Hey, as we speak about chips - can you include/test the note 9 exynos? It's bigger body compared to the s9 and also has a lot better coolling. We all read your articles about the exynos 9810 + a lot about in @ xda, but it will be really nice to see where the more popular note 9 exynos stands with it's bigger coolling and body compared to the competition and s9/s9+.
If you have the time and the desire, otherwise it's also cool - you do a lot of great reviews about phones/mobile SOCs. Keep it up and cheers!
No edit here: I am aiming primary at the sustained performance of the system/GPU tests. I am sure you already guessed it, but for the other members of the community.
This should also serve as a good comparison between all important phones over the last year or two. It's something I hope I won't have to do again till the S10.
That last night shot is pretty similar to a comparison I showed my friends when they thought that it was just a gimmick.
Have you also found that using the night shot for every shot seems to be a good default? I found that in general the night shot results are "good enough" compared to HDR+, but obviously has the benefit of better low-light results.
Thank you for again the best set of samples on the net! This night mode just doesn't cease to amaze me, it preserves DR and enough(I'd say over 80%) resolution while accurately suppressing noise that it surpasses auto often enough even in daytime! This is two notches above Huawei's night mode implementation, while Pixel's auto was better in the first place.
Oh, I don't know what happened to the site but I'm experiencing frequent problems trying to view samples in full size, I see the correct URL when I hover my cursor over the sample but when I shift-click it(any other sample) only the first sample of the group is opened.
Correction...it just gets stuck at the first sample of the group that I clicked, if I click say the XS sample then I only get the XS sample, click on another sample and I wouldn't be able to open the full sized version of that in a new tab, the new tab would load the XS sample instead.
Andrei, didn't Google say that the "Night Shot" feature will eventually come to the Pixel 2? If so, the main advantage is gone, we can just buy a Pixel 2, which is much cheaper... Cheers
There's only one minor issue I'd like to bring up, I don't think Pixel3 clipped more highlight in night mode than Mate20P, all the blue areas are in fact not clipped, only, well, in highlight territory. Only pure white is clipped and from my preliminary examination of the sample with the spotlights illuminating the tree in the center, I'd say Pixel clipped a little less highlight. So I then downloaded the samples to view them in lightroom(the issue I mentioned seems to have been limited to page 7, I'm not having problems on page 8). When checking for clipping with the inbuilt tool I noticed that the Mate20P shot had unnatural readings, the tool only labeled two jagged streaks across the surface of the nearest spotlight, while a proper clipping of something like that should at least look remotely round, so I determined that to be software artifacts and added a slight 5 to the global highlight slider, which would just label whatever looked like pure white on that spotlight as clipped. On the pixel sample I did the same thing only slightly less, adding 2 to the slider already made pixel's clipping area look properly round(and the same size as Mate20P's). Then I went back to examine the clipping on the tree branches, it was too close to call. So I believe that Pixel and Mate20P retain the same amount (within 1/6 of a stop difference) of highlight DR, only Huawei's algorithm favors aggressively suppressing whatever it has available which Pixel does not. Adding that to the far superior detail retention I say Pixel's clearly the new night king.
Thank you for the thorough review. I wonder when you say in the battery life section that "SoC efficiency can go either way", do you mean that some 845 chips might be more efficient than some 835 chips, and vice versa? If not can you please clarify?
In synthetic tests, the S845 was about equally efficient in terms of energy usage as the S835 - so only minor factors such as software scheduling might push the efficiency in one direction or the other.
Hello Andrei, I remember a few months ago on twitter you mentioned that a lot of people thought the S845 was going to have massive improvements on battery life, but the logic was very flawed. What was the flaw in the logic?
Also any hopes for next year when everyone will be on the 7nm chips?
I'd love to see some Sony phones used in comparisons, I understand that Sony's been lagging a bit behind lately, but still they do have some decent references in battery life and camera performance.
They're not using bad sensors, I mean, they often manufacture everyone else's, the post processing is often horrid for Sony tho. You think they could get someone from their dedicated camera division to better tune that (they don't have the greatest JPEG engine either but it's gotten better every year).
Awesome review as always. Will there be a mate 20 pro review? Have one and am considering returning because of odd screen issue. Also the new performance mode seems to suck battery, but animations seem laggy when not engaged...would be great to have a professional insight!
Excellent review, and comparison photos galore! I think a lot of the day light photos is a matter of opinion. Personally I find the iPhone Xs and Samsung photos over exposed and less pleasing than the pixel photos. The outdoor seating area for example, the black table tops look reflective and almost white in the iphone Xs and Samsung photos.
Most of the time the Pixel photos are darker, but I'm not convinced there is less detail, most of the time.
The shadows on the Pixel are all blocked up. It’s pretty obvious. Some people mistakenly equate black shadows with better contrast, as Google apparently does, but that’s wrong. You can always darken the shadows later in a quick edit. But if the detail is killed on the photo, you can never retrieve it.
Hey Andrei, you got the displays mixed up. The 3XL uses a Samsung amoled panel whereas the 3 uses a p-oled from LG. The table on the first page says the opposite.
Pixel XL used in the review has optics issue affecting corner sharpness, and light fallof. I think it's also slightly less sharp than good unit. I've had one with the same issue, but returned it.
The Verge reviewer Vlad Savov is a big fan of Google's computational photography. He makes it seem like the Pixel is clearly above the latest flagships. Your expansive review paints a different picture, that of a phone that tries to keep up with a single camera module.
On a personal level I have a dilemma. Isn't computational photography basically post-processing? Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?
> Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?
Not really. If a sensor fails to have sufficient dynamic range by itself, then even with no processing that's also going to lead no an "inaccurate representation".
It's a little fancier than the post processing you could (easily) manage yourself, mostly cause of the way they chop up frames in tiles to then stack them intelligently... You could say it's "fake" in instances where their algorithm just decided to drop a tile to avoid artefacts or movement etc., but wouldn't you just clone those out yourself if you were anal about the overall end result?
It's an interesting question without a straightforward answer IMO. It's just gonna vary by shot and usage case, if you're getting consistently better DR then you're consistently closer to "what you see", but all photography is ultimately an interpretation.
It combines multiple images into one - not something you would manually be able to reasonably do. I mean, maybe, but it is very hard. It isn't just applying some filters you can do on any picture.
Um, HDR is a pretty common technique for photographers and the burst rates and high end stabilization of today's cameras make it more accessible than ever... So using HDR or HDR-like methods (Google actually combines multiple frames with similar exposures IIRC) to increase DR or average noise out is not the least bit uncommon, it's not hard to do and a lot of software packages automate it to a very high degree.
Where Google's approach differs significantly and what makes it so accessible as the primary mode (and part of what makes Night Sight great, it's just building upon the same algorithms but with slower shutter speeds) is in the smart tiling they employ before stacking all the frames. That's what makes it usable even with subject motion in the frame and other variable lighting conditions... They break each frame down into tiles and they combine those tiles individually, dropping some as needed if the subject moved across tiles or blurred out... That's obviously way beyond the normal post processing techniques people do by hand.
Note: I'm referring mostly to stills in standard HDR+ and Night Sight, what they've done with Super Res Zoom is somewhat impressive but still pretty gimmicky in the end IMO... If I needed a longer focal length I'd just shoot a discrete camera or a phone with a longer focal length in optics.
Great, because the V30 and V40, along with the Samsung S9 and S9+, seem to be the only brand phones supporting all the T-Mobile bands (eg. 71). That really limits choice if you want max compatibility with that carrier.
Which leads me to wonder how the S9 compares in general to the S9+; primarily in low light. The latter is well-documented here.
I've not had any memory problems with mine. Also should be noted the stand is not bundled with phone, even thought it was with review it makes it sound like its normal.
