Jump to content

Contributors to this blog

A Win for the Midrange: Samsung Galaxy Victory OET Review

S4GRU

11,169 views

blog-0245096001347973619.jpg

by Ian Littman
Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 7:05 AM MDT

 

At around $100 with a contract (before the inevitable wave of promotional offers that have already hit its big brother, the Galaxy SIII), the Samsung Galaxy Victory falls under the definition of a midrange smartphone. It has specs somewhat reminiscent of the old Epic 4G: a 5 megapixel rear camera with 720p video recording, a front camera, a 4-inch 800x480 screen and a not-particularly-slim profile.

However it differs from that older device by dropping the keyboard, upping the battery to the same-capacity (but, compared to my SIII, not the same model) 2100 mAh unit found in the SIII, pushing the Android version to 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) and swapping WiMAX for LTE as its 4G technology.

gallery_1_2_9248.jpg

But that’s information you can get anywhere. What about the phone’s maximum output powers, simultaneous-data-and-voice capabilities, and antenna placement? You’ve come to the right place. Spoiler: this device looks solid.

 

Quote
  • CDMA 1xRTT/1xAdvnced/EvDO Rev. 0/A in SMR 800, Cellular 850 and PCS 1900 (band classes 0, 1, 10)
    • 26.89 dBm EIRP in SMR (BC10), 24.50 dBm, in Cellular (BC0), 28.09 dBm in PCS (BC1)
    • Highest EIRP at the bottom of the band for BC0 and BC1; EIRP decreased by roughly 1.2, and 2.28 dB between the bottom and top of BC0 and BC1, respectively
    • Highest EIRP at the top of the SMR band, but only by a margin of 0.5 dB

    [*]LTE in band class 25 (PCS 1900 + G)

    • 5MHz channels
    • Two receive antennas, one transmit antenna (MISO)
    • 23.92 dBm EIRP at 16QAM modulation, 24.08 dBm at QPSK, with the best performance at the middle of the band (20.75 and 21.92 dBm, respectively, when transmitting in the G block)

    [*]802.11 a/b/g/n WiFi, including 40MHz channel support in 5GHz (one antenna; SISO)

    [*]Bluetooth and NFC (antenna in the battery, includes Google Wallet support)

    [*]Three separate radio paths (1x, EvDO+LTE, WiFi+BT), allowing SVDO, SVLTE and voice + hotspot functionality

    • 2.4GHz-only for the hotspot, due to software limitations
    • Transmit power may be reduced on the data side when voice and data are simultaneously used, down to ~19 dBm for EvDO or LTE when the 1x radio is transmitting at 25 dBm
    • Dedicated 1x Tx/Rx antenna (lower-right corner of the device, looking at the front)

 

This phone isn’t nearly as hot of an item as the iPhone 5 (nor does it have the specs...or the price to give the Apple product a run for its money), however the iPhone happens to be a very fair device to compare the Victory to in terms of radio performance. On CDMA the iPhone marginally wins out on PCS (by 0.31 dB), however it’s trounced by the Victory in SMR with a 4.69 dB lead in transmit EIRP, showing the difference between a jack-of-all-trades and a purpose-built Sprint phone. On the LTE side, the iPhone wins out by around 3.3 dB on the EIRP front, however this number decreases to fall in line with the Victory if the iPhone’s upper antenna is used (the Victory only transmits EvDO and LTE with its upper antenna). Plus, the Victory can hold a voice call on 1x while utilizing EvDO or LTE for data.

iPhone comparisons aside, the Victory is a phone very obviously made with Sprint in mind. Radio figures actually look better across the board than either the Evo 4G LTE or the Galaxy SIII, though these numbers only describe the device’s transmit power, not how well it can receive a signal in a marginal area. Still, as midrange phones with LTE go, the strong radio characteristics of the Victory (or, as Sprint calls it, the Samsung Galaxy Victory 4G LTE) add to the list of reasons to get this phone over something else of the same ilk.

 

gallery_1_2_1376.jpg
  • Like 1


4 Comments


Recommended Comments

All I saw was "WIN" and thought we were doing a give away. I was all excited for a minute there, :(

 

Awww.

 

It's ok. I'm glad the Mid-Range is finally getting a power pusher.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Should be a very solid phone for the money. Good battery, excellent SoC, decent featureset, solid radios.

 

Thanks for taking a look at the OET.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hopefully it drops to free asap on Amazon. The SIII is $150 on Amazon for existing subscribers right now and probably worth an extra $100-$150 over this phone, not $50.

 

I'm really considering this phone and might pick it up when it becomes free.

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • The Wall Articles

  • Wall Comments

    • to me rural coverage matters most....because i like being able to make phone calls and send texts in remote areas of the country ...i dont care about speeds i just care about per square mile coverage and over all usability and reliability
    • Tell us how you really feel @MrZorbatron!

      I think that most cellular players exaggerate their coverage. Yes, I suspected a long time ago that T-Mobile was one of the most egregious. Now according to the merger presentation, they will end up with 85,000 macro sites. That will be enough to match the coverage of pretty much everybody.

      Like you, I appreciate not having dropped calls or undelivered texts. In my area on my T-Mobile MVNO, I don't get any but can't say it won't happen elsewhere. Once Charter offers service via their Verizon MVNO, I think I will move my 4 personal lines there. My business line will stay on Sprint/T-Mobile, well, because I can't control that.
    • I do not welcome any part of this.  I don't think T-Mobile really cares about doing anything they say they care about.  I have seen how truly bad their network is in the ways that matter for essential communication, and I want nothing to do with it.  Say what you want about Verizon, but the one thing they have in common with Sprint is that they have historically built out a solid network before trying to make it extremely fast.  I don't care about 50 Mbps to my phone.  I care about calls that don't get disconnected constantly.  I care about that stock trade getting through when I send it, even if carried by EVDO, because EVDO still gets it through. Sprint's "Outdoor coverage" maps might seem exaggerated to some, but T-Mobile's maps are a complete joke.  Maybe Michigan is a bubble, the only state where this is true, but it really is very true here.  T-Mobile is the network of dropped and undelivered calls, mysterious disconnection, and "call failed" error messages. If this goes through, look for me at the nearest Verizon store because price to me is absolutely irrelevant.  I see two things happening if this merger goes through:  1:  Sprint spectrum is used to bolster capacity at T-Mobile sites, and 2:  As much of the current Sprint network as possible goes away, even if it means losing sites that would provide valuable fill-in density.  I saw the latter happen with Sprint and Nextel, after they insisted that all Nextel sites that could serve to increase Sprint coverage would be used.  Similarly, there were locations T-Mobile could have used MetroPCS locations to improve their own coverage but didn't, even where it left holes in their network.
    • Not when Verizon just bought 1GHz of mmwave spectrum. Those were the policies of the past. If it does not get approved, it would the loss of jobs and the fact that it might not be good for consumers. Although when I look at the table on this page, comparing unlimited plans, it is already evident that the other three are not really competing and Sprint's lower prices are not working since they did not manage to steal anybody from the other other three. To me it is evident that were Sprint to remain independent they need massive investment in their network since competing on price is not enough anymore and low prices just deprive their network of investment.
    • And I would definitely say that merger probably or probably not won't be approved. If not I would have to say it would be on the grounds of cellular asset divestiture.
×