FORUMS

Analysis & Opinion

Top Forum Discussions

[Q] Should I buy the Skyrocket?

571 posts
Thanks Meter: 60
 
By Chubby_Skunk, Senior Member on 22nd December 2011, 03:35 AM
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread Email Thread
22nd April 2012, 01:28 PM |#21  
deezhemi's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Atlanta
Thanks Meter: 122
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenight89

Sorry, I think all ur main points are wrong frankly.

1) Build quality and quality control of the skyrocket has been excellent so far

2) I have access to 4g and LTE everywhere I go in all of Ontario, and let me tell u for what I use my phone for, late makes a WORLd or difference, 4g isnt even in the same league. This us basically just ur opinion

3) better screen resolution? where'd u find this info? link please?

4) find benchmarks showing me that exynos slaps the S3 1.5, please. Cuz I guarantee u won't. Sure if all u do is run benchmarks all day, yeah ifs faster. but in real world use u won't even be able to notice the difference. I'll take a pentaband radio that I can use on any carrier over 5% not even noticeable performance increase.

5) again ur opinion, see second point

6) skyrocket HD is same phone, better screen... so I don't understand this one

7). HTC One X has no SD card slot for expandable storage and lacks a removable battery, HUGE turnoffs for me ans several other users here, plus its HTC, and it may or may not come with a locked boot loader. Our dev took off out of the box, becuz we had no obstacles. Sammy's are definately the best for custom stuff.

+1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
 
 
22nd April 2012, 07:30 PM |#22  
Junior Member
Houston
Thanks Meter: 1
 
More
Yes
I agree
22nd April 2012, 07:37 PM |#23  
xcrazydx's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 2,197
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappatti

I have the Skyrocket and overall I think I made a mistake getting it.

** The skyrocket is a hastily put together phone. The plain SGS II is actually a better built phone. Even the Captivate was a much better built phone.

**The only reason for the Skyrocket hardware is to enable LTE for AT&T. The plain SGS II gives you 4G which should be more than enough, since LTE IS NOT AVAILABLE at most areas.

** The plain SGS II has far superior screen resolution.

** The exynos processor in plain SGS II even at 1.2 GHz is so much better.

** Unless you ABSOLUTELY want LTE, Skyrocket has not shattering advantage.

** The Skyrocket HD of course is a different question altogether.

** AND the HTC One X has the same specs as Skyrocket, with a HD screen and may be something to consider. Check this phone out too. http://www.mobilenapps.com/articles/...e-att-may.htm#

Good luck !

ALL WRONG!!!! see below

Quote:
Originally Posted by icenight89

Sorry, I think all ur main points are wrong frankly.

1) Build quality and quality control of the skyrocket has been excellent so far

2) I have access to 4g and LTE everywhere I go in all of Ontario, and let me tell u for what I use my phone for, late makes a WORLd or difference, 4g isnt even in the same league. This us basically just ur opinion

3) better screen resolution? where'd u find this info? link please?

4) find benchmarks showing me that exynos slaps the S3 1.5, please. Cuz I guarantee u won't. Sure if all u do is run benchmarks all day, yeah ifs faster. but in real world use u won't even be able to notice the difference. I'll take a pentaband radio that I can use on any carrier over 5% not even noticeable performance increase.

5) again ur opinion, see second point

6) skyrocket HD is same phone, better screen... so I don't understand this one

7). HTC One X has no SD card slot for expandable storage and lacks a removable battery, HUGE turnoffs for me ans several other users here, plus its HTC, and it may or may not come with a locked boot loader. Our dev took off out of the box, becuz we had no obstacles. Sammy's are definately the best for custom stuff.

24th April 2012, 01:33 AM |#24  
chappatti's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 240
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenight89

Sorry, I think all ur main points are wrong frankly.

1) Build quality and quality control of the skyrocket has been excellent so far

2) I have access to 4g and LTE everywhere I go in all of Ontario, and let me tell u for what I use my phone for, late makes a WORLd or difference, 4g isnt even in the same league. This us basically just ur opinion

3) better screen resolution? where'd u find this info? link please?

