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.
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.
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.
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.