Latest news with #techcomparison
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
I measured the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 vs. Honor Magic V5 to see which is the world's thinnest foldable
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. When the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 launched, there were plenty of changes to admire in the company's vastly upgraded device and one of the best foldable phones. But it's arrival also changed something else — people's perception of a rival foldable that had been claiming to be the thinnest of the two. Earlier in July, the Honor Magic V5 launched, proclaiming that it was the world's thinnest foldable phone. The Galaxy Z Fold 7 then launched later in the month, officially measuring slightly thicker and thus allowing Honor to keep the title. But then, users like tech leaker Ice Universe got their hands on both phones and started measuring. And they found different numbers to the published ones, numbers that seemed to prove the Galaxy Z Fold 7 is actually the thinner phone. With Honor trying to reassert its claim, and Samsung happily accepting that it's accidentally made the world's thinnest foldable phone, it's hard to know what to believe. So in the interest of trying to settle the matter, I've spoken to both Honor and Samsung, and taken my own measurements with my own samples of the two phones in question. A measured response As a baseline, let's look at the official claims for the thickness of these two phones when folded. The unfolded measurements are not under dispute here, and are arguably less important anyway since you won't be carrying a foldable around while unfolded the vast majority of the time. Also note that these measurements revolve around specifically the Ivory White Magic V5. The other colors of the Magic V5 are thicker due to slightly different back panel designs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 Honor Magic V5 (White) Official thickness when folded 8.9mm 8.8mm Ice Universe's measurements 8.79mm 8.95mm Compare those to Ice Universe's measurements in the same table: the Magic V5 is 0.15mm thicker according to his calipers, while the Galaxy Z Fold 7 is 0.11mm thinner than claimed. Obviously, something is amiss here, and Honor was quick to respond with possible explanations. As part of its statement to me and other tech outlets, Honor noted that even mass-produced products like smartphones can have small manufacturing variances. But this isn't a unique problem to Honor, and could even work in its favor as well as against it. So let's instead focus on the two other reasons why the official numbers and Ice Universe's may not match. The first is that Honor's official measurements come from a Magic V5 device with no screen protector. The Magic V5, like all of Honor's phones, ships with a pre-applied plastic film on its outer screen. This courtesy puts Honor at a thickness disadvantage compared to the Galaxy Z Fold 7, which has no pre-applied protector. It's hard to see in IU's images if the Magic V5 has a screen protector on or not, but I made sure to take the film off of my device before measuring. The second issue is the precise way in which Honor took its measurement. In documentation I've seen, the recommended measurement method involves placing the calipers over the phone from the hinged side to cover the Honor logo, and with 'appropriate thumb pressure' on the bottom jaw. I don't know if there's some secret advantage gained by measuring at this point, but having a nice flat canvas for the calipers to grip is certainly helpful. What's more confusing is how the images Honor has published of its lab testing do not show this method being used. So with those facts in mind, I got measuring. I'll state up front that my calipers, while from the reputable brand iFixit, are perhaps not as accurate as more expensive models, such as the ones phone companies like Honor use for their official specs measurements. Nonetheless, from other measurements I've made with these calipers, I am confident that they are at least 99% accurate, and are at the very least capable of showing a size difference between our two foldables. In the thick of it I measured the two phones with the method given by Honor — it's only fair, after all. The Galaxy Z Fold 7 doesn't have a logo on the back to help judge its midpoint, but I made the best approximation I could, given its similar height and width to the Magic V5. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 Honor Magic V5 TG's measurement of thickness when folded 8.88mm 9.3mm My numbers are 0.08mm off the official figures for Samsung, and 0.5mm off for the Honor, making the Galaxy Z Fold 7 the thinner phone. I don't know what "appropriate thumb pressure" means precisely in Honor's statement, but it's an important detail. Putting pressure on the calipers allows you to get a smaller measurement as the object you're measuring flexes slightly, which applies all the more with foldable phones as there are two halves of the phone, plus the hinge, that can be squeezed tighter. Honor's official images of its size test don't appear to show the calipers under strain, with them only being held by one hand from the bottom of the ruler section. But given that calipers can be locked into place with the small screw on top of the display, we can't know for certain if there was any squeezing or not pre-photo. Annoyingly, I don't have any method of measuring or double-checking how much force I placed on the calipers to get the following measurements. The best I can do is describe the amount of force I applied, which I would call a press firm enough to leave a clean fingerprint in a thin piece of putty, or push open a door with just one thumb. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 Honor Magic V5 TG's measurement of thickness when folded (with pressure) 8.6mm 8.78mm Here, we finally hit Honor's promised 8.8mm figure, with a final last-minute measurement in fact going past the promised figure (though sadly off-camera). But any celebrations that Honor may now be planning will be cut short, as doing the same on the Samsung makes it sleeker yet again, a whole 0.3mm thinner than the official specs and 0.18mm thinner than the Magic V5. As we discussed before, these results could be due purely to the construction of the Magic V5 unit I had, but I suspect if it's happened to both my and Ice Universe's devices, it'll happen to many others. Before putting the phones away, I contacted Samsung, both to ask for its stance on the situation and for its official measuring standards for its devices, so we might compare the two foldables' size on its terms too. The company declined to comment. Splitting hairs Despite the apparently conclusive evidence that the Magic V5 is not actually the thinnest book-style folding phone around, Honor seems to be sticking to its guns, and its official measurements. But now that I've seen the proof for myself that this claim is either inaccurate or comes with big caveats, I don't know why Honor's trying to power through like this. A device's thinness is an impressive and easy-to-grasp number, so I get why companies of all kinds like to talk about it in their marketing. But we are talking about the difference of about 40 micrometers - literally a couple hairs' thickness. There is so much more that Honor could sell the Magic V5 to people with beyond thinness. For instance, the V5's higher-res 50MP main and ultrawide cameras, its 64MP 3x telephoto camera, its huge 5,580 mAh battery or the faster 66W wired and 50W wireless charging standards. And if we're talking about deal breakers, the fact Honor doesn't sell in countries like the U.S. is going to be much more of a problem than its possibly imprecise measurements. As the global launch of the Magic V5 approaches, and we get closer to being able to fully review the phone, my anticipation isn't diminished by seeing it's slightly larger than the equivalent Samsung. As long as Honor doesn't make any other uncertain claims about the Magic V5's capabilities, it still stands a chance of making one of the best foldable phones around, and in ways that a rival phone maker can't just replicate or better immediately after. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button. More from Tom's Guide I tested Call Screening on iOS 26 vs Android 16 — and there's a clear winner Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold — what we know so far I recently got hacked — here's 5 hidden Apple security features I wish I'd known about
Geeky Gadgets
20-07-2025
- Geeky Gadgets
Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic vs. Ultra: The Definitive Comparison
Choosing between the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic and Watch 8 Ultra requires a clear understanding of their distinct features and target audiences. While both models showcase Samsung's commitment to innovation and advanced technology, they cater to different lifestyles and preferences. Whether you value durability, aesthetics, or specific functionalities, this detailed comparison from Sakitech will help you determine which smartwatch aligns best with your needs. Watch this video on YouTube. Design and Build: Rugged Durability or Timeless Elegance The Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra is purpose-built for those who thrive in challenging environments. Its titanium construction ensures exceptional durability while maintaining a lightweight feel at 60.5 grams. Designed to withstand extreme conditions, it features a bold, rugged aesthetic that appeals to outdoor enthusiasts and adventurers. The Ultra's robust build is complemented by its practical design, making it a reliable companion for demanding activities. On the other hand, the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic offers a more refined and traditional design. Crafted from stainless steel, it weighs slightly more at 63.5 grams but features a thinner profile, making it comfortable for daily wear. The Classic reintroduces Samsung's iconic rotating bezel, blending timeless style with functional elegance. This model is ideal for users who prioritize sophistication and a polished appearance. Display: Size, Clarity, and Visual Experience Both models feature Samsung's Super AMOLED display technology, delivering vibrant colors and sharp visuals. With a peak brightness of 3,000 nits, visibility remains excellent even in direct sunlight, making sure a seamless viewing experience in any environment. Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra: Equipped with a larger 1.5-inch display and a resolution of 480×480, it offers an expansive viewing area. This makes it particularly suited for outdoor activities, where detailed visuals and enhanced readability are essential. Equipped with a larger 1.5-inch display and a resolution of 480×480, it offers an expansive viewing area. This makes it particularly suited for outdoor activities, where detailed visuals and enhanced readability are essential. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic: Features a slightly smaller 1.34-inch screen with a resolution of 438×438. Its compact design provides crisp visuals, making it perfect for everyday tasks and users who prefer a more understated look. Navigation and Interaction: Tactile Precision or Modern Touch The navigation systems of the two models reflect their distinct design philosophies, offering users a choice between tactile precision and streamlined modernity. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic: Incorporates the beloved physical rotating bezel , providing tactile feedback and intuitive menu navigation. This feature is a favorite among users who value precision and ease of use, enhancing the overall user experience. Incorporates the beloved , providing tactile feedback and intuitive menu navigation. This feature is a favorite among users who value precision and ease of use, enhancing the overall user experience. Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra: Adopts capacitive touch navigation, offering a sleek and minimalist interface. While it lacks the physical bezel, its touch-sensitive controls align with the Ultra's rugged and modern design ethos. Battery Life: Daily Convenience or Extended Endurance Battery performance is a critical consideration, especially for users with varying activity levels and lifestyles. Both models are designed to meet different usage demands. Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra: Powered by a robust 590mAh battery, it delivers an impressive 3-4 days of usage on a single charge. This extended battery life makes it an excellent choice for outdoor adventures, extended trips, or users who prefer less frequent charging. Powered by a robust 590mAh battery, it delivers an impressive on a single charge. This extended battery life makes it an excellent choice for outdoor adventures, extended trips, or users who prefer less frequent charging. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic: Equipped with a 445mAh battery, it provides over a day of usage, which is sufficient for daily wear. Its focus on style and functionality makes it a practical option for users who prioritize convenience and aesthetics. Water Resistance: Built for Depths Water resistance is another area where the two models differ, catering to varying levels of aquatic activities. Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra: With a 10 ATM rating , it can withstand depths of up to 100 meters. This makes it suitable for swimming, diving, and other water-based activities, ensuring durability in challenging conditions. With a , it can withstand depths of up to 100 meters. This makes it suitable for swimming, diving, and other water-based activities, ensuring durability in challenging conditions. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic: Offers a 5 ATM rating, supporting depths of up to 50 meters. While less robust than the Ultra, it is more than capable of handling casual swimming and everyday water exposure. Software and Performance: Seamless Functionality Both models run on Samsung's One UI 8.0, layered over Wear OS 6.0, making sure a smooth and intuitive user experience. Powered by the Exynos W1000 processor, with 2GB of RAM and 64GB of storage, they deliver consistent performance across apps, notifications, and fitness tracking. The sensor suite is identical for both watches, offering comprehensive health and fitness tracking capabilities. Key features include: Heart rate monitoring EKG functionality Blood oxygen tracking Temperature measurement These features ensure that both models provide valuable insights into your health and fitness, regardless of your choice. Pricing and Variants: Premium Features or Affordable Elegance Pricing reflects the differences in design, functionality, and target audience: Galaxy Watch 8 Ultra: Starts at $650 , with an additional $50 for LTE connectivity. Its premium build, advanced features, and rugged design justify the higher price point, making it a worthwhile investment for outdoor enthusiasts. Starts at , with an additional $50 for LTE connectivity. Its premium build, advanced features, and rugged design justify the higher price point, making it a worthwhile investment for outdoor enthusiasts. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic: Priced at $500, it offers a more affordable option without compromising on performance. LTE variants are also available for an extra $50, providing added flexibility for users who value connectivity. Choosing the Right Watch for Your Lifestyle The decision between the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic and Watch 8 Ultra ultimately depends on your lifestyle, preferences, and priorities: Choose the Ultra if you're an outdoor enthusiast or require a smartwatch that excels in durability, extended battery life, and superior water resistance. Its rugged design and larger display make it ideal for extreme conditions and adventurous pursuits. if you're an outdoor enthusiast or require a smartwatch that excels in durability, extended battery life, and superior water resistance. Its rugged design and larger display make it ideal for extreme conditions and adventurous pursuits. Opt for the Classic if you prefer a traditional, stylish smartwatch with the convenience of a physical rotating bezel. It's an excellent all-around performer at a more accessible price point, perfect for everyday use and professional settings. Both models represent Samsung's dedication to innovation and quality, making sure that whichever you choose, you'll enjoy a smartwatch tailored to your unique needs and lifestyle. Uncover more insights about the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic in previous articles we have written. Source & Image Credit: Sakitech Filed Under: Android News, Gadgets News, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
GSM Arena
15-06-2025
- GSM Arena
Google Pixel 9a vs. Pixel 9
With the Google Pixel 9a having launched a few months ago and the Google Pixel 9 hitting shelves nearly a year back, a common dilemma arises—should you opt for the newer mid-range model or stick with last year's flagship? It's a valid question, especially given their similar pricing and shared DNA. In Europe, the Pixel 9 costs about €100 more than the 9a, while in the US, the gap widens to $150. On paper, the two phones have a lot in common—identical displays, matching chipsets, and comparable camera setups. But look a little closer, and a few key differences emerge. For some, they may not be dealbreakers. For others, however, the added features of the Pixel 9 could justify the extra cost. So let's take a closer look. Table of Contents: Design Display Battery Life Charging Speaker Test Performance Cameras Verdict For starters, you can compare the complete spec sheets or directly continue with our editor's assessment in the following text. Size comparison Google Pixel 9a Google Pixel 9 Despite the two Pixels sharing the same screen diagonal, the 9a has noticeably bigger dimensions, but lower weight. There are several reasons for that. Firstly, the Pixel 9 is more compact as it has thinner bezels around the screen. The 9a has absurdly thick bezels, even for a budget phone in 2025. That makes the 9a taller and wider. It's also slightly thicker, which might be due to the larger battery. As for the weight difference, we attribute that to the choice of materials. The Pixel 9 features Gorilla Glass Victus 2 on the front and back held by an aluminum frame, while the 9a's build features an unnamed Gorilla Glass sheet on the front and a plastic back, which is lighter. All in all, the Pixel 9 is the better choice given the slimmer bezels, the nicer build materials and the more compact dimensions. Display comparison Google Pixel 9a Google Pixel 9 On paper, the two devices should have the exact same displays with the same performance. Both are 6.3-inch OLEDs with the same advertised maximum brightness. However, according to our tests, the Pixel 9a has slightly lower maximum brightness (around 1,900 nits) than the Pixel 9 (a little over 2,200 nits). Both phones reach levels of max brightness rarely seen in the industry, but the difference between the two could be seen as a hint that the phones use different panels. Other than that, there's no feature disparity between the two - both phones support the same basic HDR10+ video standard and up to 120Hz refresh rate. Battery life The two handsets share the same chipset and the same display, but the Pixel 9a has the advantage of a larger 5,100 mAh battery, as opposed to the 4,700 mAh-powered vanilla Pixel 9. However, it looks like the larger battery does not translate into real battery life benefits. The Pixel 9 scores marginally better on almost all tests, pushing the Active Use Score slightly higher than the 9a's. We can only guess what the reason might be and as we note in our Pixel 9a review, it may very well be a more power hungry display panel. Charging speed Google Pixel 9a 5100 mAh Google Pixel 9 4700 mAh In theory, the Pixel 9 should only be slightly faster to charge than the Pixel 9a, given the small difference in the charging rate - 23W vs. 27W in favor of the regular 9. However, that did not turn out entirely true in our real-life testing. The Pixel 9 indeed charged just slightly faster in the first 15 to 30 minutes of the charging cycle, but it completed a full charge in 85 minutes, while the Pixel 9a took 101 minutes. Notably, the Pixel 9 features faster wireless charging too - 15W (with Pixel stand, otherwise 12W) instead of the 9a's 7.5W charging power. Speaker test Regarding speakers, we can easily say that the Pixel 9a is the clear winner here. Sure, the Pixel 9 speakers are louder, but the 9a's tuning is much nicer. The bass is more prominent, the tracks don't sound tinny like the Pixel 9, and the overall sound is much warmer and fuller. Performance Both handsets rely on the same in-house Google Tensor G4 SoC that debuted with the Pixel 9 series last year. Even though the 9a is more affordable, it still rocks the same "flagship" chipset. Google Pixel 9a Google Pixel 9 Memory configurations are similar, but not identical. Both handsets offer only 128GB or 256GB storage, but the vanilla Pixel 9 gives you 12GB RAM, while the 9a settles for 8GB. Benchmark performance Google