back side, where the speaker is. Looks tacky. Where as the S3 just has a completely flat back which looks much nicer.

    The only issue i have with the S3 is that the display is almost definitely pentile, and certainly looks it from the full size close up images here. If this was SAMOLED+ (non-pentile) instead of SAMOLED then that display would be the ballz.

    Love the performance though! Better than expected. I really wanted a Snapdragon S4 SoC with a better GPU, but now i'll happily take the Exynos 4 Quad.
  • RussianSensation - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    "I really wanted a Snapdragon S4 SoC"

    Well the AT&T version might have different CPU, possibility even like HTC One X differs in US vs. international markets. So don't count the S4 out just yet, especially since it would go nicely with the LTE capable chipset.
  • p3ngwin - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    no one is getting sub-7" Super AMOLED PLUS 720P screens until towards the end of the year.

    it's just too expensive to put in a smartphone right now.
  • Skiddywinks - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I wouldn't say it looks cheap, but it certainly doesn't look as good as the S2. Reply
  • SamsungAppleFan - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Regardless of which galaxy you guys think looks better, I can assure you this phone will look beautiful in your hands. If you guys insist on glass that shatters and ceramics that chip, get another phone. Nuff said. Reply
  • frostyfiredude - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    How does it feel in use compared to the HTC One series? Benchmarks look good, but we all know that doesn't quite tell the whole story. Reply
  • lilmoe - Monday, May 07, 2012 - link

    I would say the Galaxy S3's UI feels better, if the previous Touchwiz4.0 VS Sense3.5 difference tells us anything. I know Sense 4 was stripped down a lot, but I also hear that the HTC One X with Sense 4 doesn't yet fully utilize GPU rendering (UI side of things). Some users complain of stuttering with the OneX, and I've seen some myself on some videos. The browser on the OneX is just not on par with the overall device, it has lots of useless refreshes, text re-flows, and page redraws to the point where it affects the browsing performance very negatively. On the other hand, I have yet to see any video where the Galaxy S3 lags or stutters in any department. Even the Galaxy S2 was superior in smooth performance than any other newer device out there. I don't see why Samsung won't improve on that with the S3.

    Add to that the fact that Exynos almost always has superior benchmarks in its class, in addition to better software optimization. I say the HTC ONLY wins in the more professional ans sleeker looks of both the device and the UI.
  • Shri - Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - link

    Yes.. Earlier release had a stuttering due to Sense 4.0..
    But a software update has made it all clear and is now butter smooth...
    Seriously, I have nothing to do with a such a high performance S3... Having a top notch score doesnt tell the whole story to a must buy phone.... Surely the look also counts.. First look will be the first impression.... And HTC One X has it with an decent scores wit All round positives...
  • jayhawk11 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Looks like they aren't messing around with this new Mali-400. It will be interesting to see how Apple responds. Reply
  • Aenean144 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    A 32 nm A5X will be more than competitive. It's a good question whether Apple will choose to use it rather than a die shrunk A5 though. A higher clock A5 will match these benchmarks. An A5X will be 50% faster. Maybe even close to 100%. Reply
  • B3an - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    A5X with the same GPU is still too large and power hungry even at 32nm to go in to a phone. Look at the insanely large batteries already needed for iFad 3, a one node shrink isn't going to massively change the power usage enough. The only way they could possibly get that in a phone at 32nm is by using extremely low clocks. Then the GPU might still compare but the CPU would be much slower, even slower than the iPhone 4S for CPU performance. 32nm A5 is more likely, which i highly doubt would match the Exynos 4 Quad atleast on CPU performance. Reply
  • Anaxarxes - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    The reason why the new iPad needs such an enormous battery is its 2048*1536 screen. A5X is more power hungry than A5 of course, but only in high workload. idle and even in small tasks, A5X equals A5 in terms of power consumption if not beats it. So a 32nm A5X with little tweaks would take it dangerously close to the S3.

    S3 is a monstrous phone both in size and in performance. I think Samsung used a bigger screen:
    -720p on a 4.2" display is harder and much more expensive to build due to high ppi.
    -4,8 inch gives more room for the battery which the quad core CPU needs more than anything.

    But I think that people might not want a bigger screen than already over sized S2. But again geeks tend to droll over specs than usability, so it'll win their hearts.
  • B3an - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    A5X uses way more power with that GPU. It also need extra cooling added on top of the chip and still gets hotter.