Awesome review as always. Will there be a mate 20 pro review? Have one and am considering returning because of odd screen issue. Also the new performance mode seems to suck battery, but animations seem laggy when not engaged...would be great to have a professional insight!
Yes I'll follow up with the Mate 20's review next week. And yes the screen on the Pro is sub-optimal, as well as battery life, but that's not related to the perf mode.
Hey Andrei, can you check other SD845 phones with PCMark on Android 9 as well, so we can find out whether Google's performance is due to their firmware or the OS itself. You probably already have the OP6/T.
Just a note that the detail in the shadow isn't being "crushed" so much as it is just darkened. If you lighten the photo after taking it you can easily see the details in the shadows. Also I have to say I love my headphones that came with it, maybe just a fit thing.
I actually like the ear buds. I bought them for my pixel 2 and I enjoy them just as much as Apple EarPods. Too bad more time wasn't spent on this on the review. Reviews of these have been mixed with people either loving them or hating them. I do lots of recording and the cut in on the mic is much less aggressive than the apple buds, which is a good thing for me. The higher frequencies on googles buds are attenuated a bit. But otherwise I like them and they don't fall out. Also age matters. I'm 51. Undoubtedly a younger person will have better hearing and maybe find more problems, as you age the differences start to disappear.
Also did i just miss it or was there no mention of the selfie camera or numerous camera features like top shot? Or live google lens integration. I love the in-depth testing on performance and the camera but I do feel like a lot of what makes the pixel a pixel was left out.
" I would easily choose USB-C earbuds from any other primary smartphone vendor."
That's pretty comical statement seeing that there are very, very, few choices for "USB - C" headphones, and most, if not all, are significantly more expensive than the $30.00 Google USB-C Headphones included for FREE with the phone. I mean, just go shopping for a pair of USB-C headphones. You won't find a single pair at any retail store such as Best Buy, and very few online anywhere.
My take away from this review is that it's probably better to try to get a cheap used Pixel 2. Google have lost their edge in daylight photo quality, and the Pixel 2 looks almost as good using Night Shift.
Also, since Night Shift seems to be mostly a software feature, is there any reason it couldn't be ported to other Android phones? Obviously Google won't do it, but is there any hope that some clever XDA person will. I remember the Pixel camera was ported to other S820 devices, with varying degrees of success.
I made the switch to the PIXEL 3 from Apple iPhones. It's very interesting to see that a hardware testing site has not mentioned any of the cellular signal issues that are plaguing iPhone XS and XS Max users. I had the iPhone 10SX Max for 4 days and returned it due to extremely poor cellular service I was getting. From my research it is due to the 4x4 antennas that are being used. FCC testing shows that the new iPhones have signal issues when not in a strong signal area. I experienced this with the short time I had the phone. 4 dropped calls/call failed within minutes of each other. I'd be sitting next to my wife her on her iPhone 7 me on my MAX and my phone would have no service. I looked at her phone and she is pulling almost 3/4 antenna signal. Why is Tom's not diving into this? Anyway I got tired of Apple's crap and decided it was time to try my first Android phone. I looked at the Galaxy Note, and while I like the phone I'm not a fan of the curved edge screen. Plus the key point for me with buying the Pixel 3 is pure Android no UI installed on top of it so as Google roles out the next version of Android my phone will get the update automatically. So far so good, I'm really liking the Pixel 3. I should mention I am not a heavy gamer, I didn't buy a cell phone to game. I use it primarily for business answering email on the fly and calling customers.
"In order to combat this low memory, one new hardware/software feature is an application memory management 'lowmmemorykiller' background application/daemon which applies various settings to keep certain software in memory for fast app loading times. Whilst in general I don’t put as much value into this as some other people do, I did however notice that in everyday use the phones did need to reload applications more often. There have been user reports already that the phones are struggling to keep things open and alive in memory. "
That's because software never compensates for skimping on the hardware. They could include more memory, but Google wants to push you into the cloud for everything. They could include removable storage but Google thinks people who use USB sticks every day will be confused.
If it weren't for the fact that every other vendor seems to be dumber than a sack of doorknobs, Pixels would be going nowhere fast, but that isn't saying much. Lenovo essentially killed Motorola, Nokia won't sell anything of significance in the US, and everyone else can't resist product positioning by skinning the life out of Android.
Meh, their memory management is still over-aggressive here... Some of the instances I've seen of apps getting killed after opening the camera don't even happen on my OG Pixel with the same amount of RAM.
Is anyone actually in favor of not having a headphone jack?
I get it that you *can* make the phone very slightly thinner without one; OTOH keeping the same thickness *can* permit longer battery life, which everyone wants. I also understand that you *can* put a superlative DAC in a dongle, for audiophiles. But that can be done anyway.
Killing the jack seems to bring no benefit to the majority of folks, and is going to alienate a lot of them. So - why? Such a change can't just be due to fashion.
Yes, and it blows my mind that so many so-called tech enthusiasts are actually actively against improvements to archaic technology. Wires suck, they get snagged on things, they limit movement, they act as antennas that pick up things like GSM sync signals, etc. We used them because that was the best that could be done in the 70s and 80s. But that's not the case now. They offer literally zero inherent advantages except one: the antenna part, they can in principle (and in a few phones over the years) act as physical antennas for classic radio broadcasts. But that simply hasn't been that motivating to the developed world market in a long time, as evidenced by the fact that it's not a major advertised universal Android feature and Apple never bothered with it at all.
Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems. Audio quality is not an issue, Bluetooth 5 has plenty of bandwidth for even lossless audio (and 256 AAC let alone Sony's fat codec is transparent anyway). Run time is fine, once something gets to 10-18 hours+ on a charge that meets what I'd ever listen to in a single session with no breaks (when it could be charged). Symmetric encryption is cheap and easy now and means it's as secure (or more given TEMPEST) as wired. Some stuff is still lacking, like easy switching between multiple wireless sources, but that's not a fault of the inherent tech so much as there hasn't been any real demand for it yet because wires have hung on so damn long. We're already seeing way more cool adapters for existing products get released due to increased demand and so I expect the market to work it's typical magic.
I'm delighted to see that relic go. I have no nostalgia towards it anymore then I do towards 8-track or MMX or 10base ethernet or whatever.
"Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems."
But those are real problems for everyday use. Just because the technology is theoretically there doesn't mean it works well in practice. I use wireless headphones with my Galaxy S7 in the winter because I hate threading a cord through my coat. About 20% of the time my headphones only connect for voice calls, but not media. I have to either fiddle with menus, or turn them off and on again. I'm using a $100+ over-ear set, not some cheap $20 ear-buds from a no-name brand. It's annoying enough that I still use my wired headphones at home, and outside in the summer.
I've heard Apple's solution is a lot better, but I don't have an iPhone, and don't particularly like Beats.
If getting rid of the headphone jack added anything to the phone, or somehow made bluetooth better, I'd be all for it. But it seems to add nothing. Samsung has shown with the Galaxy S9 that you can make a very nice modern phone and still have room for a headphone jack. So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?
But how do you think we have *ever* gotten from A to B there? I'm only in my late-30s so not really old, but even so I can still remember most of the PC era and I can't remember any significant technology that didn't take many years to get refined, to fill out niches, to unambiguously beat what it replaced. Not just in hardware but often even in software, take audio and video codecs for example, there have been a number of replacement cycles where the technically superior standard spec for a while was inferior in practice to highly refined encoders for the previous generation.
At some point somebody has to get the ball rolling and there will be a few generations where people just have to deal with compromises. The only way we've ever gotten great tech is for a real market to get established and then iterated upon. In the case of BT audio, in just the last year I've seen more improvements in things like BT adapters then like the previous 5 years at least. Just a few days ago a bunch of BT5 gen 2 refined ones came out at lower prices and better performance.
>"So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?"
Because that has never, ever worked. If the old thing is still available major players just use the old thing. Inertia is very powerful. Somebody sometime has to bite the bullet, and given the realities of mass manufacturing you can't "have all the problems worked out" in version 1.0. Version 1.0 is always going to have issues. But you can't get ver2 or ver3 without going through 1.0 first. In this case Apple has shown it can be done very well and with more vendors going that way there is now a clear market of people ready to spend money on it and 3rd parties are starting to react and iterate. Now we can look forward to having way better stuff in another year or 2, whereas if they had all put it off then there is no reason to expect that'd be the case anymore then it was the last decade.
If you really don't want to be on the bleeding edge there then no problem, just get an older device! Mobile lasts a lot longer now, Apple already supports their stuff 5+ years and Google is getting better too. But those of us who like to live nearer the edge have always had to deal with that edge being rougher then those who follow. Somebody has to go first though.
Nice brainless technophobia from a luddite lol. Why don't you go back to your retro forum hole and cling to your VGA and CRT claiming they're the best ever and all this flatscreen stuff is a sheeple fad?
it's not technophobia! you can get wired speakers that are sufficiently sensitive that are much bigger than the bs wireless earbuds you insert. likewise the full size wireless bose whatevers. it's not a big range of headphones but there is a sweet spot of larger phones that can be driven by mobile device. it exzists.
But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great. Well, I don't have any 5.0 stuff, so maybe they finally got it right, but version 4.0 is still pretty inconsistent. If wireless worked as well as wired, I'd be all for it, but in my experience, it doesn't yet.
As for transitions not happening unless forced, I'm not sure that's true. Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists. It's only in the last five years or so that laptops have been shipping without ethernet ports, and desktops still have them. Again, I'm not against having good wireless tech, I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone.
>"But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great."
It is great (or at least getting close) from some vendors, which shows that the technical foundation is there. Once that exists the only real way to have progress happen sustainable is to have a market for it so hundreds to thousands of attempts will be made, most of which will be mediocre, but some of which will be good and then get copied/followed in turn. To your own point:
>"Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists."
WiFi was introduced *20 years ago*. Yes, 1998. And it stunk. It was a long time before it even achieved the kind of technical spec it needed, 802.11n took 11 years, 802.11ac took 15 years. Both came after smartphones and notebooks overtaking desktops, demand drove innovation and pricing. Of course, even now in 2018 a lot of WiFi stuff on the market is still junk and will still give a bad experience, but at least there are good options.
I think a better example would be USB replacing PS2 & ADB ports. Wow were there a lot of howls over that. We're seeing some of the exact same thing now in fact with USB-C and TB3, and people raging about adapters and "everything was fine before" and the early pains of these standards (plenty of junk USB-C implementations). But the fact is USB-C is a nice connector that solves physical and speed problems.
>"I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone."
I absolutely agree it's not 100% there yet! There is clearly a ways to go. But I also don't think it'll ever go from 20% or even 50% to 100% in one leap either, no matter when they started the first few versions would have compromises. But I've seen more progress in the last year then the last decade, and once people know that something can be done well it tends to drag up the industry because customers are less willing to accept excuses of "oh nobody can do this."
Agreed. I have a couple pairs of BT headpones and the convenience is nice... until the battery runs out when I'm boarding an international flight. I'm still using a Pixel XL as my daily driver and just ordered an LG v40. I also have an iPhone 8plus for app testing / demos and keeping track of the dongle is annoying.
I still haven't heard a compelling reason for removing the headphone jack beyond pedantic and otherwise pointless spec sheet glossing. I'll take a slightly thicker phone all day and everyday if it means a larger battery and the same goes for a phone with a headphone jack.
What a rant! But what could you do except blather about "forcing the future" and "a few generations will have to deal with compromises"? That malarkey lost all meaning long ago; maybe you missed the memo.
I have a BT headset for when I want to listen and be mobile - only. Compared to my wired earbuds it's bulky, heavy, expensive, complex, requires setup, creates rub noise, *and* needs daily charging. Now - add a dongle with similar issues! In all those aspects, wireless is a regression even it if works flawessly. If we had only that, and someone invented wired phones, it would be hailed as a miracle because, where they are convenient, those have no equal.
So removing even the option of wired is stupid *unless* there is some major compensation for doing so. I don't see any, and you don't either.
Rarely has a post resonated with me like this one has. I wholeheartedly agree.
Back when Apple announced, that they'd be dropping the minijack I thought "damit!" as I almost just had gotten a decent headset for my phone. I like to listen to music and the thought of having to accept wireless only irked me.
On the other hand, I am a tech enthusiast and had two years prior gotten my first tenure and therefore a decent salary - so I thought to myself; why not splurge and get a 'real' high end headset? I got myself the Beoplay H8 (around $350 I think) and haven't looked back.
My only alternatives was the Airpods or a headset similar to the B&O (Denon, Bose, Sennheiser, B&W and so on).
To me, it marked my final maturity into the form of 'good enough'-adulthood. I don't need 'wannabe pro'-performance or other pseudo/placebo. It just has to work, be good enough and reliable. Never really being able to put it into words until I read your post - and I totally agree.
I too used to claim, that only wired was good enough, until I got used to the comforts of WiFi. I too used to claim, that FireWire400/800 was infinitely superior to USB2.0/3.0, until I tried a newer USB3.0 external hard drive. I too used to claim, that only the golden terminals on my SoundBlaster Audigy was good enough for my MP3's until I realized it just doesn't matter. I too used to claim, that CDs was superior to AAC or whatever, until discovered the joy streaming music. I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy movies was on bluray, until I realized I just wanna watch movies and not bother with stupid intros, trailers, copyright/piracy splashes - Netflix, HBO, Youtube (still ads, but 5 seconds is manageable). I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy audio was on the B&W speakers via our NAD amp, until I realized bitrate doesn't determine how much I (or my kids) like a song or not. So on and so forth.
Today, I just don't bother anymore.
Music is best enjoyed when I don't have to untangle stupid wires first. I just put on my headset, turn them on, and instant music or Airplay to our wireless speakers around the house - provided the kids hasn't hidden them somewhere.
I guess people don't like change (I'm not claiming that they're stuck up or something, just that sometimes change doesn't seem rational when 'the old stuff seems to work just fine') and I like your point.
Let's get back to serial and parallel ports, so much easier, when different things use different ports. Today, everything is USB and it can be soooo confusing. Let's get back to when phones only used to be phones. Let's get back to when cameras was cameras. Let's get back to when portable music devices used cassette tapes. Let's get back to when cars was jump started by hand. Let's get back to using horses. Less pollution! (I honestly don't know, if replacing combustion based motor transportation with live stock would decrease pollution - XKCD/Randall are you reading this?)
I'm not that averse to new tech, provided it eventually (fairly quickly) surpasses what it is replacing. In the case of bluetooth (version 5 no less), we're still not there yet. My cheap (~$20) bluetooth headphones don't always work, have issues with: mediocre sound, noticeable audio lag, and have to be charged, and don't really last that long on a charge. By contrast, my cheap (~$8) wired headphones always work, have mediocre sound, no audio lag, don't need to be charged, and don't cause a small (but noticeable) drain on my phone's battery life.
Each of the other things you mentioned saddened me with the race to acceptance of mediocrity, though :( While I appreciate the conveniences of WiFi, I still plug my laptop in to wired connections when reasonably possible - it's just faster in all cases, and more reliable. That's kind of a problem with most new technology - I'm just not sure if the improved convenience of new technology always makes up for its shortcomings (hint: it only sometimes does).
