Motorola Droid X: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Brian Klug on July 20, 2010 4:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Motorola Droid X
- OMAP
- Mobile
Connectivity
The X supports CDMA 800/1900 and Ev-DO Revision A for data. There’s also Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, and WiFi 802.11g/n. I did notice N working at 72 megabits/s which seems to be the standard negotiated N connection speed for smartphones lately.
I’m somewhat of a speedtest freak, and I’ve run just shy of 100 speedtests on the X over cellular data. My average downstream speed has come to 0.91 megabits/s, upload is 0.73 megabits/s. This is completely on par with what I’d expect from CDMA 200 Ev-DO Rev.A networks. Though it isn’t anything special, I give the X credit for performing up to par, especially considering the number of... erm... devices that are shipping with some variety of radio problem.
Unfortunately, I did experience a lot of disconnections when connecting to N wireless networks. Searching online, a lot of people seem to be experiencing the same issue. Initially this posed a big problem for our WiFi page loading battery life benchmark, as I had to keep checking every 10 minutes to see if the phone was still connected. Later, I tried connecting to my WRT54G-TM running tomato (802.11g) and completed the test with a solid connection.
Later, I ran my WiFi throughput tests and noticed that the connection would drop on 802.11n whenever throughput started to go very fast, as it approached real N rates on my network. I switched back and forth between a WRT600N and latest generation Airport Extreme - both elicited the same behavior. The connection would drop, and sometimes not resume until I manually turned WiFi off and back on. This is very similar to some of the connectivity issues I’ve experienced with immature 802.11n stacks on the desktop, or due to chipset incompatibilities. Connecting to 802.11g, I was able to hold a solid connection without trouble.
Clearly the problem seems to be with the WiFi stack when connected to 802.11n networks. Hopefully this will be corrected in the future with some software update. There were rumors that this would be fixed with the July 19th update to 1.13.604 - it seems that review units were pushed this update a week early, as I saw it a while ago. WiFi still drops and reconnects periodically even running this version of the software and baseband.
Throughput on the X while downloading a 100 MB PDF stored locally was 16.8 megabits/s.
I also noticed that the X has longer wireless range than the EVO. I’ve been asked in the past to test wireless range - the X, Nexus One, and iPhone 4 I had on hand all kept stable WiFi connections to roughly the same distance.
Cellular Antennas
There’s also been a bit of discussion lately about the X’s diversity antenna configuration. If nothing else, the iPhone 4 antenna controversy has drawn attention to the fact that attenuation due to the composition of your hand happens on all devices.
Getting signal strength in dBm on Android is as easy as about -> status. Or a documented dialer code.
So how does the X fare? I saw a worst case drop of 15 dB on the X, cupping it tightly death grip style. I had an original Droid side by side and saw the same signal (-89 dBm at my house), so reception without holding the phone is unscientifically the same. The X drops signal about the same amount of signal due to attenuation from your hand being in the way as every other smartphone with an internal antenna. 15 dB is completely typical.
| Signal Attenuation Comparison in dB - Lower is Better | |||||||
| Cupping Tightly | Holding Naturally | On an Open Palm | Holding Naturally Inside Case | ||||
| Droid X | 15.0 | 5.1 | 4.5 | NA | |||
| iPhone 4 | 24.6 | 19.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | |||
| iPhone 3GS | 14.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 3.2 | |||
| HTC Nexus One | 17.7 | 10.7 | 6.7 | 7.7 | |||
I’m not entirely sure what’s going on with the X’s spatially diverse antennas - I could make signal drop when holding the bottom of the phone, which is standard placement area for smartphone antennas these days, yet no drop happened when I cupped the top half tightly. I’m not saying definitively that there isn’t spatial diversity for the cellular antenna, just that I could never see evidence of it in the numbers. Perhaps Motorola is doing something much more subtle, or the value being reported in Field Trial is only for the bottom antenna - it’s entirely possible that the reporting I saw in the Field Trial and About -> Status doesn't reflect what the baseband is seeing.
I noticed something else curious and briefly made mention of it before. On the back of the phone under the battery door, there’s a gold contact that makes contact with the battery door. There are also three metal connectors that make contact with the tabs that lock the door in place.
Is the X pulling an iPhone 4 with creative antenna design? It seems possible, though I’m not sure what it’s being used for. WiFi signal strength is the same with the battery door on and off, as is cellular, and GPS. It also isn’t being used to tell if the door is on or not, as the device works the same with it on or off. Perhaps this is just for grounding.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
Jonathan Dum - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
Thanks for the comprehensive and all around excellent review, but I have one caveat.As far as Android phones go, their multitouch screen controllers have tended to be sub par (try any multitouch on a nexus one, for example). I would like to know if there's any noticeable difference between these newest phones and older Android phones with capacitive screens.
