Used Android phones: Best bang for buck (price/perf) ?

[GoodEnough]

A friend currently has a Motorola Razr M. (2012)
and are on a private plan with no phone subsidy.

A used Razr M goes for about $90 on Ebay.
What if they sold that phone and got something better?

What's the best bang for buck (price/perf) in the used phone market.

Again, "good enough" is the key here.
This person is content just sticking with Razr M for another 2 years.
But, if the price is right, maybe an upgrade can be justified.
(Esp. if you resell the Razr M for $80 or so)

You can get a used LG G2 for $300.
Anything decent that is cheaper?
Again, NOT best of breed, JUST significantly better than the Razr M.
What's the least he'd have to spend to have a significant improvement over the Razr M?

 

[bearxor]

Galaxy S4, MotoX, HTC One, Galaxy Note 2, Droid DNA, LGG2.

Those are your best bets for Verizon-compatible devices used between $200-300.

 

[GoodEnough]

Can you sort them from best to worst?
Is Ebay the best place to buy a used phone?

 

[GoodEnough]

The MotoX is not to be confused with the Moto DROID X, correct?

 

[Ravynmagi]

Yes, Moto X is different from the Droid X.

I think the Moto G is worth a look. Verizon sells their model for only $99. It's a pretty impressive phone for that price and still a nice improvement over a Razr M. And it's a new phone, so don't have to deal with possible used phone issues.

 

[GoodEnough]

To clarify, this is to buy out of pocket with no subsidy.
Moto G is about $125 on Ebay. That might be a good solution.

Moto G is def. a step up from Razr M?

 

[Ravynmagi]

To clarify, this is to buy out of pocket with no subsidy.
Moto G is about $125 on Ebay. That might be a good solution.

Moto G is def. a step up from Razr M?

Yes, $99 Verizon Moto G with no contract.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola...hone/3041063.p

Normally this phone sells for $180, but Verizon sells it's version for $99 to attract pre-paid customers.

PS. And since you used a Razr M, we've jumped to the conclusion you are looking for a Verizon phone. I hope that's a correct assumption.

 

[GoodEnough]

Yes, Verizon.

Here is the side by side of Razr M vs. Moto G
What specs are the most salient? To reflect the upgrade difference.
http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=5831&idPhone2=4973

MotoG does NOT have 4G? Downside??
MotoG 1 year newer
MotoG 16GB RAM vs. 8GB
JellyBean vs. IceCreamS
Quad Core vs Dual Core
Newer GPU

 

[jacktesterson]

Moto G is an awesome phone.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Moto G CAN NOT utilize 4G. Just know that.

 

[Rdmkr]

notice that the Moto M has a major portability advantage over the G despite the minor difference in screen size. 5mm horizontal size difference is a lot. corresponds to about double that 0.2 inch screen diagonal difference.

3 millimeter difference in thickness too... ouch.

also its cores have the more efficient Krait microarchitecture than the cortex A7s in the moto G in addition to being clocked higher.

DMIPS figures:
Krait: 3.3/mhz
cortex A7: 1.9/mhz

compound the microarchitecture efficiency with the clock speed difference and the difference is quite substantial (x2.17). According to qualcomm, 85% of the most used apps use 2 threads or less (most of the rest use the 3rd and 4th only lightly), so quad-core probably isn't going to make as large a difference as that.

translated to Krait mhz, the moto G's cores are barely 700mhz.

of course the quad-core chip is going to look good on benchmarks that constantly fill up its pipelines with processes in a way that's not like anything going on during real world usage...

GPU of the moto G is better if I recall, but also has more pixels to push...

I don't think the moto G is obviously better... the only thing you're guaranteed of is a higher screen resolution and a larger screen (in a disproportionately larger body)... add in the lack of 4g and you're looking at a pretty dubious upgrade.

 

[jacktesterson]

notice that the Moto M has a major portability advantage over the G despite the minor difference in screen size. 5mm horizontal size difference is a lot. corresponds to about double that 0.2 inch screen diagonal difference.

3 millimeter difference in thickness too... ouch.

also its cores have the more efficient Krait microarchitecture than the cortex A7s in the moto G in addition to being clocked higher.

DMIPS figures:
Krait: 3.3/mhz
cortex A7: 1.9/mhz

compound the microarchitecture efficiency with the clock speed difference and the difference is quite substantial (x2.17). According to qualcomm, 85% of the most used apps use 2 threads or less (most of the rest use the 3rd and 4th only lightly), so quad-core probably isn't going to make as large a difference as that.

translated to Krait mhz, the moto G's cores are barely 700mhz.

of course the quad-core chip is going to look good on benchmarks that constantly fill up its pipelines with processes in a way that's not like anything going on during real world usage...

GPU of the moto G is better if I recall, but also has more pixels to push...

I don't think the moto G is obviously better... the only thing you're guaranteed of is a higher screen resolution and a larger screen (in a disproportionately larger body)... add in the lack of 4g and you're looking at a pretty dubious upgrade.

Moto G is super comfortable in hand and plenty fast to use. Screen is high quality and I had no issues at all with 1GB ram. HSPA+ was plenty fast for me.

While on paper benchmarks are great and all, in hand experience is the true tale of a phone.

 

[bearxor]

I ignored the MotoG in my list specifically because of the lack of LTE. It's not as big a deal on AT&T/TMobile but I think it's a huge deal on Verizon.

As for my original list, the Droid DNA and the Galaxy Note 2 are the oldest, but still have fairly decent specs. The Note 2 has the SPen, so that's a special feature some people may be interested in.

The MotoX is the "weakest" of the other phones, but that's fairly irrelevant. It's more than capable of just about everything you'd throw at it. And it runs a minimally customized UI on top of Android, it's basically the closest you're going to get to a Nexus device on Verizon for the next year and a half.

Everything else, SGS4, HTC One, LG G2 are basically pretty even. It'll come down to size/comfort/features. The SGS4 has removable battery and uSD card if that's important to you. The One has a higher build quality with the aluminum body and stereo speakers. The LG G2 has the largest screen and a slightly faster processor as well as OIS for the camera and a higher quality DAC if that's important to you.

I'd choose a used device in the $200-300 range before buying a MotoG, personally. But if you're looking to spend under $200, your options start running out awfully quick and the MotoG gets a lot more attractive.

 

[GoodEnough]

Thanks. I am ruling out MotoG b/c of the lack of 4G.

The intent here is to have some leapfrog of value add over the Razr M.

If I don't want to spend $300 for LG G2 or MotoX or HTC One M7,
I'll look for a good price on Droid DNA or Galaxy Note 2.

Droid DNA and Galaxy Note 2 are a palpable jump up from Razr M ?

 

[GoodEnough]

Galaxy Note 2 seems to be about $240
Droid DNA seems to be about $200.
These are BuyItNow, and I may be able to find lower in an auction.

 

[GoodEnough]

Droid DNA vs. Razr M
Same release date (Late 2012)
4G vs 3G
16GB vs. 8GB
Jelly Bean vs. Ice Cream S.
Quad Core vs. Dual Core

In addition to the above,
Galaxy Note 2 also offers bigger screen and bigger battery.

Friend's Razr M is updated to 4.12, so the Jelly Bean OS is not an incentive.

It really just comes down to 4G, 16GB, and QuadCore.
Just need to decide if that's worth $200 (minus proceeds from selling Razr M)

 

[s44]

I think because we're well into the "good enough" processor era, the main upgrade has to be network connectivity. In urban areas phones with LTE on the AWS spectrum get much, much better data coverage and speed. Going forward it will also give you access to an increasingly important part of Verizon's network everywhere... I wouldn't recommend any non-AWS device at this point, though that low price for a Note 2 is tempting. That leaves you with, in ascending price for Good+ condition on Swappa:

Droid Ultra*
Moto X*
G2
Galaxy S4 (if you want to flash, look for ones marked "MDK")
Note 3

*was supposed to be updated to AWS with a firmware update, not sure if that's happened yet

 

[GoodEnough]

what's AWS?

Which processor is good enough? Dual core or quad?
Is the quad core a big jump from dual core?
I think one reason performance degrades from day 1 is the OS upgrade.
Phone that was fast on IceCream may slow down on JellyBean.

