AT's S7 & S7 Edge Review: Part 2

[Red Storm]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10196/the-samsung-galaxy-s7-and-s7-edge-review-part-2

Interesting highlights for me:

The Exynos 8890 variant is generally a step up in battery life, but the Snapdragon 820 variant is basically comparable to Exynos 7420 and by extension the Galaxy S6 and Note5. The Galaxy S7 edge is the only device that is an obvious step up in battery life for both variants, but this is through sheer battery capacity rather than any efficiency gains, as the Galaxy S7 edge ends up being a fairly heavy device in return for its great battery life.

Um, what?

The S7 is noticeably better than the S6 at battery life, and the Note 5 is also definitely better than the S6. Anandtech always reports numbers that just don't compare to real life it seems.

And then they keep mentioning that the Edge is only so good at battery because of its massive battery size and weight, and yet the phone is physically smaller than the 6s Plus, has a larger screen, and manages to weigh less.

The bias is getting really annoying...

 

[ChronoReverse]

I think he means SoC efficiency. The GS6 had good efficiency but actual battery life was hampered by the smaller battery.

Anyway, I thought it was a good article. Not sure why bias has to be screamed every single time.

 

[Red Storm]

I think he means SoC efficiency. The GS6 had good efficiency but actual battery life was hampered by the smaller battery.

Anyway, I thought it was a good article. Not sure why bias has to be screamed every single time.

Since when has anyone valued efficiency over simply "how long does the phone last?" These aren't desktop PCs where we could mix and match components to possibly take advantage of said efficiency, then it would actually be useful information to know. They are sealed mobile devices. Spending any amount of time trying to say that the S6 is equal to the Note 5 or S7 is either useless information or purposely misleading IMHO.

The bias is unfortunately obvious, just look at how the S7 Edge repeatedly gets backhanded compliments on battery life. They say it only does so well because of its massive/heavy battery, yet the phone weighs less and is smaller than the 6S Plus.

 

[dawheat]

Yeah the constant comments about battery size were annoying - who cares how the S7 Edge gets great battery life considering how compact and light it is compared to its competitors. It's over 10% lighter than the 6S Plus and far more compact, yet somehow weight is now a problem?

Yet somehow it basically topping every battery life test is barely a positive.

Oh and the author apparently never takes photos in real life. I find the S7 camera a huge improvement in taking real life photos - where you're pulling out your phone to try to grab a photo of your moving kids or friends, not sitting perfectly still lining up the perfect shot.

 

[antihelten]

Across the 4 battery life tests performed by AT, the S820 version of the S7 is ahead of the S6 by an average of 16%. The battery is 18% larger (3000 mAh vs. 2550 mAh), thus the improvement is entirely due to the battery size increase, and there is actually a loss in efficiency.

The 8890 version is ahead by an average of 20% across 3 test, thus an insignificant 2% efficiency gain once battery size is accounted for.

The S820 version of the S7 edge is an average of 44% ahead of the S6 with a battery that is 41% larger. Thus again a 2% efficiency gain, once battery size is accounted for.

So all in all it can be seen that the new SoCs (S820 and 8890) have given no improvement in battery life themselves, and the observed improvement is entirely due to the increase in battery size. And of course this increase in battery size comes at the cost of marked increases in thickness and weight for both the S7 and the S7 edge (S6: 6.8mm and 138g, S7: 7.9mm and 152g, S6 edge+: 6.9mm and 153g, S7 edge: 7.7mm and 157g).

Personally I don't mind all that much since phones had been getting too thin in my opinion, and a little extra thickness in return for a bigger battery is definitely the right choice, but Anandtech is correct in stating that the new SoCs do nothing for battery life.

 

[Artdeco]

I thought it was reasonable, and the criticisms were spot on, flagships are going to be a hard sell to the "average consumer". It's been predicted for some time.

 

[KeithP]

The bias is getting really annoying...

Not anywhere near as annoying as hearing people claim "bias" every time they disagree with a review.

-KeithP

 

[Oyeve]

Not anywhere near as annoying as hearing people claim "bias" every time they disagree with a review.

-KeithP

Can you honestly claim this site doe NOT have a bias?

 

[chimaxi83]

Not anywhere near as annoying as hearing people claim "bias" every time they disagree with a review.

-KeithP

I like how you refuted his (arguably sound) reasoning behind his opinion that AT is showing a bias. Oh wait.

 

[dawheat]

Across the 4 battery life tests performed by AT, the S820 version of the S7 is ahead of the S6 by an average of 16%. The battery is 18% larger (3000 mAh vs. 2550 mAh), thus the improvement is entirely due to the battery size increase, and there is actually a loss in efficiency.

The 8890 version is ahead by an average of 20% across 3 test, thus an insignificant 2% efficiency gain once battery size is accounted for.

The S820 version of the S7 edge is an average of 44% ahead of the S6 with a battery that is 41% larger. Thus again a 2% efficiency gain, once battery size is accounted for.

So all in all it can be seen that the new SoCs (S820 and 8890) have given no improvement in battery life themselves, and the observed improvement is entirely due to the increase in battery size. And of course this increase in battery size comes at the cost of marked increases in thickness and weight for both the S7 and the S7 edge (S6: 6.8mm and 138g, S7: 7.9mm and 152g, S6 edge+: 6.9mm and 153g, S7 edge: 7.7mm and 157g).

Personally I don't mind all that much since phones had been getting too thin in my opinion, and a little extra thickness in return for a bigger battery is definitely the right choice, but Anandtech is correct in stating that the new SoCs do nothing for battery life.

I don't think this is correct unless you included the time portion of the Manhattan test which I don't believe is appropriate since the fps of the S7 is over 2X that of the S6. That test is a combination of the time + fps and taking one in isolation doesn't seem apples to apples.

That being said, it doesn't change that much but does tilt it slightly in favor of the S7 with the S820 showing 18.6% improvement while the 8890 has a 29.8% improvement. So basically parity when comparing the Exynos 7420 vs. the S820 though much higher GPU performance while the Exynos 8890 is a step forward, though only having 2 tests available isn't comprehensive.

And the weight thing come on - both S7 variants are lighter than their competitors - whether it be the HTC 10, LG G5, 6S Plus. The review isn't wrong, but it seems like something to harp on for the sake of it and not because it was noticed in any usage or real life scenario.

 

[dawheat]

One last comment though - whether Samsung optimizes the S820 variants to be more inline with other Android OEMs, it does seem clear to me that the Exynos versions are noticeably superior - with relatively equivalent SOC performance, non-trivial better battery life, and overall general better responsiveness from online tests and user annecdotes.

Seems that for 95% of users, the Exynos version would be better and I'd much prefer it in the Note 7 sold in the US vs. QC.

 

[Commodus]

The core battery capacity comments aren't entirely unfounded. The iPhone 6s Plus gets great battery life with a 2,915mAh pack, while the S7 Edge does so with a 3,600mAh cell. Yeah, that's partly because the 6s Plus has a 1080p screen instead of 1440p, but that still means that Samsung is using sheer quantity to achieve its figures.

As it stands, accusing AnandTech of bias given its fondness for hard data always strikes me as... unconvincing. Especially how this bias seems to conveniently only show up whenever there are hints that an Apple product might fare better.

This isn't to say that there aren't Apple cheerleaders out there (mainly fan sites), but history suggests that whatever bias exists at neutral sites tends to be minor. The shouts tend to say more about preconceived opinions than the articles themselves.

 

[Oyeve]

The core battery capacity comments aren't entirely unfounded. The iPhone 6s Plus gets great battery life with a 2,915mAh pack, while the S7 Edge does so with a 3,600mAh cell. Yeah, that's partly because the 6s Plus has a 1080p screen instead of 1440p, but that still means that Samsung is using sheer quantity to achieve its figures.

As it stands, accusing AnandTech of bias given its fondness for hard data always strikes me as... unconvincing. Especially how this bias seems to conveniently only show up whenever there are hints that an Apple product might fare better.

This isn't to say that there aren't Apple cheerleaders out there (mainly fan sites), but history suggests that whatever bias exists at neutral sites tends to be minor. The shouts tend to say more about preconceived opinions than the articles themselves.

The bias, IMO, is the fact that this review is months late. Apple drops a new gadget and BAM, AT is all over it like a fly on crap. Then we finally get reviews and there is so much "well, apple does it this way" spread throughout the review that its sickening. The apple fans will find any way to call out android and in particular samsung fans, but its just so obvious what AT reviewers lean, nay, fall in line to.