Pixel 9a Google Pixel 9 As expected, there's no difference in performance. The small differences you see in the benchmark results are well within the statistical error. Camera comparison The camera hardware is perhaps the main difference between the two handsets. The more affordable Pixel 9a settles for a smaller 48MP main sensor and a 13MP ultrawide camera, while the standard Pixel 9 boasts a physically much larger 50MP main sensor and a larger 48MP ultrawide unit too. The selfie hardware is also different. The 9a gets a 13MP shooter, while the Pixel 9 offers a 10.5MP camera, which has the same sensor size as the 13MP selfie on the 9a. Image quality At first glance, the two ultrawide cameras capture near-identical photos, but if you look closely enough, you will notice that the 48MP ultrawide unit on the Pixel 9 renders close objects much sharper. That's due to the autofocus capability. Objects in the distance are rendered similarly, though. Pixel 9a: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 0.6x • 1x • 2x Pixel 9: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 0.6x • 1x • 2x Once again, the Pixel 9's main camera offers more pleasant rendering with slightly punchier colors and a tad sharper objects. You can spot a bigger difference in the 2x zoom mode, where the bigger sensor shows a clear advantage. The gap widens as the light drops. The Pixel 9's ultrawide and main cameras produce cleaner and sharper images with wider dynamic range. The differences for most will likely be negligible, but it's worth noting. Pixel 9a: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 0.6x • 1x • 2x Pixel 9: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 0.6x • 1x • 2x We found no meaningful difference between the selfie cameras. Both are excellent. Selfies: Pixel 9a • Pixel 9 Video quality Below we have a few frame grabs from the videos taken by the two phones at each focal length, so it's easier to compare to one another. The daylight videos from the two Pixels seem almost identical. The Pixel 9's main camera video is just ever so slightly sharper and more detailed. The difference is negligible, though. Pixel 9a 4K screengrabs: 0.6x • 1x • 0.6x • 1x Pixel 9 4K screengrabs: 0.6x • 1x • 0.6x • 1x The nighttime videos from the Pixel 9 are sharper, somewhat cleaner and considerably brighter. Verdict Naturally, the Pixel 9 is on top in most aspects. It offers a nicer camera experience, a brighter display, a more premium design, and marginally better battery life and charging. Perhaps the price difference will make sense for most people, especially customers in Europe, where the gap is only €100. Conversely, if you don't mind the thick bezels, the Pixel 9a delivers mostly the same user experience. The display is still one of the brightest in town, performance is on par, and the camera hardware isn't that far behind. The stereo speakers are even better on the 9a. So, if you consider yourself a casual everyday user, then save a few bucks and go for the Pixel 9a. The lower price. The better speakers. The identical user experience. The faster charging speed and better battery life. The slightly brighter display. The better camera performance at night and the added versatility of AF on the ultrawide.
GSM Arena
07-06-2025
- GSM Arena
Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge vs. Galaxy S25+
With the Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge slotting between the Samsung Galaxy S25+ and the S25 Ultra, it's only natural to wonder which one of the three to get. Especially in markets like India and the US, where the Edge is just $100/INR 10,000 more expensive than the S25+. Even if the two devices are built for different users, it's always advisable to get the best hardware for your hard-earned money. However, European consumers have it easy. The Plus model goes for about €400 less than the Edge. So is it worth the Edge's price premium? Let's find out. Table of Contents: Design Display Battery Life Charging Speaker Test Performance Cameras Verdict For starters, you can compare the complete specs sheets or directly continue with our editor's assessment in the following text. Size comparison Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge Samsung Galaxy S25+ Even though the two handsets share roughly the same design, sans the camera island, and the same screen diagonal, the S25 Edge has a clear advantage. It's considerably lighter, slimmer and even negligibly shorter and narrower. So when it comes to portability, the S25 Edge is the clear choice. As far as build quality is concerned, the Edge is again superior. The handset features a tougher Gorilla Glass Ceramic 2 protective panel on the front, and a lighter and stronger titanium frame. Display comparison Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge Samsung Galaxy S25+ There is absolutely no discrepancy in the display department. The Galaxy S25 Edge and the S25+ share the same display technology, size, features and resolution. Both screens were able to boost a little over 1,400 nits, which is perfectly fine for outdoor use even on a bright sunny day. Battery life With the Galaxy S25 Edge having a significantly lower battery capacity than the S25+, it's no surprise that it offers inferior battery life. The Plus model outperforms the Edge in every battery test, but we are surprised