Samsung Epic 4G Review: The Fastest Android Phone
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 6, 2010 5:28 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Samsung
- Epic 4G
- Gadgets
- Mobile
The Display: Like AMOLED, but Super
Did I mention Samsung also makes displays? The Epic 4G and the rest of the Galaxy S line are among the first to use a new type of active matrix OLED called Super AMOLED. The main difference appears to be that the capacitive touch layer and AMOLED are now integrated rather than laying on top of one another. This sounds a lot like the manufacturing technique used in Apple’s Retina Display. It’s supposed to reduce unwanted glare/reflections and improve the efficiency of the display.
The end result is very noticeable. The Epic 4G is much easier to read outdoors compared to the original AMOLED Android phones like the Nexus One:
Google Nexus One AMOLED (left) vs. Samsung Epic 4G Super AMOLED (right)
The Super AMOLED display is a nice improvement over the standard AMOLED. I’d even go as far as to say that it’s comparable to most LCDs in direct sunlight, at least when you’re looking at things that aren’t white. Displaying white is a problem for AMOLED screens, it eats up a ton of power since the technology is emissive without the use of a backlight.
Direct Sunlight
From left to right: Google Nexus One, Apple iPhone 4, Samsung Epic 4G
Shaded, Outdoors
From left to right: Samsung Epic 4G, Google Nexus One, Apple iPhone 4
The biggest selling point of AMOLED is its deep blacks, which the Epic 4G’s display delivers perfectly. The display is almost too contrasty. The bright blue text on black background in the settings pages just pops.
Brightness is an issue with the display. The brightest white I measured was only 300 nits:
Samsung gets away with a relatively dim device by having perfect black levels, but the display’s weakness is visible when reading web pages with mostly white backgrounds.
From left to right: Samsung Epic 4G, Google Nexus One, Apple iPhone 4
In the photo above, the Nexus One looks brighter, but the Epic 4G's white levels measure higher. I suspect this may be a Super AMOLED vs. AMOLED issue with our x-rite colorimeter. In practice the Nexus One has brighter pure whites while the Epic 4G has a brighter display in any other situation (e.g. home screen).
As AdamPflug correctly pointed out, the Epic 4G's web browser has a separate brightness setting which explains the difference in brightness above in the browser. In this case the brightness was set to around 20% of maximum on the Epic 4G.
Samsung includes a dynamic display feature that reduces brightness depending on the contents of the screen (there’s also the standard auto brightness based on ambient light). It’s not that noticeable when turned on in most situations but it reduces maximum brightness by about 100 nits. Again, this is mostly an issue with web pages that have a lot of white in them.
I’d say Samsung’s Super AMOLED is in the running for best display on a smartphone up there with the iPhone 4’s Retina Display. Apple has the resolution advantage, but Samsung has a huge contrast advantage. The former is nicer for reading text, while the latter is better for just about everything else.
Even if you don’t get the Epic 4G, Super AMOLED displays are where it’s at. They’re far more usable outdoors and you still get the contrast benefits of AMOLED.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
medi01 - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Java's JIT could create code that is faster than C/C++. Because unlike C++ compiler, it also has runtime info about executables, it could know for sure, which of the if branches is more likely to be true, for instance.The only part of Java that was much slower than C++ was (and I think still is) sin/cos related functions. Since Sun had to guarantee "runs anywhere" with the exactly the same results, instead of using CPU's features they "manually" calculate it.
Voo - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Well java WAS slow - around ten years ago, but people have already made up their mind, it's hard to get new ideas into some heads. Though the lack of a JIT in dalvik hampered performance, but that's hardly something where you can blame the language for..Ah, just like all those people who still believe that manual memory managment is inherently faster than GC..
medi01 - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Java is not inherently slower than C++, but it does need more memory.The problem with Androids up to 2.2 was Dalvik VM that had no JIT.
designerfx - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
what a brilliant troll, or accidental. I'm not sure, but plenty of debunked this.What really brings down the entire samsung line of phones is that the GPS is horrible. I have one myself, and have the same issue on the vibrant as on the epic. Samsung really screwed the GPS up bigtime.
lwatcdr - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Well when faced with such a brilliant technical argument like "but Java sucks. Big time" what can one say.http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/space.mar...
Is an article from back in 2004 about how those idiots at NASA used Java to control the Spirit rover on Mars.
If only they had you available to show them how to do right.
Man I get sick of this crap. I heard the same thing way back when. People complaining when programmers used high level languages to write programs instead of assembly.
The thing is that it was all silliness just as it is now.
What really counts isn't the language but the programmer using it.
Android's speed issues tend to because by.
1. Not using the GPU for the UI
2. Using multitasking from the start.
IOS has only just now gotten official multitasking and even that is limited.
But really just drop the
Iksy - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Umm... to be clear, this is just the user interface used on Earth, which is something Java does well. The rovers themseves are controlled using VxWorks RTOS. VxWorks itself is written in C or C++ I believe.Ethaniel - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
Well, it's not the kind of technical argument everyone would like, but it gets to the point. Anand reviewed like half a dozen of Android phones, all with the same problem. So, or the companies are making exactly the same mistake with each and every model they launch, or Java is to blame. And no, I'm not trolling because I do want to Android to succeed. A troll is based on hate, and it usually doesn't check back the thread he/she started. And you haven't seen a single insult in this thread, right? ;)ktwebb - Monday, September 6, 2010 - link
Sounds like an IPhone Fanboy that is trying his best to be subjective. Samsung actually did not get it right performance wise. They use an antiquated and slow file system. For a pleasurable UI experience on Android, the N1 is still king, especially on 2.2. The only way the samsung galaxy variants fly is with root access and ext2, 3 or 4 fixes. there are GPS fixes as well however where Samsung let down actually is in the UI with Touchwiz and their ridiculous homage to Apple. No wonder this twit liked it. Android people IMMEDIATELY change the launcher. Anyway, the Hardware on the Galaxy S is excellent. Samsung did their best to eff it up and only with tweaks and root level access is it a really strong phone. Google and Androids main problem is OS sprawl and fragmentation. They get that cleaned up and the IPhone 4 is a distant second mobile OS. Right now, with the clear advantages Android phones have, specifically customization and an open source community among others, it's essentially a wash. It's about what you prefer and are comfortable with. I'm an Android guy because I like to make my phone do what I want it to, not what Jobs wants my phone to be.StealthX32 - Monday, September 6, 2010 - link
ktwebb, I don't think Anand reviewed it w/ the ext2 FS hack/fix (whatever you want to call it). The UI speed is fine from the factory; it's much better than the EVO 4G (even with Froyo) and on par w/ the N1, just not as good as it *could* be once you root it and fix the filesystem.ktwebb - Tuesday, September 7, 2010 - link
N1 Froyo is faster than stock Galaxy S Variants. And yeah, he didn't review with hacks and I certainly understand why he wouldn't. Shouldn't need them. But that is a Samsung issue, not Android. Samsung has the potential for a very good handset with the Galaxy S. They are trying their best to eff it up though. I haven't played with the EVO but had android phones since the G1 inception. The N1 was the best UI experience after Froyo was pushed. And far better than any IPHone I've used, although my experience with 4 is limited.