 

[Commodus]

The bias, IMO, is the fact that this review is months late. Apple drops a new gadget and BAM, AT is all over it like a fly on crap. Then we finally get reviews and there is so much "well, apple does it this way" spread throughout the review that its sickening. The apple fans will find any way to call out android and in particular samsung fans, but its just so obvious what AT reviewers lean, nay, fall in line to.

Well, the S7 review's first part came out on March 8th like it did for virtually every other site that had it under embargo, so I wouldn't say that timing is the issue. And it's hard not to compare against the iPhone... it is the primary competition, at least in the US.

There is a tendency to hold Apple up as the benchmark more than necessary. However, there's also the flip side of it: that tendency for some to act as if any mention of Apple in a positive light (or in some cases, at all) is taboo outside of a directly related story. Show how the Apple comparisons are invalid or irrelevant -- don't just shout "biased!" at the mere sight of the company's name.

As a note: I think the S7 is a fine phone, arguably the most influential Samsung phone in years. It's just that you have to discuss the elephant in the room, and the S7 won't be better at everything.

 

[core2slow]

Mate 8 FTW

 

[dawheat]

The core battery capacity comments aren't entirely unfounded. The iPhone 6s Plus gets great battery life with a 2,915mAh pack, while the S7 Edge does so with a 3,600mAh cell. Yeah, that's partly because the 6s Plus has a 1080p screen instead of 1440p, but that still means that Samsung is using sheer quantity to achieve its figures.

But why does it matter how a phone gets great battery life? The S7 Edge is 7.2mm shorter, 5.2mm narrower and 0.6mm thicker than the 6S Plus while being 9% lighter and gets around 10% better battery life. The difference is even bigger against other Android competition like the HTC 10. Yet that accomplishment seems to come with a blemish from the review.

 

[Commodus]

But why does it matter how a phone gets great battery life? The S7 Edge is 7.2mm shorter, 5.2mm narrower and 0.6mm thicker than the 6S Plus while being 9% lighter and gets around 10% better battery life. The difference is even bigger against other Android competition like the HTC 10. Yet that accomplishment seems to come with a blemish from the review.

It's not a huge issue, but it does matter a bit. Higher-capacity batteries typically take longer to charge, and they can add weight if they're significantly bigger. Samsung does have fast charging, but that theoretically reduces the lifespan of the battery.

 

[antihelten]

I don't think this is correct unless you included the time portion of the Manhattan test which I don't believe is appropriate since the fps of the S7 is over 2X that of the S6. That test is a combination of the time + fps and taking one in isolation doesn't seem apples to apples.

That being said, it doesn't change that much but does tilt it slightly in favor of the S7 with the S820 showing 18.6% improvement while the 8890 has a 29.8% improvement. So basically parity when comparing the Exynos 7420 vs. the S820 though much higher GPU performance while the Exynos 8890 is a step forward, though only having 2 tests available isn't comprehensive.

And the weight thing come on - both S7 variants are lighter than their competitors - whether it be the HTC 10, LG G5, 6S Plus. The review isn't wrong, but it seems like something to harp on for the sake of it and not because it was noticed in any usage or real life scenario.

I did include the GFXBench numbers, and I agree that I probably shouldn't since that is also a performance test.

Here's the numbers without GFXBench (geomean):
S820 18.5% higher battery life than the S6. 0.7% increase in efficiency.
8890 27.7% higher battery life than the S6. 8.5% increase in efficiency.
S7 edge 44.4% higher battery life than the S6. 2.3% increase in efficiency.

So the only number that really changes is the 8890 number, which now shows a small increase in efficiency. This is of course completely in line with Anandtech's conclusion.

And as far as the weight thing goes, I would dare say that the majority of people who buys an S7 are people who previously owned a Samsung phone and thus that is what they will be comparing it to. Likewise when the iPhone 7 comes out it will primarily be compared to the iPhone 6S and less so the Galaxy S8. There really isn't all that much cross shopping these days (Samsung themselves estimate that only 20% of users are willing to switch between Android and iOS for instance).

 

[lopri]

The review completely blew my mind. Not in a good way.

