Conclusion & End Remarks

The iPhone XR is an interesting phone for Apple simply because of its price positioning. Starting at $749, it’s $250 cheaper than the base iPhone XS, and $350 cheaper than the iPhone XS Max. And this is a gap that continues straight up to the max capacity 256GB models. So the big question here for most users is if the iPhone XR’s differences represent reasonable compromises for the lower price.

From a design standpoint, the iPhone XR comes in the same industrial design as the iPhone XS variants – both of which follow up on the previous generation iPhone X. The big difference here is in the bezels, which are notably larger on the iPhone XR. It does not represent any deal-breaker for the phone and it’s something that I guess most users will get used to – but my gripe is still that with a $749 price tag, the design feels more like something that would have come from a budget smartphone. Apple’s choice of insisting on a symmetric bezel design isn’t something that I personally find appealing in this implementation – but I do know some other users prefer this kind of design over asymmetric bezels (though you could argue the notch makes it asymmetric anyhow…).

The one thing that surprised me the most when using the iPhone XR is that even though it’s a smaller phone than the XS Max, it doesn’t always actually feel all that smaller. Here the increased thickness of the phone does change the in-hand feel quite a lot, and it will feel bigger than you’d expect for a phone with its 75.7mm width.

The main (and most visible) difference between the XR and its XS is inarguably the screen. Among the reasons Apple is able to offer the XR at a cheaper price point is eschewing an OLED panel in favor of a more traditional LCD. In terms of the fundamentals of the LCD in the iPhone XR, Apple continues to employ some of the best panels in the industry, and the iPhone XR is no exception to this. Brightness, contrast ratio (for an LCD), viewing angles, and colour calibration are all top-notch and will not disappoint.

The one area where I think Apple went too conservative is with the display resolution. For the majority of users this will be a subjective matter and it will depend on how they use their phones, but I personally found it among the larger compromises made, and something that would be a deciding factor for me to opt against getting the XR. For anybody else who never use their phones closer than at arm’s length or are less sensitive to the resolution difference, it should not represent any major drawback.

With that said, Apple’s choice to go with an LCD display has a very important side-effect for the iPhone XR: because it avoids the double-edged sword that is a higher-end OLED, it also avoids the technology's higher base power consumption. This increased base power consumption was the reason why the XS Max lasted a notably shorter period of time than the iPhone 8 Plus. The iPhone XR avoids this problem, and in conjunction with the fantastic A12 SoC, the phone is able to achieve Apple’s best ever battery results in our tests. Lasting 25% longer than the iPhone XS Max, this represents a major improvement in battery life and is going to make all the difference for users who value it above everything else. For those users, the cheaper iPhone XR may very well be the better choice.

The performance of the iPhone XR is very much in line with the XS – meaning you’ll be getting an industry leading experience. An important factor for users who value gaming a lot is that, as a side-effect of the lower-resolution screen, the iPhone XR gets better GPU performance and better power efficiency as the phone is only pushing 44% of the pixels of the XS Max. This means longer gaming battery runtimes in current games, and better experiences in future, more demanding games.

The camera on the iPhone XR is pretty straightforward: It’s the same fantastic experience as on the iPhone XS, with the only difference being that it lacks the telephoto lens. Apple’s strengths here are their absolutely great capture experience, which is among the most consistent of current generation smartphones, as well as class-leading picture quality that ties with the best of the competition. Low-light performance is good, but as was the case with the XS, the Android handset vendors have seen immense jumps over the last year due to their usage of computational photography and better sensors, and it’s something that Apple just currently lags behind at.

The lack of a telephoto lens is one of the more justifiable compromises for the lower prices – it’s something that I might miss, but it’s also not a deal-breaker for the phone and I could very easily live without it.

Finally, the big question is if the iPhone XR represents a good value and if it’s a viable choice for users. I think the deciding factor for most users is whether they find the design/ergonomics of the phone acceptable, as well as the display's pixel density. If so, then the iPhone XR certainly seems to represent a better value than the XS alternatives.

Wrapping things up, I find myself coming back to my final paragraph of the iPhone XS review, where I had mentioned that Apple is asking for a lot of money for their new models. At the time I thought that this was a risky pricing strategy for the company, and it seems that Apple is feeling some of the side-effects here as smartphone revenue has dropped year-over-year.

Similarly, I think the iPhone XR is also priced a tad too high, and if you’re not entrenched in the iOS ecosystem, there are better value alternatives. I count myself among those who wouldn’t buy a smartphone at this price, and certainly not if it does compromise on some features. In a way this might be the rationale of more users, and that’s probably why the iPhone XR has seen less demand than anticipated. With hindsight, I see now what I might have been wrong in thinking the XR would be the most popular model of this generation, as it’s not priced low enough to convince users to drop down from what they see as the better long-term investment of an XS variant. That is if they would buy a new iPhone at all this generation, which with the ever increasing prices, is an ever increasingly hard choice to make.