    And as proven many times with Tegra 3 already, quad core does not use more power. So once again you're wrong. And being as the S3 has the first 32nm quad core it will likely use considerably less power than the A5 and other dual-core SoC's.

    The S2 wasn't at all over sized, it's also thinner than the iPhone as well which helps compensate. It's funny you mention usability because the tiny midget screen the iPhone has is totally unacceptable and makes using it harder even if you dont have large hands. Theres a reason nearly all other phones are using larger screens - because they're better!
  • Anaxarxes - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    You just cant compare Tegra 3 with a normal quad core. Tegra is an hybrid product with a companion core that switches the quad cores on and off and simply becomes single core under idle load. The reason why A5X has a heat spreader is because of the quad core GPU. Under heavy load it becomes quite hot. But under normal load it is THE SAME CPU as the A5 if not further developed to use less power.

    Hold an S2 with one hand and try to touch the upper cross corner of the screen with your thumb while firmly holding it in your palm. You just CAN'T. Because it's too big. And don't get me started with the Galaxy Note joke.

    Do you think Apple sticks to 3,5" screen because they cannot develop a larger screen product? Do you seriously believe that?

    Apple strategy is simple, really. Do something that makes sense for the average user. Design in a such way that the product just feels right ergonomically and aesthetically.

    Samsung is more like an OEM. Pick the best shit out there and combine. There you go! The fastest phone with the brightest screen. No, thanks. I'd have a design that is thoroughly thought and developed.
  • SamsungAppleFan - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Do you think really think Samsung didn't develop a 3.5 inch screen for their G series cause they couldn't? Do you seriously believe that? ;)

    Apple stuck to 3.5 because that's what dictator Steve said is the perfect magical size. Now that people know better they're upping to 4 inches with the next iPhone. They're just following the trend like any other company. Wake up. Meeehhhh Meeehhh.

    And unfortunately for you, everyone review of the note was full of praise. Are you saying all those 5 million people who bought the galaxy note is a fool? Hardly. Need a napkin? You are oozing your hate sauce everywhere.
  • Anaxarxes - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I'm not hating anything. I love competition, but Samsung's products are not for me.

    Samsung couldn't have done a 3.5" galaxy simply because they could not have differentiated themselves enough to make a sale. If all specs and sizes are similar, who do you think will sell more, Apple or Samsung?

    And yes 3.2-3.7" is still the best size for a smartphone for useability.

    But keep in mind that without dictator Steve, you'd never have had Galaxy. You'd be typing with your 8mp camera/qwerty/ BlackJack.

    Apple's screen size increase is purely battery limitation related. If there could be a 8Whr battery in the size of the current iPhone's battery, Apple would have never upped the screen size in the next gen.

    I tend to be a fanboy of good products that have been designed well. Unfortunately Samsung products does not feel that way.
  • teldar - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    I'm 6'2", don't have huge hands for a guy my size. I have a droid X in an otter box case.
    I use it ALL THE TIME.
    I can hold it comfortably in one hand and get to anything I want to reach with that hand's thumb. Again, this is a 4.3" screen phone in an otter box.

    Just because your hands are too small for a large screen phone and you don't want a large screen phone does not mean that nobody can or wants to use one.

    Please try to keep in mind there is a difference between your preferences and everyone else's.

    As far as the 5" screen goes, I have been saying for two years that I would like a 5" screen. I don't care that much about size as I was carrying a phone and a PDA until I got my X.

    Bring on the 5" HTC flagship with the quad core S4 and Adreno 320 which is supposed to be released later this year.
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    You must have some massive pockets and/or never sit down with your phone in your pocket. I'll point out that the majority of people do not remove their phone from their pocket while sitting or walking because it's already comfortable. Reply
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    "Theres a reason nearly all other phones are using larger screens - because they're better!"

    More like because they need a reason to differentiate from Apple and fit larger larger batteries to handle the OS with the most inefficient power usage.

    In the US Apple sells more iPhone on each carrier it's on that all Android phones on the same carrier combined. If the display size was an huge problem, that wouldn't happen.
  • Aenean144 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    An A5X from Samsung's 32 nm node will be about 95 mm^2. This would be about 25% smaller than the current A5 (~124 mm^2) in the iPhone 4S. With a 20% savings in power as well, it'll be about the same power envelope.