Edit: I will try to elaborate with details later, time permitting. I am not terribly motivated, though.

 

[Anubis]

Can you honestly claim this site doe NOT have a bias?

all review sites have a bias, and yes AT is massively Apple biased

 

[dawheat]

So the only number that really changes is the 8890 number, which now shows a small increase in efficiency. This is of course completely in line with Anandtech's conclusion.

I don't know if an 8% increase in efficiency y/o/y is small these days in going from a 14nm process to an improved 14nm process - it honestly sounds inline with expectations. What would be expected? 10%? 15% y/o/y?

The S820 is clearly a letdown in this area as even with a major process jump, it simply matches the Exynos 7420, even with a custom core.

 

[antihelten]

I don't know if an 8% increase in efficiency y/o/y is small these days in going from a 14nm process to an improved 14nm process - it honestly sounds inline with expectations. What would be expected? 10%? 15% y/o/y?

The S820 is clearly a letdown in this area as even with a major process jump, it simply matches the Exynos 7420, even with a custom core.

I suppose you could argue that an 8% increase is reasonable, the problem is though that Apple is ahead by some 50-60%*, so with those kind of increases Android OEMs will never catch up.

*I know this isn't really a SoC to SoC comparison since the different OS also plays a huge role here, but even so I don't see any indications that Google is doing anything major with Android to narrow the gap.

 

[Lodix]

You have to take in mind that the display is 10-15% more efficient on the S7 and the fact that this new SOCs are manufactured in 14nmLPP which gives a 15% reduction in power over 14nmLPE used in the Exynos 7420 and still we only see a linear improvement directly related to battery capacity and nothing else. So with a more efficient display and manufactured SOC that are the parts that takes more power of the phone, the efficiency overall of this phones hasn't improved or even regretted in the case of the SD820. This makes you wonder how bad this architectures are and if they are worth using over pure Cortex a72.

 

[antihelten]

You have to take in mind that the display is 10-15% more efficient on the S7 and the fact that this new SOCs are manufactured in 14nmLPP which gives a 15% reduction in power over 14nmLPE used in the Exynos 7420 and still we only see a linear improvement directly related to battery capacity and nothing else. So with a more efficient display and manufactured SOC that are the parts that takes more power of the phone, the efficiency overall of this phones hasn't improved or even regretted in the case of the SD820. This makes you wonder how bad this architectures are and if they are worth using over pure Cortex a72.

It is incorrect to state that the display on the S7 is more efficient than on the S6. In fact they use almost the exact same amount of power at similar brightness levels. The only difference is that the S7 can go significantly brighter, but it also uses significantly more power whilst doing so.

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S7_ShootOut_1.htm

 

[foghorn67]

Across the 4 battery life tests performed by AT, the S820 version of the S7 is ahead of the S6 by an average of 16%. The battery is 18% larger (3000 mAh vs. 2550 mAh), thus the improvement is entirely due to the battery size increase, and there is actually a loss in efficiency.

The 8890 version is ahead by an average of 20% across 3 test, thus an insignificant 2% efficiency gain once battery size is accounted for.

The S820 version of the S7 edge is an average of 44% ahead of the S6 with a battery that is 41% larger. Thus again a 2% efficiency gain, once battery size is accounted for.

So all in all it can be seen that the new SoCs (S820 and 8890) have given no improvement in battery life themselves, and the observed improvement is entirely due to the increase in battery size. And of course this increase in battery size comes at the cost of marked increases in thickness and weight for both the S7 and the S7 edge (S6: 6.8mm and 138g, S7: 7.9mm and 152g, S6 edge+: 6.9mm and 153g, S7 edge: 7.7mm and 157g).

Personally I don't mind all that much since phones had been getting too thin in my opinion, and a little extra thickness in return for a bigger battery is definitely the right choice, but Anandtech is correct in stating that the new SoCs do nothing for battery life.

You can say all that until you're blue in the face, nut the S6 in N.A. pretty much drained battery as you were looking at it. It reminded me of the Galaxy Nexus, CDMA.
This was across the board on all 4 carriers.
My S820 S7 non-Edge has fantastic battery life.
I would also say this is beyond simple anecdotal gathering. It's pretty much accepted as fact.
Benchmarks suck.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk