What phone has the best specs?

[dharak1]

I've been looking for a phone with more than 3Gb of ram recently or even something with a screen better than 2k (1440p). Recently phones that are as good as desktops just about a decade ago. Phones like the Galaxy Note 4, LG G3, Meizu MX4 Pro, HTC one M8 Max, Xperia Z3, and the Oppo Find 7. All of these phones have 3Gb of ram a 2k screen and around a 2.5GHz processor. I've been looking for a while and I can't find any phones with better specs than these. I mean there's bound to be one out there. Is there any technology on the horizon that could be used to boost phone specs or any phones themselves coming out with specs greater than those listed?

[Camacha]

Recently phones that are as good as desktops just about a decade ago.

Those comparisons are always shaky at best. Computers don't have 4k screens now, so comparing for instance graphical performance to that of computers 10 years ago is hardly going to jive.

Don't bother waiting, because as soon as the next phone is out, another is on the horizon. Just list the things you need, set a budget, pick the best phone and be happy. The usefulness of your phone is not dictated by it being the fastest and using it for a pissing contest only means buying a new phone very month or so.

[MarrusQ]

I'd like my phone to have >5GB o' RAM and a decent CPU, so I can play KSP on it! But with my budget, that won't happen anytime 'soon'. Oh, and ofcourse it ought to have a HDMI port and the ability to install custom OSes

[Nibb31]

I don't really think you can see the difference in pixels between 1080p and 4K on a 5.5" screen. I have the OnePlus One, which is pretty much the fastest phone on the market right now. It has a 1080p screen, and I can't see individual pixels.

On the other hand, 4x resolution means 4x processing power, so with all things equal, a higher resolution means slower performance, for very little benefit.

Technology keeps on advancing, so you can always wait for the next best thing that is just around the corner. By doing that though, you will never buy anything. At one point, you just have to pull the trigger and buy what's best on the market right now, knowing that whatever you buy, it will always be obsolete next year.

[SlimeCrusher]

I'd like my phone to have >5GB o' RAM and a decent CPU, so I can play KSP on it! But with my budget, that won't happen anytime 'soon'. Oh, and ofcourse it ought to have a HDMI port and the ability to install custom OSes

Uhh... As far as i know these new "phones" don't really work the same way a computer does, some games work only for PC, some only on iOS and some on both of them. But even if KSP worked for phones, you would need to have a REALLY HUGE one, the size of a computer pretty much.

So don't expect being able to run KSP on a "smartphone" (I have to say, i really hate these new and crappy "phones", they aren't even phones anymore!). I currently own a REAL phone wich barely has any uses other than calling, messaging, calculator stuff and using it as a clock and im pleased with it.

About the OP, if you want to buy a better phone than the one you already have, the answer is why? Do you have a game or something you REALLY want to play in it, and it doesn't run or runs laggy? Any application (I REFUSE to call it "app") that doesn't work? I really see no reason to upgrade your phone, and if you do buy a better one, there will be an even "better" version in less than 1 year!

Just make sure you don't buy a new one unless yours is broken...

[Dkmdlb]

Just make sure you don't buy a new one unless yours is broken...

To each his own, I say. The Note 4 or Nexus 6 are probably the phones most on the cutting edge. Neither has 4gb of RAM. Both of those are gigantic monsters, though. But that's part of the appeal!

[Kryten]

To each his own, I say. The Note 4 or Nexus 6 are probably the phones most on the cutting edge. Neither has 4gb of RAM. Both of those are gigantic monsters, though. But that's part of the appeal!

I'd go for Nexus 6, solely for the potential for Blade Runner references.

[ZedNova]

I'd like my phone to have >5GB o' RAM and a decent CPU, so I can play KSP on it! But with my budget, that won't happen anytime 'soon'. Oh, and ofcourse it ought to have a HDMI port and the ability to install custom OSes

Although phones may have the same clock speeds as some full sized computers, their performance differs from other computers because of the architecture. Phone processors are designed to multitask, use little battery, and generate very little heat. KSP most likely wouldn't run very well on any phone.

Because seriously, who wants to buy a cooler for their phone?

[dharak1]

The oppo N3 claims to have some kind of special cooling device. Probably just marketing BS though. One thing I want to know is why phablets don't overtake regular smartphones specs-wise. Or even tablets. My phone, the Oppo Find 7 has 3 Gb of RAM and a quad core 2500 MHz processor. A larger phone with something like a 6 inch screen could pack more parts in, so why don't they? My tablet, a Samsung Tab Pro 10.1 only has 2 Gb of RAM and 2 sets of 4 cores at 1.9 GHz and 1.3 GHz. Why cant a tablet be built to be even twice the power of a phone a third of the size? Is it because they have larger batteries or something? I wouldn't even mind if they made it 2mm thicker to match up with many phablets.

[ZedNova]

The oppo N3 claims to have some kind of special cooling device. Probably just marketing BS though. One thing I want to know is why phablets don't overtake regular smartphones specs-wise. Or even tablets. My phone, the Oppo Find 7 has 3 Gb of RAM and a quad core 2500 MHz processor. A larger phone with something like a 6 inch screen could pack more parts in, so why don't they? My tablet, a Samsung Tab Pro 10.1 only has 2 Gb of RAM and 2 sets of 4 cores at 1.9 GHz and 1.3 GHz. Why cant a tablet be built to be even twice the power of a phone a third of the size? Is it because they have larger batteries or something? I wouldn't even mind if they made it 2mm thicker to match up with many phablets.