to see the Edge getting pretty close to the S25+ in the video playback test. Charging speed Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge 3900 mAh Samsung Galaxy S25+ 4900 mAh The Galaxy S25+'s charging is capped at 45W using a Power Delivery charger that supports Samsung's proprietary PPS, while the S25 Edge settles for a 25W charge. In theory, the S25+ should be considerably faster, but that's not really the case. The two phones have comparable charging times from 0 to 100%. Samsung has been pretty conservative with its charging speeds and its Galaxy S phones usually take about the same time to charge fully. Still, the S25+ gives you more charge in the first 15 to 30 minutes of the charging cycle, which is more practical in our books. Almost no one charges their phone from 0 to 100% when in a hurry, so we consider the S25+'s charging curve better suited for real-world scenarios. Speaker test While the sound tuning is similar, the Galaxy S25+ comes out on top with fuller sound and more prominent bass. The loudspeakers on the Plus are also a tad louder. This is somewhat expected given the S25 Edge's size. Smaller phones, or thinner ones in this case, find it harder to produce strong bass and are generally quieter. Performance The Galaxy S25+ and the S25 Edge share the same chipset - the Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy. The "for Galaxy" suffix means the CPU and GPU are overclocked. More specifically, the main two CPU cores run at higher clock speeds compared to the standard SD 8 Elite. Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge Samsung Galaxy S25+ The available memory configurations are identical. Both devices are offered in 12GB/256GB and 12GB/512GB variants. Whichever memory options you choose, you get UFS 4.0 storage. Benchmark performance As one would expect, there is hardly a performance difference. The S25+ outperforms the S25 Edge by 2-3% at best and even falls behind in the combined AnTuTu 10 test. No surprises here. Camera comparison The Galaxy S25 Edge uses Samsung's flagship 200MP sensor for its primary camera, borrows the Galaxy S25/S25+ ultrawide unit and skips the telephoto camera entirely. The S25+, on the other hand, gets a smaller 50MP main sensor, a full-fledged 3x zoom unit and the same 12MP ultrawide camera as the Edge. The only difference is that the Edge's ultrawide camera has autofocus. The selfie cameras are identical. Image quality We are surprised to see the Galaxy S25+'s main camera producing images with relatively the same quality. Aside from some minor differences in processing, which are trivial at best, the Galaxy S25 Edge and the S25+ seem to capture near-identical photos with their main cameras. The same goes for the ultrawide shots, where the Edge gains a slight advantage due to the autofocus, which helps produce slightly sharper images. Galaxy S25 Edge: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x Galaxy S25+: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x We were expecting slightly better 2x zoom crops from the Edge, given the larger 200MP sensor, but we struggle to find any meaningful difference. Same goes for the 3x zoom comparison, where the 200MP camera's crop matches the dedicated 3x telephoto camera on the S25+. But as the light drops, the Edge's 200MP main camera shows somewhat cleaner and sharper 2x and 3x zoom photos. So, at the end of the day, the lack of a 3x zoom camera doesn't seem to be an issue with the Edge. At least in this context. Galaxy S25 Edge: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x Galaxy S25+: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x We also noticed a slight difference in post-processing of low-light images from the main cameras. The Galaxy S25 Edge's shots offer more contrast and slightly darker, more natural shadows. Video quality Below we have a few framegrabs from the videos taken by the two phones at each focal length, so it's easier to compare to one another. Galaxy S25 Edge 4K screengrabs: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x Galaxy S25+ 4K screengrabs: 0.6x • 1x • 2x • 3x As for the videos, there's virtually no difference between the Edge and the Plus. Still, we would prefer the S25+ given that the 3x zoom video is slightly cleaner than the Edge's 3x zoom crop. The gap widens as the light drops, as the S25+'s telephoto unit produces considerably less noisy and more detailed videos. Verdict At first glance, the Galaxy S25 Edge sacrifices a lot in favor of design. It surely is the better choice when it comes to portability, compared to the S25+. But the latter will give you longer battery life, faster charging and nicer speakers. On paper, the Galaxy S25+'s camera system is also more versatile, but that's not the case in real-world scenarios. The S25 Edge's main sensor can deliver 3x telephoto-like images. So, while the Edge seems like a good choice, given the small price difference between the two handsets in the US, the Galaxy S25+ makes much more sense out of the two in India and Europe, where it undercuts the Edge significantly. You just have to decide whether you prioritize form over function or vice versa. The slim and lightweight design. The roughly the same camera experience. The more premium build. The better battery life and faster charging. The slightly better speakers. The lower price tag.