    Apple has prioritized GPU over CPU when they have these constrained situations. At least GPU of a certain baseline. You can make the call right now that the dual-core A9 in the 2012 iPhone will be no more than 1 GHz.
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    iFad...really? Are you 12? Reply
  • jamisont - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    perfect example would be 45nm A5 on Ipad 2 vs 32nm A5 on new Ipad.. similar performance but better battery life. Reply
  • aliasfox - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    If Apple can't get a new chip out in time (A15 based A6 or something), my bet would be something along the lines of a die shrunk, 32nm A5 with a ~50% speed bump. Remember, A5 in the iPhone runs at 800 MHz, so even a 50% speed bump would only bring it to 1.2 GHz.

    If we were to scale the iPhone 4s benchmarks presented here by 50%, the new scores would be fairly comparable to the GS3 on the graphics front and not be too far behind on the browser side of things.

    I guess it would be interesting to see what they have to do to bring 2012 levels of SoC performance and LTE while maintaining some semblance of battery life without increasing the phone to the size of a small tablet - we all know that the reason everyone else's 'flagship' phones are 4.5"+ is because it provides more room for a battery, and this is something Apple's been keen to avoid so far.
  • zorxd - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Browser benchmarks are not CPU benchmarks. Unless you compare two phones with the exact same version of the browser.
    Apple's A5's CPU (or A5X, it's the same) is no faster than any other Cortex A9.
    A 1.2 GHz A5 would have a CPU comparable to the Galaxy S2, so it would still be 2011 levels of performance.

    Apple skipped the CPU upgrade the last time, so I believe this time they will show something much more powerful. They might have a quad core A9 too, a dual A15, or at the bare minimum, a high frequency dual A9.
  • Aenean144 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I really doubt that Apple will have a Cortex-A15 SoC for the 2012 iPhone.

    There's only two possibilities: a 32 nm A5X or a 32 nm A5. If it is a 32 nm A5X, it'll be no more than 1 GHz. If it is a 32 nm A5, it'll be 1 GHz, maybe 1.2 GHz.

    Both options will be competitive to the Galaxy S3. For 95%, maybe 99%, of a consumer's workload, dual-core will be perfectly fine, if not overkill. Quad-core is overkill. 95% of the software out there are either single threaded or only has one thread that really requires CPU power.

    With the A5X in an iPhone, Apple is giving up the 5% of folks who would use software that is embarrassingly parallel such as computational modeling, in favor for higher performance in gaming or anything that can use the GPU. With games being the dominant app in the app store, it is certainly the right choice.
  • krumme - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I was i doubt about the effect of pentile, but then re-read this january article about the nexus display:

    Now this is damn solid reviewing, comparing different own measuring and calculation technique with own subjective experience. Looking forward for another detailed, solid, phone review. The effects of battery life is of outmost importance to me, or else i will have to cancel my preorder.

    Btw glad we didnt get some fancy material, with a nice marketing name, only to be shattered in real life. We want flexible plastic :)
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    "Btw glad we didnt get some fancy material, with a nice marketing name, only to be shattered in real life. We want flexible plastic :)"

    It's too bad they didn't make a nice looking plastic phone like the One X or Lumia 900 and instead had to make something that looks like a 2008 design.
  • snoozemode - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Please write HTC One X (MSM8960) or HTC One X (Tegra 3), after all, this is a hardware site right? Reply
  • Fleeb - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Wasn't Tegra 3 reviewed already? Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    HTC One X (international) = Tegra 3
    HTC One X (AT&T) = One XL (L for LTE) = Snapdragon S4.
  • jjj - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    CPU perf is not really tested,here even more so than in the full reviews,it's all way too much browser orientated and you get a huge impact from the browswer and momory/storage perf - the results are relevant for each specific device but aren't painting a clear picture of the SoC.
    In the full review i wish you wouldn't ignore storage perf,battery life when gaming and battery life when idle (standby time).
  • remain_insane - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I think what you are asking for is irrelevant. Those specific test results would be important if you were to buy the soc by itself to use as you saw fit, but that is not how it is. You get this soc with this phone, and that is how it should be tested. Reply
  • sonicmerlin - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Also I have to laugh when the author writes "so and so found the browser to be *buttery smooth*". Oh for gods sake the author and/or his friend are blind if they think any Android browser is smooth. The endless frame skipping that essentially every ICS browser has is maddening. And response lag increases dramatically on heavy websites.

    As if a "quad-core" SoC is going to make a difference.
  • SamsungAppleFan - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I have the new iPad 3. It stutters as well in image heavy sites like Engadget and The Verge. And not only that image heavy pdfs takes about a second for them to clear up with each swipe of the page.

