Comparison of cell phones by antenna strength?

johnny893 said:

I've noticed that out of all the phones I have had, Nokia's have the best reception. I still like Symbian over Android, but eh

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

I completely disagree, at least with all the Nokias I have used (post 2004). I have found every one of them to have extremely poor reception. They all seem to have trouble keeping latched onto the network; going in and out regularly.

The Sharp GX10 (2003) was awful for reception too, I found.

Whereas I have found the Panasonic GD52 (2000) to have really excellent signal, along with the Sony J-6 (2001).

I've always heard, though, that the older Nokias (pre 2000) and pretty much all Motorola phones have great radios and excellent signal.

My current phone, the Samaung Galaxy S2, has very good 2G coverage.. but since it is only my first 3G phone, I am not as familier with the properties of 3G signal to make a proper judgement, nor do I have experience with other phones to compare it to. I would say that you could quite often have 2 bars (~-104dBm [can't remember the exact number]) and not be able to use data; although that could well be down to the network as much as the phone.


Just my tuppenceworth!

I have to agree that Motorola has better reception. My Droid Razr makes and receives calls in places that my evo 3d, nexus s, galaxy nexus, or my galaxy I9000 couldn't.

samwhst s poo

AllGamer said:

Bravo!

That's a good wake up call

it's true a lot of people are forgetting the phone main function should be "to be a phone"

yet now in days when people talk or compare a phone, is more into competing power, and how entertaining it's

from personal experience i can say as a PHONE, the Moto Milestone XT720 has absolutely the best reception, vs Nexus S, I9000 and SGS2 i9100, HTC devices, etc

on 2nd place i'll put SGS2 T989 as good reception

3rd place goes for all the others phones

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

The Samsung is junk. Had 2. Didn't roam wifi right, could make calls, and bat none the worst communication device I've owned. Between it and a broken pager I would take the pager. And I am not joking. My razor 2 g was better.

I found something out on this subject

Folks,

After doing some research online I found that Sprint offers a coverage map per device. This will help you figure out which phone would work best in your area or vacation spot on the same network. For instance say you were going to vacation to a cabin in Petersburg, WV. And you want to see which device works best in that neck of the woods. Visit the link below (I can't make the actual link because I am a newbie):

"coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp"

Type in the address "Petersburg, WV" and then select the device (one at a time) that you want to compare (you do this at the top right of the page "Get device-specific coverage" ). So for this test I used the Samsung Galaxy S4 (GS4) and the Samsung Galaxy Note 3. The difference is huge. The Note 3 gets way better reception for some reason (possibly better antenna). The Note 3 appears to pick up "Off Network Roaming" where the GS4 doesn't. Then I tested the GS4 against the iPhone 4s and 5s. Both Apple phones get better reception then the GS4 due to the same addition of "Off Network Roaming".

Anyway... I hope I didn't make this article to long... but I wanted to pass this information on. There is indeed a difference between phones within the same carrier.

It is true. All phone comparisons review display size, number of processors and speed, battery, etc. But I've never seen the reception as an additional variable. And it's important not only to make calls, but to stay connected to Internet too.

antenna strength

I don't understand why we are debating providers and 3g vs 4g, It is best reception by device. I stand in my living room with verizon galaxy s3 and can not make contact with a tower to even initiate a call. My wife chose the Motorola Droid Max and sits next to me talking like she is on the land line. The motorola antenna is superior. Same share plan. Same 3g or 4 g service. I have to go outside in the top of 2 story play house to make a call and even then it may drop.

There is a definate difference. I have noticed motorola difference from other phones for years now.

bigmuddaddy said:

I don't understand why we are debating providers and 3g vs 4g, It is best reception by device. I stand in my living room with verizon galaxy s3 and can not make contact with a tower to even initiate a call. My wife chose the Motorola Droid Max and sits next to me talking like she is on the land line. The motorola antenna is superior. Same share plan. Same 3g or 4 g service. I have to go outside in the top of 2 story play house to make a call and even then it may drop.

There is a definate difference. I have noticed motorola difference from other phones for years now.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Same situation here.. My gf and I have the same service provider I get no signal at all in the house with my S3 but she can call and text without any issue with her samsung galaxy nexus.

Sort by FCC measured SAR

SAR is a radiation measurement the FCC does (or, rather, forces the manufacturer to do) to determine a dB level and W/kg (watts/kg, some type of density) to the body and to the head. As a general (but not always) rule, the higher the number, the better your signal / reception / perception will be that the signal quality is good. The phones people are mentioning in this post almost all have high SAR levels (>1.1), and the Droid MILESTONE / Droid OG has an impressive
Head: 1.49 W/kg
Measured in: 1900 MHz
Body: 1.38 W/kg
Measured in: 1900 MHz

I couldn't really find any phones besides the Motorola Rival that has those types of numbers for both head and body. Nokia 6215i, a very solid phone, has 1.25 W/kg (Head) and its cousin Nokia 6315i has more to the head at 1.37 W/kg. All the phones mentioned are good candidates. The FCC limits to 2W/kg so all the manufacturers are limited and those higher power phones I feel will perform equally excellent. If you think older 1995-2003 phones might be better, it seems like they are all middle of the ball part for output.....and if the frequencies on the very old phones are not at least common ones like 800 Mhz, 850 Mhz, 1900 Mhz....then your phone's ability to get a old compatible cell tower is jepardized. Stick with this forums suggestions and I think you'll have a great signal experience :good:

This link sorts of SAR, for all currently available Verizon phones (no discontinued ones)...notice all the motorolas and blackberries at tops (page 3 /last page is highest SAR) and Samsungs at the way bottom .....first ones on page 1. Check out here:
Goto phone arena and append: /phones/full#/phones/full/carrier/Verizon/page/3/sort/sar/

Azure1203 said:

...surely there has to be a comparison somewhere to show which phones have stronger antennas...

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Turns out someone has compared atleast some phones in 2013, its worth checking out -

http://erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/file/435579/Mobile_Phone_Antenna_Performance_2013.pdf

Also found this image on a random google image search which might be helpful - http://images.pcworld.com/news/graphics/202371-sigloss4_original.jpg

i live in the country and the closest tower is 6 miles away. my phone is samsing galaxy s4 and ny carrier is att. MYPHONE DOESNT WORK AT HOME NO BARS. ATT blames it on the trees.