Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTNAND Performance
The Galaxy S 4 ships with either 16GB or 32GB of NAND on-board, but allows for expansion via a microSD card slot. The latter is a quickly disappearing feature on modern smartphones, but it remains a point of differentiation offered by Samsung. We were sampled a 16GB version of the Galaxy S 4, which arrived with 9.62GB of usable space after the OS and app pre-load.
As always we're using Androbench (with modified settings) to quantify NAND performance. Thankfully NAND performance has been steadily improving on modern smartphones/tablets, and the Galaxy S 4 is no exception. Sequential read performance actually sees a tremendous boost compared to most of the other devices in our charts here. Optimizing for sequential read performance makes a lot of sense, but it's good to see Samsung being competitive on all fronts here.
It is worth pointing out that NAND is treated very much as a commodity in these devices, and it's entirely possible that you'll see performance deviate from what we've shown here depending on what controller/NAND/firmware combination you get in your device.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
CoryS - Friday, April 26, 2013 - link
Eh, I actually think phones are getting too thin. I put a case on my GS3 because I kept fumbling it due to how thin it was.nerdstalker - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
What's with the QUALCOMM 4G sticker on the top bezel of the device? :sHaserath - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
They're using a Qualcomm Snapdragon SOC with integrated LTE (4g)modem, I believe.nerdstalker - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Going the Intel way. :PBrian Klug - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
There's been a Qualcomm 4G sticker on the top of Samsung phones since, hmm, T-Mobile SGS2 and AT&T SGS2 (Skyrocket). Even the Droid Charge/Galaxy Nexus VZW edition which had no Qualcomm parts inside did, ostensibly due to some part of the OFDMA/LTE stack being licensed for CMC221, but that was never made clear.-Brian
nerdstalker - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Interesting. Thank you for the info.ranblv - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Idon't care about removal battery, I do however care about expandable storage. carrying an extra 32GB micro sd card in my wallet saved the day many times when I needed to shoot video or transfer docs.Great review, I don't always care that much for the minor details but I like it that someone like you is making sure they deliver what they say they do.
janosch.from.afar - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
cannot understand why HTC cant simply add a tray to its smartphone side to insert a battery and sd card. Much like the iphones do it with their sim card tray.Besides, samsung could simply allow two sdcard slots, instead of one - but they should try to improve the SdExtcard mount first, so to being able install all software to it.
UpSpin - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
It adds further parts to the bill list, makes the frame less sturdy because you have to drill a huge hole in the side, you have to add some mechanism to lock it and you have to route all wires on the opposite side, because the battery tray side gets lost for antenna, wires, parts. With plastic it's easy because you can bent the back and remove the whole back, with aluminum it's more difficult, you have to use screws.But I agree, it's still possible. For example they could have used some screws to attach the back. It might have looked even better with screws than without them, but easy swapping won't be possible, so it has little use at all and few people really take advantage of battery swapping, so they probably just risked it with a fixed battery.
And a sd-card could have fitted easily, just as you can exchange the sim card. But here again, it's important for some (I would like one, too), but the majority gets confused with a second storage which is more likely to fail and which can't get used like the internal one, and few understand this.
holyanan - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
I have to say that the browsing time is really disappointing, i fail to understand why iphones provide with supposedly twice as much browsing time - which is one of the primary functions of a phone nowdays.