    The iPad 3 needed a quad core processor as well as gpu. All these micro stutters are a little annoying to say the least. I can still live with that because I do a lot of reading and retina density really does help.
  • darkcrayon - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    My iPad 3 does not stutter on Engadget or The Verge. Are you using Safari or a 3rd party browser without the smooth UIWebView scrolling enabled (which unfortunately is most of them since it's a private API call to enable it).

    I can tell you that at least by watching top and Instruments, scrolling quickly in Safari on a page like Engadget does not seem to be CPU bound on either an iPad 2 or iPad 3, so not sure what the issue is you're having on your device.

    PDFs are nowhere near as fast as Safari on web pages, but I haven't manipulated any on a newer Android device for comparison. Does Android have native PDF viewing? (I had to download a reader for my Cyanogenmod 9 TouchPad).
  • yjwong - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Samsung is known to implement a multitude of optimizations in the browser. The changes made are pretty evident in the Samsung Galaxy S2 (on Gingerbread), where every other Android browser lagged (including the G2x and Nexus S). S2 didn't have any "frame skipping" to talk about, even with 1080p video playing in Flash. I'm pretty sure it will be the same in the S3. Reply
  • Devo2007 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I see Samsung still insists on having their Battery is Charged notification. Looks like if I get this phone, I'll be making sure to install a custom rom that disables that, as there's nothing worse than being woken up overnight because my phone wants to tell me it's now charged. (on various Samsung phones, it would even vibrate or alert you even if the volume was muted). At the very least, it would light up the screen.

    Pointless, since a lot of people charge their phones overnight.

    On a side note, anyone know if there's a notification LED?
  • Skiddywinks - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    I'm pretty sure I read there is an RGB LED, and I can only imagine it's for notifications. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    There's a three color notification LED (RGB) up top. See our hardware overview in a little bit.

  • Lucian Armasu - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Is the Sunspider test still relevant? I know Google has said since last year that it has become pretty irrelevant for them and they will stop testing so much against it for Chrome. To show how irrelevant it became, they even did a test made of 50xSunspider tests, just to get a little more complexity in there and act more like a real world scenario.

    But it shows the dual core 1.2 Ghz Galaxy S2 is only 10% slower than Galaxy S3. That can't be right. Is the difference in performance that small? I think in Sunspider software optimizations have a larger impact than the hardware as well, so that also makes it pretty irrelevant when comparing hardware performance.
  • tipoo - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Well, they said it's irrelevant for Chrome and desktop browsers once they hit a certain performance level, which these phones are still far from. But yeah, I'd much rather have page load times or something than it since everyone seems to optimize around it. Speaking of which, I'd also like to see how they handle background tab loading. Reply
  • A5 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    For reference, I just ran it in Chrome on my desktop and got 253 ms, which is 5.6x faster than the S3. There is still plenty of room to get performance out of these mobile chips and browsers. Reply
  • shompa - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Remember that resolution is a factor. You probably have higher resolution on your desktop = its more then 5.6X faster. Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    For graphics it's a factor, Sunspider is a canned Javascript benchmark which has no resolution impact. Reply
  • Aenean144 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Sunspider is single threaded. So, the scores are reflective of 1.2 and 1.4 GHz cores. This is the performance improvement you should be expecting as the vast majority of consumer software is single threaded or are only computationally intensive on one thread.

    It will take specialist applications like video rendering to really make use of 4 cores.
  • shompa - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Single threaded? Not really. Why would A5 at 800mhz be competitive if it only had to do with how many threads that SunSpider handles? Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Browser/SoC optimization. For example, both using stock quad core A9 cores, the Galaxy S3 leads Tegra 3 phones in Sunspider and any other browser test, because they optimize the browser code around the SoC better since they make both the phone and the SoC. Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    *Which is not to say javascript doesn't see increases on multicore. It does, but it doesn't seem to go beyond two. Reply
  • Aenean144 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    There's little evidence that the benchmark even goes beyond one thread. If it does, it's not much of a gain at all going from one to two cores. Reply
  • Aenean144 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    iOS has an excellent javascript JIT. Reply
  • Skiddywinks - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Well, that's settled it; I'll be phoning Orange tomorrow and making sure I get one of these day one, since my contract is already up and I am on a rolling month-to-month contract atm.

