Originally Posted by sebbo90

I have to agree on the Engadget review that a lot of features were not mentioned, but seriously CNET as reliable. Just one example, cnet says in the One X review that quad core is overkill in the negative section but then say how great it is on the s3 :/

I think GSMAreana seems the best so far

You are right. I agree much with CNET.

My point of bringing CNET review was for specific purpose of benchmark numbers. I don't consider CNET review as-a-whole over Engadget review or vice-versa.

GSMarena is usually very detailed, always a very safe bet in terms of quality.

I also prefer others like Anandtech, Nordichardware (their review of SGS3 is not up yet), swedroid etc.,

Believe me this phone S3 has a lot to offer, to those who ordered it wait and judge it personally..The built quality is superb its in the level of iphone in terms of quality,its plastic but feels good in hand and looks simply beautiful...the OS has a lot of changes including samsung customized apps!

I think anandtech is best for reviews and tests personally

The Engadget review i one of the worst i have seen. Its seriously trying to hurt sales, picking on every little thing and making them sound really bad, blatantly misleading on features by ignoring them and flat out lying about performance. Its little more than an attempt to make people wait for the iP5, by a sad little iSheep.

Good to see a number of commenters are calling him out on it. I though Engadget had gotten over its fanboyism (i used to call it iEngadget), but it seem its back again.

In the end of the day. It doesn't matter if its has as Quad-Core A9 or A15 if the software cannot take advantage of it.
I had been using the SGS1 for almost 2 years now and still have some live left, with CM9 on board of course. But it's time for a change so i decided to go for the S3. I got nothing against the HOX, is not my type phone. I chose the S3 for the developer support and the quality of the material used by Samsung. I'm am a average user so the pentalgate issue doesn't affect me.
I think that both of this phone are beast. You can't go wrong with either of them, Only choose what is better for you and only for you. Because in the end the person who is gonna to use the phone is you.

Originally Posted by cba1986

In then end of the day. It doesn't matter if its has as Quad-Core A9 or A15 if the software cannot take advantage of it.
Personally i had been using the SGS1 for almost 2 years now and still have some live left. But it's time for a change so i decided to go for the S3. I got nothing against the HOX, is not my type phone. Personally for the developer support and the quality of the material used by Samsung.
I think that both of this phone are beast. You can't go wrong with either of them, Only choose what is better for you and only for you. Because in the end the person who is gonna to use the phone is you.

It actually does matter in terms of architecture, besides having to use less energy and the ability to run at a lower clock speed to get the same performance, it will save a lot more energy in general. Maybe double the battery life.

But as for Quad-core, that doesn't really matter. Nothing uses more than 2 cores right now except for high intensive games and I don't see anything using more than 2 cores for a while. Unless some .raw editing extreme photoshop tool comes out for a phone.........most apps run fine on 1-2 cores and are perfectly smooth. It only ramps up frequencies when scrolling or loading and 2 is pretty much the max it needs.

I think I have made my mind (pre world release ) after following the thread and the discussions here.
The S3 is the best. But the One X is on par with it. Either phone you get, you probably won't be missing anything for the next 12 months.

Remember that Krait is NOT A15, its an A9/A15 hybrid, and so is the quad Exynos. Krait has more A15 features, but that alone isnt enough to win the performance battle. How well those features are implemented is the key.

Originally Posted by pewpewbangbang

It actually does matter in terms of architecture, besides having to use less energy and the ability to run at a lower clock speed to get the same performance, it will save a lot more energy in general. Maybe double the battery life.

But as for Quad-core, that doesn't really matter. Nothing uses more than 2 cores right now except for high intensive games and I don't see anything using more than 2 cores for a while. Unless some .raw editing extreme photoshop tool comes out for a phone.........most apps run fine on 1-2 cores and are perfectly smooth. It only ramps up frequencies when scrolling or loading and 2 is pretty much the max it needs.

Yes, you are right. But for example. The AT&T One X. It has a SoC that teorically can outperform the QuadCore Exinos but the buggy soft its not taking advantage of it Wasting the potential of the SoC. For the other hand Samsung uses an "older" architecture but know how to take advantage of it.
Honestly, there is much more than benchmark and battery life, call it audio fidelity, software enhacement, building materials, etc..
If i want a phone that can hold for a entire week i would stick to the Nokia 1100.

Originally Posted by cba1986

Yes, you are right. But for example. The AT&T One X. It has a SoC that teorically can outperform the QuadCore Exinos but the buggy soft its not taking advantage of it Wasting the potential of the SoC. For the other hand Samsung uses an "older" architecture but know how to take advantage of it.
Honestly, there is much more than benchmark and battery life, call it audio fidelity, software enhacement, building materials, etc..
If i want a phone that can hold for a entire week i would stick to the Nokia 1100.

One of the bigger problems with the S4 is the lack of dedicated video ram. Without it, i put its user experience ability below that of the tegra 3 and Exynos.

Sent from my HTC One X using XDA