Camera - Quick Verification
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 - link

    I don't think that's the case. LCD is more efficient than OLED unless you're looking at a largely-black screen. There have been reviews looking specifically at power usage and they show a significant increase for OLED screens.
  • FreckledTrout - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    Its both the resolution and the use of LCD since LCD has lower standby draw.
  • beggerking@yahoo.com - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    don't think thats true.... OLED only light up pixels that needs to be lite up.. while LCD requires the whole backlight to be lite up... unless you really dim the LCD, OLED typically is more efficient.
  • beggerking@yahoo.com - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    Proof OLED is more effecient than LCD ... from macworld
    https://www.macworld.com/article/3223143/displays/...
  • cha0z_ - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link

    Wrong, even the current gen LCDs are draining more power than a OLED current gen screen. The only exclusion would be a maxed out brightness, but most people don't use the phone in max brightness most of the time. Then again, I don't know what the power consumption of the XS OLED is (can't recall the Andrei tests, you can check them out in the review).

    The lower screen resolution is the reason for the long battery life, not only because the UI is using a lot less GPU to draw, but this goes to every app too - like youtube, that will run most videos at 720p while my note 9 will run them at 1440p if available. The workload for 720p and 1440p is a lot different and leads to different battery usage.Then we have games... for xs they will be it's native resolution in a lot of cases, but for the xr they will be 720p. And so on and so on... the resolution is playing a lot bigger role than: "oh, the UI is using so low on the CPU/GPU that the resolution doesn't matter." yeah, for the UI itself the difference would not be that great, but on the most consumed apps like videos/games/modern web pages - it will.
  • Wardrive86 - Tuesday, February 5, 2019 - link

    I always look forward to your in depth reviews and architecture deep dives Andrei. I love your sustained performance tests..something only found at Anandtech currently. I honestly think you are the best writer Anandtech or any other tech site has had period...with that out of the way, I have one question and a potential request. Spec2006 shows the A12 having substantially better efficiency than it's competitors, finishing the finite tests faster with less total energy used by virtue of higher performance, but having higher average power draw. How would this correlate to an infinite test such as a high end 3d game like Shadowgun Legends or Asphalt 9? Would the higher average power draw remain at the same performance level of say a Snapdragon 835/845/Kirin 980? Also a request if you ever have time with your busy schedule, Could we get a sequel article to your 2015 article "The Mobile CPU core count debate" with more modern games and apps, comparisons of OpenGLES vs Vulkan on CPUs, etc.. I know I don't ask for much!
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    > How would this correlate to an infinite test such as a high end 3d game like Shadowgun Legends or Asphalt 9?

    For infinite workloads you just use the perf/W metric:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs...
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13503/the-mate-20-m...

    Consequently if you're fps capped you can use Joules/frame but that's not a popular metric.

    > Could we get a sequel article to your 2015 article "The Mobile CPU core count debate" with more modern games and apps

    At some point.
  • zodiacfml - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    Performance reminds me of my AMD Vega 56 on reasonably low graphic settings at 4k/UHD resolution, it uses only 60 to 80 watts while gaming. Changing just one or two graphics settings shoots to its default power limit which is 180 watts.

    Anyways, I hope Apple release an iPod touch this year based from this SoC. It is terribly impressive which is good for gaming.
  • CHJ - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    I have been using the XR for the last few weeks. My previous phone was the Xperia XZ, and the one before that a 5s.

    I cannot stress enough how good the battery life is. I used to carry a 10000 mAh power brick around for a full day out just in case - that simply is not the case anymore. I can’t run this thing down below 20% (I do sometimes get close, meaning I probably will run down the XS on some days, especially taking into consideration battery degradation after some months). This has simplified my life quite a bit.

    As for the display, I was worried about it, but I honestly do not notice the lower resolution compared to the XZ in day-to-day usage. In fact, all things considered (color accuracy and True Tone), this has a better display imo. The lower resolution certainly helps battery life as well.

    The thicker bezels - this I do still notice, but the XR costs 330 USD less than the XS where I live, and a slightly worse display, the lack of a second lens and 3D Touch, and thicker bezels are acceptable compromises given the savings. And that amazing battery life, did I mention that? ;)

    All in all, I am very satisfied with my purchase.
  • CHJ - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link

    Some other observations:

    The weight is noticeable, and the width of the phone does not aid in getting a comfortable grip. My fingers cannot wrap over the edge when I need to reach the top half of the screen. If you have large hands, you’ll be better off, I think.

    The stereo speakers are also much improved and genuinely useful. I find them to be sufficient for watching YouTube, which is pretty much all I need from phone speakers.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now