4) find benchmarks showing me that exynos slaps the S3 1.5, please. Cuz I guarantee u won't. Sure if all u do is run benchmarks all day, yeah ifs faster. but in real world use u won't even be able to notice the difference. I'll take a pentaband radio that I can use on any carrier over 5% not even noticeable performance increase.

5) again ur opinion, see second point

6) skyrocket HD is same phone, better screen... so I don't understand this one

7). HTC One X has no SD card slot for expandable storage and lacks a removable battery, HUGE turnoffs for me ans several other users here, plus its HTC, and it may or may not come with a locked boot loader. Our dev took off out of the box, becuz we had no obstacles. Sammy's are definately the best for custom stuff.

Let me start with the more important matters. Here are some side by side comparison comments:

"Despite the extra gigahertz, the Exynos processor outperforms the competing Qualcomm dual-core chip…. the Snapdragon S3′s Adreno 220 is a major downgrade from the Mali-400 in the Exynos.

http://briefmobile.com/att-skyrocket...ynos-processor "

"hardcore gamers may miss the Mali-400 GPU inside of the AT&T Galaxy S II and other Samsung phones, most will be perfectly happy with the still powerful Adreno 220 inside the Snapdragon S3.

http://briefmobile.com/review-samsun...-skyrocket-att "

" Cons
Extremely low resolution

No Exynos processor, unlike other Galaxy S II devices "

" In our speed tests, the Galaxy S II, although an “older” device by industry standards, ran out ahead thanks to its dual-core 1.2GHz Exynos processor. Even though the Skyrocket comes equipped with a 1.5GHz processor, the dual-core offering from Qualcomm isn’t quite as powerful.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/compari...ackdown-video/ "

2. If you are on AT&T, like me, you would realise that LTE is no big deal. For all the headache in NEW YORK CITY to keep a proper 4G, let alone LTE, is not a big reason to go with an "LTE" phone. With Rogers in Canada, you may a lot more lucky than us AT&T suckers. So its not just my opinion.

3. My wrong words. I should been more specific and said better graphics.......see above.

Even at 480 x 800, every review agrees that this is so low for phones nowadays......and as an upgrade this does not make sense.

4. See above on processor performance......

5. If the processor on SGS II and graphics are performing better, and LTE SUCKS on AT&T as an AT&T customer, why would you chose the SKR....I fell for that assuming LTE would be good. It makes no difference in NYC, NY state or Connecticut.

6. The Skyrocket HD is definite improvement on screen, so automatically is better than Skyrocket. So what's the argument there.

7. For HTC One X, I said specifically, "with a HD screen and may be something to consider". If you are comparison shopping, other brands besides Samsng are out there with similar specs (hardware).

This business of SD card, and battery etc. is like the Asus Transformer vs Acer Iconia tablets. Iconia has built in USB, and other stuff, but Asus is so much more popular because of it CORE performance abilities. This also is easily verified on Google....

To get carried away by sexy "specs" alone is not often the best way......

EDIT: Oh yeah, another effect of the hardware shift is Skyrocket has poorer GPS than SGS II. It is not a deal breaker, but is definitely a negative.

THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE SKYROCKET ON AT&T IS FOR AT&T TO PUSH ITS LTE. The SGS II hardware is NOT compatible with LTE, so they had to switch to Qualcomm.......BUT TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT THEY USED 1.5 GHz processor.

C'mon folks, IN THE USA, this phone was not INDEPENDENTLY conceived by Samsung. It was made SPECIFICALLY for AT&T. AND to keep one step ahead of T-mobile's version.
Last edited by chappatti; 24th April 2012 at 02:04 AM.
24th April 2012, 02:07 AM |#25  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 139
 
More
Why would you buy a phone that's a year old anyways?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
24th April 2012, 02:28 AM |#26  
icenight89's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 744
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappatti

Let me start with the more important matters. Here are some side by side comparison comments:

"Despite the extra gigahertz, the Exynos processor outperforms the competing Qualcomm dual-core chip…. the Snapdragon S3′s Adreno 220 is a major downgrade from the Mali-400 in the Exynos.

http://briefmobile.com/att-skyrocket...ynos-processor "

"hardcore gamers may miss the Mali-400 GPU inside of the AT&T Galaxy S II and other Samsung phones, most will be perfectly happy with the still powerful Adreno 220 inside the Snapdragon S3.

http://briefmobile.com/review-samsun...-skyrocket-att "

" Cons
Extremely low resolution

No Exynos processor, unlike other Galaxy S II devices "

" In our speed tests, the Galaxy S II, although an “older” device by industry standards, ran out ahead thanks to its dual-core 1.2GHz Exynos processor. Even though the Skyrocket comes equipped with a 1.5GHz processor, the dual-core offering from Qualcomm isn’t quite as powerful.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/compari...ackdown-video/ "

2. If you are on AT&T, like me, you would realise that LTE is no big deal. For all the headache in NEW YORK CITY to keep a proper 4G, let alone LTE, is not a big reason to go with an "LTE" phone. With Rogers in Canada, you may a lot more lucky than us AT&T suckers. So its not just my opinion.

3. My wrong words. I should been more specific and said better graphics.......see above.

Even at 480 x 800, every review agrees that this is so low for phones nowadays......and as an upgrade this does not make sense.

4. See above on processor performance......

5. If the processor on SGS II and graphics are performing better, and LTE SUCKS on AT&T as an AT&T customer, why would you chose the SKR....I fell for that assuming LTE would be good. It makes no difference in NYC, NY state or Connecticut.

6. The Skyrocket HD is definite improvement on screen, so automatically is better than Skyrocket. So what's the argument there.

7. For HTC One X, I said specifically, "with a HD screen and may be something to consider". If you are comparison shopping, other brands besides Samsng are out there with similar specs (hardware).

This business of SD card, and battery etc. is like the Asus Transformer vs Acer Iconia tablets. Iconia has built in USB, and other stuff, but Asus is so much more popular because of it CORE performance abilities. This also is easily verified on Google....

To get carried away by sexy "specs" alone is not often the best way......

EDIT: Oh yeah, another effect of the hardware shift is Skyrocket has poorer GPS than SGS II. It is not a deal breaker, but is definitely a negative.

THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE SKYROCKET ON AT&T IS FOR AT&T TO PUSH ITS LTE. The SGS II hardware is NOT compatible with LTE, so they had to switch to Qualcomm.......BUT TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT THEY USED 1.5 GHz processor.

Alright, let's rebutle your main points.

1.) I don't know where that site gots its information, but look here:
http://nena.se/nenamark/view?version=2

These are user submitted through the application. The adreno 225 and 220 stomp on everything, including the Mali-400. Please also remember that these benchmarks are run WHILE the gpu is constantly upscaling and rendering at a higher resolution.

Just to drive this point home, here is a link of video game rendering on a adren 220:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBBMVc9-fuk


Here are actual proof benchmarks:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...-tests_id23514


I did say that the exynos was faster, but i also challenged you to find proof that the exynos slaps the S3, meaning significantly faster... you did not.

2.) This point is irrelevant, as it is, yet again, personal experience. Several users in this forum have posted INSANE speeds from Texas, Florida, and the like.

3.) See Above

4.) See Point 1

5.) Again this is area specific to you. Unfortunate, but true.

6.) I agreed with you on this point, but you made it seem like the build quality on the skyrocket was garbage and the hd was going to be so much better? The only difference is the screen.

7.) But that's exactly my point, which you so graciously stated. All the things i named have nothing to do with CORE SPECS, which are nearly identical. The screen may be HD, but not enough of a bump up to excuse all the other flaws. What if someone needs more than 16gb of internal storage? Or is a very heavy user and burns out the battery in 6 months? Pay for a repair? Why, when you can simply remove the back cover and slap a new one in.


As for your last add-in, that's incorrect, im sorry. They chose the Qualcomm SOC not because they wanted to look different and havea "1.5", but because it was the fastest one at the time that supported LTE. They surmissed, and rightly so, that the slight loss (only measurable by synthetic benchmarks) in cpu performance was worth the gain in mobile data speeds.

It was not carrier specific, it was a strategic move by Samsung. Even now we are still waiting for a exynos LTE chipset, and it has been what, roughly 6 months since the skyrocket release? It was very successful and well received, enter the galaxy note.
Last edited by icenight89; 24th April 2012 at 03:52 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to icenight89 For This Useful Post: [ View ]
24th April 2012, 02:44 AM |#27  
tomtommy306's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Round Rock TEXAS
Thanks Meter: 360
 
More
Since everyone has a take on this, here's my thoughts...

I bought the skyrocket only because they didn't have the i777 in stock. I knew the exynos was a better all around chip, and I liked the build of the i777 better.

I had to purchase in store because I used my wifes upgrade, so I was limited at what I could do.

Now that I have the skyrocket, I'm pretty happy overall with it.

There are a lot of things I would have rather had from it. Number one was the feel of the phone is a little cheap to me. It is a fairly sturdy phone, but it doesn't feel like that to me in the hand. Secondly is the exclusion of major development like CM or MiUi. Those were the main reasons I wanted the i777 to begin with.

All of this being said.... I get an upgrade again in a few months and already have plans to move on to something else. I may keep or sell my 727 but it has been a decent phone to toy with. I missed cm7 and now I have cm9 on an aria thats much older and would have liked to see it as well on the rocket.

So in the end I'll call it like I see it: The Skyrocket is the stepkid of the galaxy s II series and in being such has suffered in numerous ways.

These are all my opinions and should only be viewed in that way. Sorry for the EXTRA long post..... needed to vent.
24th April 2012, 02:10 PM |#28  
Junior Member
Thanks Meter: 1
 
More
Honestly if I was you I would just wait for the galaxy s3 they are unveiling it soon from what I've read and it should be a better phone overall.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using XDA
24th April 2012, 03:15 PM |#29  
chappatti's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 240
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by icenight89

Alright, let's rebutle your main points.

1.) I don't know where that site gots its information, but look here:
http://nena.se/nenamark/view?version=2

These are user submitted through the application. The adreno 225 and 220 stomp on everything, including the Mali-400. Please also remember that these benchmarks are run WHILE the gpu is constantly upscaling and rendering at a higher resolution.

Just to drive this point home, here is a link of video game rendering on a adren 220:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBBMVc9-fuk


Here are actual proof benchmarks:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...-tests_id23514


I did say that the exynos was faster, but i also challenged you to find proof that the exynos slaps the S3, meaning significantly faster... you did not.

Ok...since people like numbers: Here is a direct quote from the website in the above rebuttal: From http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...-tests_id23514

"However, we do notice that it’s only a notch down from the performance that’s exhibited by the AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II – though, it’s negligible."

Simply put: 1.5Ghz Snapdragon = 1.2 Ghz Exynos right?

Huh?

The defense rests its case !
Last edited by chappatti; 24th April 2012 at 03:40 PM.
nrm5110
24th April 2012, 03:37 PM |#30  
Guest
Thanks Meter: 0
 
More
My lte spanks the dog crap out of the 3.5g bahaha I've been as high as 40mb in Indianapolis guys "Indianapolis" come on the red headed stepchild state aside from maine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
24th April 2012, 03:38 PM |#31  
icenight89's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 744
 
Donate to Me
More
And from both my original post and the one u JUST quoted, I succeeded that, I never claimed snapdragon to be faster. Quite the contrary, I did state exynos to be faster. I challenged u to prove it was significantly so, and u could not. My point was that the difference was negligable.

As for your lack of a rebutle for the rest of my arguments, and i guess u admit defeat? U are of course entitled to your opinion, but the majority votes in my favour my friend.


*#* Google dropbox, its useful.
https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTcwNDE0ODUyOQ *#*

Read More
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread

Guest Quick Reply (no urls or BBcode)
Message:
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes