Advice Needed: Thunderbolt w/ Verizon, or EVO 3D w/ Sprint

[RaistlinZ]

I'm currently with Sprint on an ancient flip phone from 2005. I'm debating on getting an HTC Thunderbolt now and switching to Verizon, or waiting for the HTC EVO 3D this summer and just staying with Sprint.

The only reason I'm considering waiting for the EVO 3D is because I hear it will have a dual 1.2GHz processor and should be quite a bit quicker than the Thunderbolt.

Any opinions on which I should go with? I may also be travelling overseas a bit and I heard Verizon is better for that since the Thunderbolt comes with a SIM card?

TIA.

 

[zerocool84]

Well the Evo 3D is going to be a much more modern phone compared to the Thunderbolt no doubt but if you don't want to wait that long the Nexus S should be coming to Sprint next month but no firm date yet. It has 4G as well and don't have to worry about carrier updates for the phone.

 

[Soccerman06]

The Thunderbolt is nothing special, the Droid X is a very similar phone, minus the LTE bs. Might as well get the regular EVO if your considering the Thunderbolt and not going overseas. Having said that, if you want to use an american phone overseas, youll need to be on whichever wireless tech it is. There are phones called world/global phones (droid 2/pro) which have dual gsm/cdma antennas if you want to be extra cautions.

 

[dguy6789]

The Thunderbolt is significantly more powerful than the Evo 4G.

 

[rcpratt]

The 3D wouldn't be enough to go to Sprint, for me.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

The Thunderbolt is significantly more powerful than the Evo 4G.

For clarity the significant power difference is in the GPU which I read is about four times as powerful as the GPU on the Evo 4G. In addition the Thunderbolt has 128MB more RAM than the EVO.

 

[stlc8tr]

For clarity the significant power difference is in the GPU which I read is about four times as powerful as the GPU on the Evo 4G. In addition the Thunderbolt has 128MB more RAM than the EVO.

The Evo 3D is going to leapfrog back. It has a dual core 1.2Ghz MSM8655 with a Adreno 220 GPU. The specs for the 220 are about 2X that of the 205. The Evo 3D also has 1GB of RAM.

 

[s44]

The Evo 3D will probably be thoroughly locked down -- the new Qualcomm chips had some serious "features" announced along those lines.

Get the Nexus.

 

[zerocool84]

The Thunderbolt is significantly more powerful than the Evo 4G.

Well the OP is talking about the Evo 3D anyways.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Well now another upcoming phone has entered my radar, the Samsung Galaxy S2, which I read will also be a dual processor phone with the most beautiful screen on a smartphone to date. Only problem is it's not an HTC built phone, correct?

Just reading the specs of the Galaxy S2 it already makes the Thunderbolt fell old-hat. Hrm... so many options.

 

[s44]

It won't come to Verizon, though (or Sprint). LTE radios take space, and the current model is HSPA+ only.

Also, there's a rumor that the SGS2 may be locked down, which its predecessor definitely isn't. That would make it basically worthless for all its fancy hardware, because only excellent community dev support has kept the current generation up to date -- Samsung has been slow on software releases.

But yes, you're discovering the great Android wonder/nightmare: wait a few months, and the phone that will smash your phone will release. Having any smartphone is better than having any dumbphone, though, so don't play the waiting game too long.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Well, I think I'll pass on getting the Thunderbolt. I just can't in good faith spend money on a single core phone when dual-core phones are only weeks or a few months away.

 

[Anneka]

Yeah my advice is the same.
But thing is with dual-core smartphones being released there is also the problem of testing. I have a feeling like, as everything else, the 1st shipment of this type of phone will have some problems.

 

[MoxJr]

Well, I think I'll pass on getting the Thunderbolt. I just can't in good faith spend money on a single core phone when dual-core phones are only weeks or a few months away.

dual-core is irrelevant when your OS is not optimized for it

 

[fbrdphreak]

I'm curious why you think you need a dual-core phone? I guess if you use it for gaming and such, but from what I've seen even a modern single-core 1GHz chip (Qualcomm or TI or whatever) can more than handle anything you throw at it without a problem.

Now if you want a dozen widgets on each of the 7 home screens, running Netflix, having multiple services running constantly, etc; sure, that would be useful. But for using it as a phone with multimedia/internet capabilities, I can't see dual cores being necessary.

Then again, I'm just looking for an upgrade from my anemic Droid A855. But that's a different discussion.

 

[randomlinh]

I'm curious why you think you need a dual-core phone?

future proofing... we gotta have these things for 2yrs.. the mobile space seemingly moves quite fast. But mostly, an updated GPU will help out lots with GPU acceleration (which I can't recall which version of android supports)

 

[fbrdphreak]

future proofing... we gotta have these things for 2yrs.. the mobile space seemingly moves quite fast. But mostly, an updated GPU will help out lots with GPU acceleration (which I can't recall which version of android supports)

I guess. But it's not like a PC where you are guaranteed to have new games that push your GPU every 1-2 years. Again, if you plan on doing a lot of gaming on your phone, then I guess I get it. Personally, gaming on my phone is reserved for time wasters when I'm stuck waiting somewhere and such.

 

[dguy6789]

I guess. But it's not like a PC where you are guaranteed to have new games that push your GPU every 1-2 years. Again, if you plan on doing a lot of gaming on your phone, then I guess I get it. Personally, gaming on my phone is reserved for time wasters when I'm stuck waiting somewhere and such.