Geeky Gadgets
21-05-2025
- Geeky Gadgets
The Ultimate Budget Battle: Pixel 9a vs. Nothing (3a) Pro vs. Samsung A56 vs. iPhone 16e
Selecting a mid-range smartphone can be a complex decision, especially when balancing performance, design, and long-term value. The Pixel 9a, Nothing Phone 3a Pro, Samsung Galaxy A56, and iPhone 16e each bring distinct strengths to the table. Whether you're upgrading your current device or purchasing a first smartphone, understanding the differences between these models is essential for making an informed choice. The video below from Pete Matheson gives us more details on the handsets. Watch this video on YouTube. Pricing and Trade-In Options Price is often the first factor to consider when comparing smartphones, as it directly influences affordability and value. Here's how these models compare: Pixel 9a: Priced at $499, it offers some of the best trade-in deals, significantly reducing the upfront cost for those upgrading from an older device. Priced at $499, it offers some of the best trade-in deals, significantly reducing the upfront cost for those upgrading from an older device. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Slightly more affordable at $449, but it lacks trade-in options. However, it compensates with higher RAM and storage configurations, offering better value for performance-focused users. Slightly more affordable at $449, but it lacks trade-in options. However, it compensates with higher RAM and storage configurations, offering better value for performance-focused users. Samsung Galaxy A56: Matches the Pixel 9a at $499 but provides fewer trade-in incentives, making it less appealing for those looking to offset costs. Matches the Pixel 9a at $499 but provides fewer trade-in incentives, making it less appealing for those looking to offset costs. iPhone 16e: The most expensive of the group at $599, with limited trade-in offers for non-Apple devices, making it a pricier option unless you're already part of the Apple ecosystem. If affordability and trade-in value are priorities, the Pixel 9a emerges as the most cost-effective option, while the Nothing Phone 3a Pro offers a competitive price for users who prioritize storage and RAM. Design and Build Quality Smartphone design is a subjective aspect, catering to individual tastes and preferences. Each model offers a unique approach to aesthetics and build quality: Pixel 9a: Features a frosted back and aluminum rails, combining durability with a premium feel that appeals to users seeking a minimalist yet sturdy design. Features a frosted back and aluminum rails, combining durability with a premium feel that appeals to users seeking a minimalist yet sturdy design. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Stands out with its transparent back and glyph lighting, offering a bold and futuristic look. However, its bulkier build may not suit users who prefer compact devices. Stands out with its transparent back and glyph lighting, offering a bold and futuristic look. However, its bulkier build may not suit users who prefer compact devices. Samsung Galaxy A56: Offers a polished aluminum design with a conventional aesthetic, catering to those who prefer a classic and understated appearance. Offers a polished aluminum design with a conventional aesthetic, catering to those who prefer a classic and understated appearance. iPhone 16e: Compact and sleek, it features a ceramic shield and embodies Apple's signature design language, appealing to users who value simplicity and elegance. For those seeking a bold and unique design, the Nothing Phone 3a Pro is a standout. However, the Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e prioritize durability and simplicity, making them ideal for users who prefer a more traditional approach. Display Technology The display is a critical feature for gaming, streaming, and everyday use. Here's how the models compare in terms of screen quality: Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Leads the pack with a 6.77-inch AMOLED display, a 120Hz refresh rate, and an impressive 3000 nits HDR brightness, delivering vibrant visuals and smooth performance. Leads the pack with a 6.77-inch AMOLED display, a 120Hz refresh rate, and an impressive 3000 nits HDR brightness, delivering vibrant visuals and smooth performance. Pixel 9a: Offers a 6.3-inch OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate and 2700 nits brightness, providing a close second in terms of visual quality and responsiveness. Offers a 6.3-inch OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate and 2700 nits brightness, providing a close second in terms of visual quality and responsiveness. Samsung Galaxy A56: Matches the 120Hz refresh rate on a 6.7-inch AMOLED screen but falls behind with 1200 nits HDR brightness, making it less suitable for outdoor use in bright conditions. Matches the 120Hz refresh rate on a 6.7-inch AMOLED screen but falls behind with 1200 nits HDR brightness, making it less suitable for outdoor use in bright conditions. iPhone 16e: Features a smaller 6.1-inch Super Retina XDR display with a 60Hz refresh rate, which may feel dated compared to the competition but still delivers excellent color accuracy and sharpness. For display enthusiasts, the Nothing Phone 3a Pro provides the most immersive experience, while the Pixel 9a offers a strong balance of size, brightness, and refresh rate. Performance and Processing Power Performance is a key consideration for multitasking, gaming, and overall responsiveness. Here's how the processors stack up: Pixel 9a: Powered by the flagship Tensor G4 processor, it ensures smooth performance across demanding tasks, making it a reliable choice for power users. Powered by the flagship Tensor G4 processor, it ensures smooth performance across demanding tasks, making it a reliable choice for power users. iPhone 16e: Equipped with the A18 chip, it delivers exceptional speed and efficiency, particularly excelling in gaming and resource-intensive applications. Equipped with the A18 chip, it delivers exceptional speed and efficiency, particularly excelling in gaming and resource-intensive applications. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Runs on the Snapdragon 7S Gen 3, which handles everyday tasks well but struggles with more demanding workloads, such as high-end gaming. Runs on the Snapdragon 7S Gen 3, which handles everyday tasks well but struggles with more demanding workloads, such as high-end gaming. Samsung Galaxy A56: Features the Exynos 1580, which offers slower performance overall, making it less suitable for users who prioritize speed and multitasking. If speed and efficiency are your priorities, the Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e are the clear winners, with the iPhone 16e slightly edging out in raw performance. Camera Capabilities Camera performance is a critical factor for many users. Here's what each model offers: Pixel 9a: Excels with a 48MP main sensor and a 13MP ultrawide lens, delivering consistent results in various lighting conditions and offering excellent computational photography features. Excels with a 48MP main sensor and a 13MP ultrawide lens, delivering consistent results in various lighting conditions and offering excellent computational photography features. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Features a unique 50MP periscope zoom lens, ideal for photography enthusiasts, though its ultrawide lens is less impressive compared to competitors. Features a unique 50MP periscope zoom lens, ideal for photography enthusiasts, though its ultrawide lens is less impressive compared to competitors. Samsung Galaxy A56: Offers a versatile triple-camera setup with a 50MP main sensor, 13MP ultrawide, and 5MP macro lens, but lacks strong zoom capabilities. Offers a versatile triple-camera setup with a 50MP main sensor, 13MP ultrawide, and 5MP macro lens, but lacks strong zoom capabilities. iPhone 16e: Focuses on simplicity with a single main camera, excelling in video quality and ease of use but offering less versatility for photography enthusiasts. For versatile photography, the Pixel 9a and Nothing Phone 3a Pro stand out, with the Pixel 9a offering a more balanced overall experience. Battery Life and Charging Battery performance is crucial for daily use, especially for users who rely on their phones throughout the day. Here's how the models compare: Pixel 9a: Leads with a 5100mAh battery, 23W wired charging, and 7.5W wireless charging, making sure reliable all-day performance. Leads with a 5100mAh battery, 23W wired charging, and 7.5W wireless charging, making sure reliable all-day performance. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Features a 5000mAh battery with 50W wired charging for faster recharges but lacks wireless charging support. Features a 5000mAh battery with 50W wired charging for faster recharges but lacks wireless charging support. Samsung Galaxy A56: Matches the 5000mAh battery but offers slower 45W wired charging and no wireless charging option. Matches the 5000mAh battery but offers slower 45W wired charging and no wireless charging option. iPhone 16e: Falls short with a smaller 4050mAh battery, 15W wired charging, and 7.5W wireless charging, making it less competitive in this category. For all-day use and charging flexibility, the Pixel 9a is the most reliable option, while the Nothing Phone 3a Pro offers the fastest wired charging for users who prioritize quick recharges. Durability and Software Updates Durability and long-term software support are essential for value-conscious buyers. Here's how the models compare: Pixel 9a: Offers IP68 water resistance and seven years of software updates, making sure long-term reliability and security. Offers IP68 water resistance and seven years of software updates, making sure long-term reliability and security. iPhone 16e: Matches the Pixel 9a with IP68 resistance and seven years of updates, making it a strong contender for users seeking longevity. Matches the Pixel 9a with IP68 resistance and seven years of updates, making it a strong contender for users seeking longevity. Samsung Galaxy A56: Provides IP67 water resistance and six years of updates, offering slightly less durability and support than the Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e. Provides IP67 water resistance and six years of updates, offering slightly less durability and support than the Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Falls behind with IP64 resistance and three years of updates, making it less future-proof than its competitors. For durability and future-proofing, the Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e are the safest bets, offering the best combination of water resistance and software longevity. AI Integration and Unique Features AI capabilities are becoming increasingly important in modern smartphones. Here's how the models compare: Pixel 9a: Integrates Google Gemini AI for enhanced photo editing, voice recognition, and real-time transcription, making it a leader in AI-driven features. Integrates Google Gemini AI for enhanced photo editing, voice recognition, and real-time transcription, making it a leader in AI-driven features. Nothing Phone 3a Pro: Also features Google Gemini AI and introduces Essential Space, a unique tool for organizing screenshots and notes. Also features Google Gemini AI and introduces Essential Space, a unique tool for organizing screenshots and notes. Samsung Galaxy A56: Uses Google Gemini AI but lacks standout features that differentiate it from the competition. Uses Google Gemini AI but lacks standout features that differentiate it from the competition. iPhone 16e: Limited by Siri's capabilities, it falls behind in AI innovation compared to the Pixel 9a and Nothing Phone 3a Pro. For innovative AI features, the Pixel 9a and Nothing Phone 3a Pro excel, with the Pixel 9a offering a more polished and reliable experience. Expand your understanding of Mid-range smartphones with additional resources from our extensive library of articles. Source & Image Credit: Pete Matheson Filed Under: Android News, Apple iPhone, Guides, Mobile Phone News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