    Glad I waited, and didn't go for the One X (EU).
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    Not sure why... One X performance is similar, looks WAY better, has by far a superior display, and has less junky software added which theoretically means faster updates compared to Samsung who already has a history for poor update support. Reply
  • staticx57 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    My Galaxy Nexus with a mild overclock and custom Rom/Kernal gets a browsermark score of 120k versus the GS3 score of 160k. I can only imagine what the GS3 will manage to accomplish once the phone is truly unleashed. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    You seriously overclocked your cell phone? hehhe. Dang, you want some LN2 with that? Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    So did I, and lots of other people...In most custom ROMs its just a few button clicks away, not that big a deal. Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Just thinking here, the only other quad A9 (Tegra 3) has a single channel memory controller feeding it, maybe there's more that could have been done with the A9s which is what we're seeing here. Reply
  • Braumin - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    OK, so Browsermark looks good, but is Samsung tuning thier browser to do these types of benchmarks faster? It is not unheard of - nVidia and AMD both have done it for certain benchmarks. On a phone, the cross platform benchmarks are pretty limited so it wouldn't take much to code for the few that are out there.

    What does a good browsermark score equate into page load times? Hopefully you guys can cover this in the review.
  • aparangement - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    “Apple's iPad 2,4 (review forthcoming)”, a review on ipad 4 is coming? Reply
  • Aenean144 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    No. He's talking about the 16 GB iPad 2 at $400. The "new" model (code name: iPad 2,4) actually has a 32 nm A5 SoC in it. The old iPad 2 models (code named: iPad 2,1; iPad 2,2; iPad 2,3) use a 45 nm A5 SoC.

    The new iPad 2 and new AppleTV are likely the first products to have 32 nm ARM SoCs from Samsung's 32 nm fab. Undoubtedly, Apple wanted it for the new iPad and the A5X too, but they probably couldn't guarantee the requested volumes. Maybe Samsung prioritized the Exynos 4 Quad over Apple's A5X? Who knows.
  • deputc26 - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Don't know why everyone's complaining about the design, I think samsung nailed it with the big screen and small bezel. Plus they dropped the apple-copying and useless design feature that is leaving equally thick bezels above and below the screen.

    A fast phone shrink-wrapped around an awesome screen... is just what I want...
  • shompa - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    The next rumored iPhone also have larger, border to border screen. It will look much like S3 then. Wonder if all will praise the iPhone's design? :)

    Beside the material, I don't know how Samsung could have designed S3 better.
  • SamsungAppleFan - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Even the material is perfect. I mean do we really want glass that shatters or ceramic that chips? I guess Sammy coulda incorporated those self healing plastic layers lol. Reply
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    The Lumia 900 and One X look way better than this. It looks like a generic phone from 4 years ago. Reply
  • windozer - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I'm glad this phone is roundish at the corners which is so much better than the rectangular Galaxy S2. Only if the back of the phone had that soft touch like HTC phones..or maybe kevlar finish of Razr. The back finish looks plasticky. Reply
  • ThomasBastiani - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Can we have Linpack scores? Because all the rest is very software or GPU dependent.

    Also the score on engadget seems off...
  • damianrobertjones - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    is it as fast as WP7 at basic daily tasks?

    At times we do get caught up in the speed thing
  • damianrobertjones - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    P.s. Now that we're at the 'quad' stage... what other option will they use to keep the train moving? Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Introducing the Nebula Nexus with a hexacore processor... Reply
  • shompa - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    So you think its an advantage that Microsoft can't deliver a multithreaded OS? They haven't managed to deliver a good multithreaded OS for X86 in over 30 years. A feature that have worked on Unix since late 1960 :)

    But you point is valid. Microsoft shows how much better integrated design is then fragmented. Since they dictate the hardware, they can optimize everything with GPU/SIMD.

    Windows8 will be interesting. The fragmented X86 version Vs the integrated ARM version. The fragmented version needs 5-10 times the CPU power to active the same user experience as ARM for Windows.

    Nerds love horse power. A quad 1.4ghz Vs single core 1 ghz have to be better. Just like a 400 hp car would be slower then a good designed 100HP car.
  • barefeats - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I'm a fan of the Apple iPhone 4S but I'm always looking "over the fence" to see how Android smartphones compare in raw performance. Until yesterday, the iPhone 4S was the fastest smartphone running GLBenchmark 2's Egypt Offscreen and "T-Rex" Pro Offscreen benchmarks -- fair tests since they force all devices to run at 1280x720 on a virtual screen. As you have shown with this article, the Samsung Galaxy S III is now the "King of Egypt."

