Samsung Galaxy S6 Preview Thread (was "Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge pre-order page up.")

[mc_gusto]

Being quick charge compatible might go a long way in assuaging low batt fears. For me it does. A little. But it still does. Glass back though?

[themuffinman]

True, the battery has less capacity, but the screen technology and chipset power consumption has been vastly improved.  I wouldn't be surprised if the GS6 has better battery than the GS5.

As long as the edge has the same or similar battery life as my m8 then I will be very happy.  

 

 

Damn, I still can't believe I am this excited for a samsung device.  I feel like I need to go and take a shower after saying that.

[shannonbrian]

Hope band 26 and 41 antennas are strong m

[atomic50]

Have at it!

 

LTE Bands 2, 4, 5, 12, 41

LTE CA 2xB41

LTE Cat6

 

VoWiFi (WiFi Calling)

No VoLTE

 

S6 non-edge

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=395433&fcc_id=A3LSMG920P

 

S6 Edge

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=199122&fcc_id=A3LSMG925P

 

[Fraydog]

This is the T-Mobile version and it has B41? Whoa. No VoLTE to boot. Hmmm.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atomic50]

This is the Sprint version ("P" indicator) with CCA support. This is the T-Mobile version with VoLTE, VoWiFI, and LTE B2,4,5,12:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=740153&fcc_id=A3LSMG925T

[Nickel]

If Samsung ends up using their own chips for the US versions, do we know who will make the modem? I'm guessing probably Samsung's in house version but I kind of would like to see an Intel one.

[Fraydog]

If Samsung ends up using their own chips for the US versions, do we know who will make the modem? I'm guessing probably Samsung's in house version but I kind of would like to see an Intel one.

 

 

It could be the MDM9635M, or the MDM9645 (which is what the 810 has integrated inside it as far as baseband goes.) 

 

Personally I want Exnyos to be inside the Sprint version as far as SoC goes simply due to the fact that Qualcomm has become increasingly fat and lazy due to their baseband dominance. The problem is that the 810 sucks, it has thermal issues on the G Flex 2 that some have detected, and then when you compare AnTuTu between the Exynos in the S6 and the 810 in the One M9 it's pretty clear who's ahead here. 

 

Anything that further breaks down the Qualcomm Empire is good in my book. Apple already pawned Qualcomm with the A8 now I'm guessing it's Samsung's turn. 

[Nickel]

It could be the MDM9635M, or the MDM9645 (which is what the 810 has integrated inside it as far as baseband goes.) 

 

Personally I want Exnyos to be inside the Sprint version as far as SoC goes simply due to the fact that Qualcomm has become increasingly fat and lazy due to their baseband dominance. The problem is that the 810 sucks, it has thermal issues on the G Flex 2 that some have detected, and then when you compare AnTuTu between the Exynos in the S6 and the 810 in the One M9 it's pretty clear who's ahead here. 

 

Anything that further breaks down the Qualcomm Empire is good in my book. Apple already pawned Qualcomm with the A8 now I'm guessing it's Samsung's turn. 

You know better than to compare using AnTuTu. I guess I forgot that even if they use their own SoC that they can still have a Qualcomm modem.

[Fraydog]

You know better than to compare using AnTuTu. I guess I forgot that even if they use their own SoC that they can still have a Qualcomm modem.

I know benchmarks can be manipulated, but by 20,000 points? I doubt that sort of gap is due to simple manipulation. Besides, all Android vendors are in on the manipulation game at this point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nickel]

I know benchmarks can be manipulated, but by 20,000 points? I doubt that sort of gap is due to simple manipulation. Besides, all Android vendors are in on the manipulation game at this point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My problem is not that it could be manipulated, it's that it was never a good benchmark. Unless things have changed, it's basically just an arbitrary number.

[Fraydog]

My problem is not that it could be manipulated, it's that it was never a good benchmark. Unless things have changed, it's basically just an arbitrary number.

I'd have to look deeper once Anandtech does a structural compare of Exynos 7 series to the 810, but I'm guessing that there's structural advantages with Samsung implementing BIG.little.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nickel]

I'd have to look deeper once Anandtech does a structural compare of Exynos 7 series to the 810, but I'm guessing that there's structural advantages with Samsung implementing BIG.little.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, AT should pretty definitely conclude if Samsung made the right choice in ditching Qualcomm (for now). 

[themuffinman]

It could be the MDM9635M, or the MDM9645 (which is what the 810 has integrated inside it as far as baseband goes.) 

 

Personally I want Exnyos to be inside the Sprint version as far as SoC goes simply due to the fact that Qualcomm has become increasingly fat and lazy due to their baseband dominance. The problem is that the 810 sucks, it has thermal issues on the G Flex 2 that some have detected, and then when you compare AnTuTu between the Exynos in the S6 and the 810 in the One M9 it's pretty clear who's ahead here. 

 

Anything that further breaks down the Qualcomm Empire is good in my book. Apple already pawned Qualcomm with the A8 now I'm guessing it's Samsung's turn. 

Not sure what the issues are with the flex 2 but the m9, based on what I know, hasn't been experiencing those issues at all.

 

I just came across this article a few minutes ago:

 

http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_mwc_2015-review-1215p3.php

 

 

I know benchmarks can be manipulated, but by 20,000 points? I doubt that sort of gap is due to simple manipulation. Besides, all Android vendors are in on the manipulation game at this point.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, benchmarks are so 2010.  Look at galaxy s devices versus one devices over the last few years.  On average the s devices in most cases would easily have better benchmark scores compared to the One device of that same year yet when it came to real world use the One devices blew the galaxy s devices out of the water when it came to responsiveness.  So I could care less who has extremely high scores or not, its all about real world use. 