As always, keep rocking these reviews, Anand. ;)
Frangible - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
I've not used another Android device, but it's hypersensitive compared to my iPad/iPod Touch. Portrait keyboard mode drives me nuts. If the touchscreen were alive, I'd say it would have a degenerarive demyelinating disease. Unfortunately putting prednsone tablets on my Droid X does nothing.It's so twitchy I can blow away the Blur, Swype, and even a modded HTC keyboard with Graffiti (free from Android Market btw). And that's Graffiti with my *thumb*, in portrait or landscape. If I started using my Pogo stylus... oh, it would be*on*.
Clearly, others don't share my opinion, but the touchscreen on the Droid X is incredibly fruuuuustrating at times.
Frangible - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
As a new Droid X owner, let me first say thanks for another great in-depth review, especially regarding the screeen details-- I just have to know these things, dammit.Anyway, just wanted to make two screen-related comments:
1. The outdoor screen comparison pics don't show any obvious transreflective displays. This either means none of them were, or they weren't angled in a way where a transreflective display would be obviously better.
FWIW, my iPod Touch Gen 1 has a TRD, and even my iPad's display is somewhat TRD (though with poorer contrast than the iPod or even a Tungsten TX in direct sunlight; a consequence of a lesser area of reflectivity, or the IPS display?) I don't know which of the iPhones have TRDs, but it would seem likely the iPhone 4G would be on par with the iPad.
Anyway, a TRD adds a LOT to outdoor viewing if you angle it correctly. You can even turn down, or off, the backlight.
The Droid X is certainly not TR, and was worse than my much dimmer Moto Q9C outdoors (due to the touch layer). And yeah sadly, the Tungsten Tx on min bright was better. So that's why I bring this up-- TRDs are the daywalkers of the LCD underworld, so imo this should be accounted for in outdoor comparisons.
2. I looked at the pixel structures of a variety of displays under a 100x light microscope. The Droid X's sub-pixels are divided into two sections, each with a black "hole". It looked quite similar to the PSP Go's subpixels, though with a standard RGB pattern and lack of the chevron textures on the PSP Go's. I assume this is some TN variant? Does anyone which kind?
The iPad's subpixels were divided into to halves of a series of stacked chevron color bars. Only the green subpixel had the "hole" (transistor?) which looked an awful lot like a mandlebrot fractal to me. FWIW.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
I always love reading ATech's reviews, but this one was especially wonderful.I laughed out loud at the following sentence:
"Everything about the X seems like it can be followed up with a 'that’s what she said.'"
Simply hilarious.
The0ne - Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - link
Yes, I especially love some of the very technical tests as well. For example...1. I let my wife use it for a day and she likes it...
2. I work in milliseconds so having a webpage load 1s makes any other phone besides iphone a no go
3. I have no fcking clue about real multi-tasking, although I know it's been around for decades, but I'll just demand for it and do a bat-shit review of it.
4. My wife and kids love it so it's an editor's choice! Go buy it.
5. It only has a few thousand apps, not the millions and millions of apps like iphone so it's crap, regardless if many of those millions of shtty apps and dictated.
Obviously, I'm exaggerating the comments to the extreme but the basis is there. While at it the review might as well include the orgasmic scene from the movie "When Harry met Sally."
honkj - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - link
for anyone wondering why that survey showed iPhone owners get more sex...this "theone" guy pretty much shows how clueless and geeky and "lady" hating, some Android fanboys come off to the opposite sex.....
actually they just come off as hating anything that moves.
jasperjones - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
a dozen comments already that point out the high quality of the review. it's getting boring. anyway, +1, excellent review. i've made critical comments on your smartphone reviews earlier this year. but the last couple of reviews were just awesome, and my confidence in AT is fully restored :)Hazdaz - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - link
It is so nice to read a review that is more than just a corporate press release. Actually taking the time to really review a device and give us honest and very thorough information is what I love about this site.I just ordered my X and won't get it for a few days, but I tested all the usual suspects and felt that it was the right phone for me... assuming I can get used to the size.
I know there are a few people that mentioned the GalaxyS family of phones and I have to say that I really wanted to get one... they are slightly smaller in size than the X, but because of their curved shape, they felt even smaller - while still offering a 4" screen. And about that screen, well it did look great, but from all the hype, I was really expecting for it to be even better. Anyways, I really wanted to like the phone - and I was ready to settle on it actually, until I tested the call quality. HUGE let down there... I could barely hear the person on the other end of the phone call, and the speakerphone volume was terrible. Tried this test on more than one version of the GalaxyS and was quite let down.
The Incredible actually had the best sounding speakerphone that I have heard, it was quite loud - but alas I was looking for something a little bigger in size. The X had good volume - much louder than the GalaxyS - so that's the one I picked.
ImmortalZ - Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - link
The gold contacts on the battery door are a staple of Motorola designs since a long time. My old E6 and it's cousin the Z6 both have gold contacts to the battery doors. So does the RAZR line. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that nearly every one of their phones with a metal battery door has multiple contacts from the door to the phone.MacTheSpoon - Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - link
The review was spectacular in many ways, but I couldn't find anything about call quality. Does this thing actually perform well as a phone? Did people you talk to think you sounded good, and did they sound loud and clear to you as well? How did it compare to other phones?Was this info in there somewhere, and I just missed it?