    On another note, I'm wondering why the Galaxy S III does relatively poorly on the Linpack benchmark with a 102 Mflops rating (Multithreading). The HTC One X (AT&T) blows it away with a 215 Mflops rating. Even the iPhone 4S beats it with a 131 Mflops rating. Thoughts?
  • HotBBQ - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    My guess in that the HTC One X has a Snapdragon S4 which is Cortex A15 based while the S3 is still Cortex A9. Reply
  • yjwong - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Actually, Snapdragon S4 isn't based on Cortex A15. They do their own designs based on the ARMv7 instruction set. But yes, Krait shares most of the performance features with Cortex A15. Reply
  • Rowlf - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I believe it's all about the display. Does it really matter has fast it is if you can't see the screen. I can't be the only one using their phone outside.

    For me it's a basic interface issue. Apple and now it appears HTC gets it. The problem I see with pentile is lack of brightness and contrast. I don't spend all my time in a cave

    Why can't someone beat apple when it comes to the display?
  • Rowlf - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Sorry for the typo. It should read "What about the display". Reply
  • ssddaydream - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Lack of contrast?
    Any AMOLED has a insanely high contrast ratio. FAR above any LCD.
    The reason LCD is easier to see outdoors is partially because of the reflection of the outdoor lighting off the display.
    If you kill the back-light on an LCD panel, then put the display under direct sunlight, you can see the image, including some color.

    I agree that any AMOLED display is difficult to see outdoors. It is just the nature of the tech. For outdoor use, LCD will likely reign king for some time.
  • Zoomer - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Question is, is it pentaband UMTS? Reply
  • 1ceTr0n - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    Can go back or buy a 4S then, Apple loves to have haters and trolls as customers Reply
  • steven75 - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    If you've seen any commercials lately you'd realize the company you are referring to is Samsung, not Apple. Reply
  • Gunbuster - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    I hope they have a Windows Phone 8 handset in development with this same hardware Reply
  • tytung - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

  • tytung - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

  • Viview - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    I think Samsung cell phone is very good,so I use Samsung. Reply
  • SamsungAppleFan - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Yes, and I agree with you! lol And millions of others will as well. And I'm sure this phone will win the phone of the year award again. I also believe it is one of the most beautiful phones ever produced. Perfect design/hardware evolution to the Galaxy Series. Seriously you... kids lol, what did you want some robot looking device that shoots phasers? Kudos to Samsung! Reply
  • csu333 - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Wow, looks like Galaxy S III is blazing fast. But ... wait a minute ... it looks like the GS II is not that far away!

    Only problem is: if I look at Sunspider and BrowserMark in the HTC One review ( the Galaxy S II is almost twice slower than announced here.

    And SunSpider in the original GS II review ( also gives way different figures. I know that there are 2 versions of the GS II but this just looks like a biiiiiiiig mistake in this review.

    Could you please correct it and explain me how you made it so I can trust you again ?
  • JeffDM - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    What is with the disco purple lighting? What was the venue operator thinking? Reply
  • Chip_Molly - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    The Samsung Galaxy S3 has an utterly disappointing design for a top range android smartphone. Perhaps HTC will come up with a well deserved challenger. Reply
  • bigboxes - Monday, May 07, 2012 - link

    My browsermark score is 7588. LOL Reply
  • PiRat - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    Not very impressive when you compare the 3D benchmarks, S to S2, S2 to S3. Reply
  • lancedal - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link

    My friend has this phone (he is testing it for Samsung). I love the device. Light, fast, big screen.

    Then I played some youTube videos, again, smooth, fast... But then I noticed that there is not much depth in the video. I grabbed my daughter's ipod and played the same video. Guess what, even with a much smaller screen, her ipod video quality was much better. Note that both are with high brightness. The S3 is much worse at lower brightness.

    Anyhow, may be I'm over analyzing this, but I think the display quality is much more important than the speed of the processor (as long as the processor can keep up with much of the apps). It's much more pleasant to read or watch on the iPhone 4s than any device out there. This makes me thinking: why Apple puts so much effort on the display? Well, I think they are about selling online contents. So if the display is good, you, as a user, end up spend hour and hour playing with it. Then you more likely to buy more apps, video, ebook etc. All Apple's competitors are about selling hardware. So if they can cut a corner on the display to make more profit, they would. There is no incentive for them to put on the best of the best. Apple, on the other hand, have a big margin on the contends to offset the cost of the hardware. As such, they can afford to put on the best display they can get.

    I'm not an Apple fan, but I think their strategy is brilliant. At the end, they may end up winning both the device sale and the contents wars.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now