[bretton88]

It's been known for a while that Samsung chips are faster, but since Samsung never integrated the modem with the chip, Qualcomm was always cheaper to use. Looks like that equation finally changed.

[jamesinclair]

@ascertion and the lack of waterproofing and the fact that the phone actually has less battery than before and...

 

I'm massively dissapointed as well. Ive been a Samsung smartphone user since my first one, but this looks like it might be the end of the line for me.

[Stew503]

I'm massively dissapointed as well. Ive been a Samsung smartphone user since my first one, but this looks like it might be the end of the line for me.

I'm disappointed that they are still making carrier specific models, especially with the new unlocking policies. Why would anyone buy a six hundred dollar phone that can only be used on a certain carrier's LTE network. All manufacturers should be following the iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 and support all domestic LTE bands.

[GoWireless]

I'm disappointed that they are still making carrier specific models, especially with the new unlocking policies. Why would anyone buy a six hundred dollar phone that can only be used on a certain carrier's LTE network. All manufacturers should be following the iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 and support all domestic LTE bands.

Well, the at least the good thing about the Sprint variant is that it is essentially fully compatible with AT&T and T-Mobile's networks (except a couple of minor things: the lack of UMTS1700 which I would no longer consider a concern and VoLTE which hopefully Sprint will some day enable in the S6 via a firmware update).

Edited March 3, 2015 by GoWireless

[Stew503]

Well, the at least the good thing about the Sprint variant is that it is essentially fully compatible with AT&T and T-Mobile's networks (except a couple of minor things: the lack of UMTS1700 which I would no longer consider a concern and VoLTE which hopefully Sprint will some day enable in the S6 via a firmware update).

No band 17 on the Sprint variant. Not compatible with AT&T.

[WiWavelength]

I'm disappointed that they are still making carrier specific models, especially with the new unlocking policies. Why would anyone buy a six hundred dollar phone that can only be used on a certain carrier's LTE network. All manufacturers should be following the iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 and support all domestic LTE bands.

 

No, that last statement is not true.

 

The iPhone 6, for example, is not compatible with Lower 700 MHz band 12 nor WCS 2300 MHz band 30 -- both of which are included in the just recently disclosed AT&T variant Samsung Galaxy S6.  And the Nexus 6 supports band 12 but not band 30.  Additionally, both the iPhone 6 and the Nexus 6 lack BRS/EBS 2600 MHz band 41 carrier aggregation -- though they support carrier aggregation for other bands.

 

In the end, there are simply too many bands and too many carrier aggregation combinations in use -- and continually expanding -- for a single SKU to rule them all.  Maybe that will happen someday, just do not expect it for several years.  So, an unlocked handset may possess base capabilities for use on any domestic network, but it probably will not be truly a jack of all trades.  It will be missing certain bands or carrier aggregation capabilities that are needed for an optimal network experience.

 

AJ

[Stew503]

No, that last statement is not true.

 

The iPhone 6, for example, is not compatible with Lower 700 MHz band 12 nor WCS 2300 MHz band 30 -- both of which are included in the just recently disclosed AT&T variant Samsung Galaxy S6. And the Nexus 6 supports band 12 but not band 30. Additionally, both the iPhone 6 and the Nexus 6 lack BRS/EBS 2600 MHz band 41 carrier aggregation -- though they support carrier aggregation for other bands.

 

In the end, there are simply too many bands and too many carrier aggregation combinations in use -- and continually expanding -- for a single SKU to rule them all. Maybe that will happen someday, just do not expect it for several years. So, an unlocked handset may possess base capabilities for use on any domestic network, but it probably will not be truly a jack of all trades. It will be missing certain bands or carrier aggregation capabilities that are needed for an optimal network experience.

 

AJ

The iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 do leave out what you mentioned but they do however, support the current core technologies of all domestic carriers which allows you to take your phone to any domestic carrier and have a pleasant experience.

[S4GRU]

The iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 do leave out what you mentioned but they do however, support the current core technologies of all domestic carriers which allows you to take your phone to any domestic carrier and have a pleasant experience.

 

And that experience evolves and morphs every quarter.  The crux of his point.  Right now AT&T customers have a good experience without B29 and B30, but that will not be true in another quarter or two.  And new AT&T devices support them.  Also, there will come a time that B41 CA will be quite necessary on the Sprint network.

[Jones]

So, an unlocked handset may possess base capabilities for use on any domestic network, but it probably will not be truly a jack of all trades.  It will be missing certain bands or carrier aggregation capabilities that are needed for an optimal network experience.

 

AJ

 

I wonder how marketing and PR teams from each carrier are going to handle customers who want to take thier unlocked phones from carrier to carrier.

I can see that being a big mess leaving the customer confused and angry - most definately placing the blame on their current carrier rather than on thier phone.

[WiWavelength]

The iPhone 6 and Nexus 6 do leave out what you mentioned but they do however, support the current core technologies of all domestic carriers which allows you to take your phone to any domestic carrier and have a pleasant experience.

 

A "pleasant experience" is an ambiguous term.  It has variable meanings to different people at different times, present and future.

 

Also, the unlocked handset street tends to be one way -- away from Sprint.  A Sprint handset may provide a "pleasant experience" for some on other operators.  But another operator's handset generally provides a zero experience or notably compromised experience on Sprint.

 

AJ

[GoWireless]

No band 17 on the Sprint variant. Not compatible with AT&T.

Incorrect. Band 12 devices are supported on AT&T on band 17 since AT&T started using MFBI.