Not trying to call you out or anything, but I'll say Smartphone technology and software is advancing more rapidly right now than PC technology ever has. We're getting more than 100% increases in performance sooner than every 12 months. There are state of the art phones that were launched less than a year ago aren't powerful enough to handle today's most demanding apps. If Nvidia's Kal El processor actually launches in a phone this year, that phone will be as ahead of the times as the Radeon 9700 and the Core 2 Duo were.

I do believe the term smartphone is completely unfitting. These are portable computers, not phones. Calling these devices smartphones because they have phone functionality is like calling a desktop PC a smart calculator because Windows comes with a calculator application.

I can see why performance and specifications would seem unimportant to people if they think of these devices as phones, but performance and specifications are crucial to people who think of these devices as computers.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Not trying to call you out or anything, but I'll say Smartphone technology and software is advancing more rapidly right now than PC technology ever has. We're getting more than 100% increases in performance sooner than every 12 months. There are state of the art phones that were launched less than a year ago aren't powerful enough to handle today's most demanding apps. If Nvidia's Kal El processor actually launches in a phone this year, that phone will be as ahead of the times as the Radeon 9700 and the Core 2 Duo were.

I do believe the term smartphone is completely unfitting. These are portable computers, not phones. Calling these devices smartphones because they have phone functionality is like calling a desktop PC a smart calculator because Windows comes with a calculator application.

I can see why performance and specifications would seem unimportant to people if they think of these devices as phones, but performance and specifications are crucial to people who think of these devices as computers.

The problem is, what are you going to do with all of that power? I DO want to see phones become enormously more powerful over time, but I think they're pushing the power envelope too fast without letting capability catch up. When my phone can wirelessly and seamlessly connect to a keyboard, mouse, and monitor at the push of a button and run a slew of productivity applications or games designed for a "PC", then I'll be concerned with how powerful the thing is.

In the mean time, I'll just hope that while everyone else is racing to make their phone the fastest, someone else is focusing on the important stuff - battery life, user interface, thinness, weight, materials / build quality, and connectivity.

You can call your smartphone a computer all you want, and by definition it is. All I know is that when I actually need to get some serious work done, I sit down at the desktop or break out the laptop. My Droid X is fine for checking a couple emails and making a quick response (painstakingly), but beyond that I need a real keyboard and better interface.

 

[dguy6789]

I agree that build quality, battery life, and reception/call quality are of critical importance. We already have phones that set incredible standards in those areas like the Droid X. Weight and thickness isn't terribly important to me. One phone may be twice as heavy or twice as thick as another but every one of them fits in my pocket without a problem. I think the UI issue has largely been solved(Especially on HTC phones). We'll probably see more mild evolutionary changes over time instead of dramatic changes.

Actual performance as you said isn't the only important factor but it's definitely important. There's lots of things that don't run instantly on phones and it's not hard to slow a phone down if you start doing some real heavy multi-tasking.

Very typical usage for me on the road involves listening to music and using the GPS with occasional phone calls. The faster it can transition to and from all of that, the better. If I'm not driving I may be web browsing, chatting on aim, texting, listening to music, checking facebook, and other things. I want all of the performance I can get.

All in all I think the necessity of fast phones is not much unlike the necessity of a fast computer. Some people take full advantage of it and crave it as much as possible and some are satisfied without the cutting edge stuff.

 

[fbrdphreak]

I don't think you're calling me out at all - it's a good, productive discussion.

You both have valid points. Technology is advancing rapidly in smartphones/super-mobile-micro-PCs But my argument is that the usage needs for that tech aren't advancing with it, and from what I know the apps aren't either.

Is there a combination of apps that cause a problem for a new generation smartphone? Something that the dual-core NVIDIA will handle better than the latest Qualcomm/TI 1-1.4GHz chip?

dguy - you mention using music, GPS and phone calls on your phone simultaneously. Which phone do you have and how well does that work now?

My issue with my Droid is that its pitiful RAM and slow processor make running even a few services (Hootsuite, Reminders, widgets, email) fairly painful. If I can't quickly bring up my Android "desktop" and pull up Google Maps, a text message, or a contact to call, then I might as well get a plain-jane feature phone and a 3G tablet or hell a super-portable PC.

I'm just having a hard time justifying the wait/cost for a dual-core phone when I don't see the tangible benefits. Not to mention that the primary dual-core phones out the gate are from Motorola (locked bootloaders) and Samsung (poor OS update support).

 

[dguy6789]

I currently have an HTC Thunderbolt. The phone transitions very nicely between navigation and receiving a call and back to navigation in the middle of a drive.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Glad to hear, as I'll be doing the same things. Very close to pulling the trigger on a Thunderbolt.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Honestly, choose whichever has better service first and then choose your phone. Whats the point of having the fastest phone when your data is at a crawl or you cant even call.

 

[CVSiN]

I'm currently with Sprint on an ancient flip phone from 2005. I'm debating on getting an HTC Thunderbolt now and switching to Verizon, or waiting for the HTC EVO 3D this summer and just staying with Sprint.

The only reason I'm considering waiting for the EVO 3D is because I hear it will have a dual 1.2GHz processor and should be quite a bit quicker than the Thunderbolt.

Any opinions on which I should go with? I may also be travelling overseas a bit and I heard Verizon is better for that since the Thunderbolt comes with a SIM card?

TIA.

Sprint unlimited plan flat out destroys Verizons..

And it's getting better every day for 4g cities.

I pay 90 bucks a month for unlimited everything. Verizon couldn't touch that.

but traveling could be an issue..

I'm planning on selling/giving away my EVO to get the 3D when it launches for sure.