 

[bearxor]

AWS is wireless spectrum frequency. Verizon is busy deploying it as fast as they can because they're running in to a pretty bad bandwidth problem.

I don't think it's a huge deal right now unless you live in an extremely congested are and are a high data user. Even in heavily congested areas you'll get 3-5Mbps which is enough for most typical functions.

But if you want to make sure you get one that's future proof, just make sure it does LTE Band 4.

 

[s44]

AWS is the 1700/2100 band (1700 up, 2100 down), so named because of its original use allocation and because there's not a single numerical band you can replace it with.

Verizon originally rolled out LTE on its "C block" (former UHF) 700mhz band holdings. This has great distance coverage and building penetration to let them get nationwide coverage really fast, but turned out not to be nearly broad enough as everyone started to get LTE phones. (In midtown Manhattan during work days LTE was a total overloaded clusterfuck.) Late last year Verizon started rolling out LTE in urban areas (where the shorter effective distance of AWS is less important) on the massive AWS holdings they have (I believe more than T-Mo, which uses AWS as its primary data band). This allowed people with newer devices (the ones I mentioned plus the iPhone 5S and 5C) to get back to the ridiculous LTE speeds of the early days. It still feels really snappy six+ months later, and should stay that way for a while.

Dual core can be very good, but it depends on generation. The RAZR M's dual-Krait (original flavor) is about equivalent to the quad in the Note 2, but not with the quads in the S4, G2, or Note 3. The Ultra and the X actually have CPUs of similar horsepower, just with special functions like always-listening built in. As I said, they (including the M) are all well into the "good enough" zone...

Degradation over time on old phones was largely due to pre-4.3 phones not having TRIM, so the internal storage would get horribly slow unless/until you factory reset periodically (or used a root utility). The M is supposed to get KitKat -- the soak test may have been announced today! -- so sitting tight isn't the worst idea, unless you want to do the G2/Note 3 thing I suggested in the other thread.

 

[s44]

Even in heavily congested areas you'll get 3-5Mbps which is enough for most typical functions.

Maybe the 700 band is better now that a lot of S4s and i5S/Cs are floating around and using AWS, but in NYC there used to be stretches where/when you literally couldn't get a LTE connection at all because the towers were overloaded.

 

[GoodEnough]

It sounds like the Razr M isn't a terrible phone, and may be sufficient for the time being.
Unless I drop $300 for a leapfrog to 2013, it seems the cheaper alternatives are not a paradigm jump ahead of the Razr M. Might just advise to sit tight for now. More importantly, user doesn't have an issue with it either. Maybe a periodic factory reset is a good measure to take.

 

[kaerflog]

If you can find a LG G2 for $300, you won't have to worry about technology deficiencies for 4-5 years.
You will likely damage the phone before it becomes obsolete.
I dropped my Nexus 5 when I found a G2 for $300.
I think its better than anything out right now(ie M8, GS5) with a much much lower price tag.

 

[gmaster456]

DNAs go for good prices right now.

 

[openwheel]

Droid DNA vs. Razr M
Same release date (Late 2012)
4G vs 3G
16GB vs. 8GB
Jelly Bean vs. Ice Cream S.
Quad Core vs. Dual Core

In addition to the above,
Galaxy Note 2 also offers bigger screen and bigger battery.

Friend's Razr M is updated to 4.12, so the Jelly Bean OS is not an incentive.

It really just comes down to 4G, 16GB, and QuadCore.
Just need to decide if that's worth $200 (minus proceeds from selling Razr M)

Razr M support 4G LTE. Motorola has also indicated they will upgrade Razr M to KitKat (no promise of date).

If you use the phone side by side, you'll see the Razr M actually performs better because both phones have similar SoC but the DNA is working harder due to extra pixels. The Razr M is also famous for being extremely easy on battery and built like a tank. If I were to buy a used phone, I'd take the Razr M over DNA especially after considering the price difference. The DNA is in no man's land, not good enough to compete with S4, but also not fast enough to compete with Razr M.

Just sold an LG G2 for $300. You can find one for less.