More cores and lower clock speeds allow for better multithreaded performance and lower power consumption. It most likely IS more powerful than your phone even though it has a lower clock speed, as processor architecture determines performance nowadays.

[dharak1]

But what do the internals look like? If it only has a battery 2.74 times the amp hours at the same density shouldn't it only be 2.74 times the size? My phones battery is about an inch and a half by 2 inches and maybe a quarter inch thick. If you multiply that by 3 that means a battery 6 inches long by 1.5 inches by a quarter inch. Much smaller than the the total volume of the tablet. what else is inside of it? Is it a bunch of empty PCB with a few chips? Is component density on tablets that much lower than phones?

[GoSlash27]

I don't really think you can see the difference in pixels between 1080p and 4K on a 5.5" screen. I have the OnePlus One, which is pretty much the fastest phone on the market right now. It has a 1080p screen, and I can't see individual pixels.

On the other hand, 4x resolution means 4x processing power, so with all things equal, a higher resolution means slower performance, for very little benefit.

Technology keeps on advancing, so you can always wait for the next best thing that is just around the corner. By doing that though, you will never buy anything. At one point, you just have to pull the trigger and buy what's best on the market right now, knowing that whatever you buy, it will always be obsolete next year.

All due respect, but I definitely can. with a 4k screen, you can't even see that the image you're looking at was rendered with pixels. You can't see the pixels in a 1080p display, but you can still see the loss of detail that results from rendering. You can't see that loss of detail on a 4k screen. It doesn't seem like a big deal until you see it in person.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited November 4, 2014 by GoSlash27

[ZedNova]

But what do the internals look like? If it only has a battery 2.74 times the amp hours at the same density shouldn't it only be 2.74 times the size? My phones battery is about an inch and a half by 2 inches and maybe a quarter inch thick. If you multiply that by 3 that means a battery 6 inches long by 1.5 inches by a quarter inch. Much smaller than the the total volume of the tablet. what else is inside of it? Is it a bunch of empty PCB with a few chips? Is component density on tablets that much lower than phones?

goes over the screen repair of the Samsung Galaxy 10 while also showing off some of the internals at the beginning.

[*Aqua*]

Tablets do have bigger batteries. But most of the juice gets eaten up by the larger display. I wouldn't be surprised if a 1080 tablet display needs more electricity than a smartphone running at full power.

Why don't they put better hardware in tablets than in smartphones? They can't because there is no better hardware.

Though nobody has any idea what to do which all the number crunching power.

[dharak1]

Wouldn't things like tablets be extremely useful in space due to their reduced weight? From what I've seen of the laptops on the ISS they aren't the lightest machines in the world and I know they're rad hard and that's why they're so far behind but do you really need that much protection in just LEO. You could easily save 3 lbs on weight by using tablets and maybe more. In regards to screen resolution I can tell the difference as well. The change from a ~340 PPI display to a ~540 PPI display is amazing. I can see what you mean about how no one knows what to do with the extra power. I have 16 Gb of ram in my desktop and I used to use more than 8 Gb regularly but now I rarely use more than 6. There are rumors floating around that HTC's next tablet will have 5 Gb of ram but I find it hard to believe.

[*Aqua*]

I don't know the reason why NASA, ESA & Co. don't use tablets aboard the ISS. At least I wouldn't want to use them for a number of reasons:

- weight doesn't matter (when it's already up there)

- ergonomics (try writing 10+ pages on a onscreen keyboard while staring at a 10" display. You'll get crazy!)

- it still has to be attached somewhere so it won't float away (making its 'mobile abilities' useless)

- unknown behavior and reliability of the hardware in certain situations (radiation, under workload, known errata)*

* I have no source but I think I heard on the ISS laptops die within 6 months.

Edited November 4, 2014 by *Aqua*

[Nibb31]

I don't know the reason why NASA, ESA & Co. don't use tablets aboard the ISS. At least I wouldn't want to use them for a number of reasons:

- weight doesn't matter (when it's already up there)

- ergonomics (try writing 10+ pages on a onscreen keyboard while staring at a 10" display. You'll get crazy!)

- it still has to be attached somewhere so it won't float away (making its 'mobile abilities' useless)

- unknown behavior and reliability of the hardware in certain situations (radiation, under workload, known errata)*

* I have no source but I think I heard on the ISS laptops die within 6 months.

Computers on the ISS need to be certified for spaceflight. This is a rather long and expensive process, which means that the hardware will have to be used and supported for several years. This is why they typically use Lenovo (ex-IBM) Thinkpads. They also need to run linux, because that's what most of the control software is written for.

Tablets are consumer devices with a shelf-life of 1 or 2 years, after which they are no longer supported. They aren't particularly robust and they typically run flavors of Android or iOS, which are closed source (I know, AOSP is open-source, but the Google apps and bloatware manufacturers put into the devices are closed source).

[Elthy]

Why would you need such strong hardware? Everything faster than e.g. the 2 1/2 years old Galaxy S3 is fast enough that you wont get lags in the UI and there are no games on Android that are worth good hardware.

And to play KSP on a smartphone its still a very far way since modern smartphones are still a magnitude weaker than a normal PC.