These kind of comments really annoy me. First of all, you are needlessly promoting planned obsolescence for no tangible benefit. Millions of headphones and speakers all over the planet will be thrown away for no good reason, except that Apple figured out a way to make more profits selling us dongles and Beats wireless headset. I have a hi-fi system that I bought in high school which will never work with Bluetooth. You are telling me to throw out a $1000 system, just because it doesn´t work with Bluetooth and replace it with Bluetooth speakers of lesser quality.
Bluetooth´s quality still isn´t as good as a wired audio. I have had very bad experience with Bluetooth ear buds. First, I bought some Apple-style ear buds, that don´t have a wire. Two days later, I was washing dishes and it slipped out of my ear and fell in the sink and the water destroyed it. Next, I bought a Bluetooth set with wires connected to a magnetic clip. I´m guessing that the clip wasn´t strong enough, because I lost it when walking. These experiences have convinced me to return to wired ear buds.
Literally every bluetooth connection I have is problematic. I only have 2 left due to having so many issues with it. I HATE BT. I don't know who's fault it is, the accessory devices' implementation, or differences in phone manufacturers' implementation, but it doesn't really matter. I consistently have problems with it. It never just works for me.
I have connection issues. When I turn my headphones on, sometimes they only grab the call audio output, but not the media audio output. I have to go into my bluetooth settings to fix it and that's a hassle, especially when I'm out in the winter with gloves on.
I'm not gonna defend dropping the jack, but these instances where people swear they have to fiddle with settings each and every time they pair BT stuff can only be due to two things... Bad software (some phones/devices do have a shitty BT stack, and Google is often on the latest which doesn't always play nice with older stuff) AND/OR an incredibly noisy RF environment. I don't often encounter the latter, but I don't live in an apartment or the middle of NYC.
Bluetooth audio bandwidth has actually not increased since BT2.1+EDR AFAIK (half a decade ago), a lot of vendors trip over themselves to boast about the BT spec supported by the chip in their products but that's just all it is... The A2DP profile hasn't seen major changes and most of the bandwidth improvements in latter BT spec revisions were for BT LE and wearable devices that started off at a much lower floor (than A2DP over 2.1+EDR).
The provisions for better 3rd party codecs like Sony's LDAC were even present in the BT spec all the way back then, that wasn't added in recent revisions, tho the codecs themselves have gotten better and now represent a decent improvement over stock SBC. I'm not knocking BT mind you, I think overall it's better implemented these days so there *has* been improvement in the user experience and SQ even if it's not due to spec revisions (and it's not).
I'm still not in favor of dropping the jack myself, but it's not a deal breaker for me. I use a BT adapter most of the time if I'm on the go (EarStudio ES100 right now) and have the dongle as a backup if that's out of battery. I have a pretty decent home setup tho and BT would absolutely be a bottleneck there, it still hasn't become totally transparent or enough for lossless the way the stereo BT profile is laid out AFAIK.
Ah yes, the only review that matters. The only thing I disagree with, though, is with the quality of the included ear buds. They are not great for sure, but in my experience they are okay, and they match or surpass the apple ear pods' quality, which I was using before. I'm curious if you just happened to get a defective unit.
What's interesting to me is you now have ultra expensive phones that test your hearing and make a sound profile. Changing EQ to fit your profile and maximize your enjoyment of the music. Why would that be a thing if everyone heard all frequencies equally like a measuring device? You don't like them. That's fine. I like them and grab them more often than Apple's. I'll be the first to admit I'm older and my hearing is probably different from when I was a teenager. At the end of the day, it IS subjective for different people based upon age, ear shape, etc.
> What's interesting to me is you now have ultra expensive phones that test your hearing and make a sound profile. Changing EQ to fit your profile and maximize your enjoyment of the music.
The Pixels have no such option, the sound you get out of the box is what you're stuck with.
How old are you Andrei? It'll affect your subjective listening evaluations. I have no doubt google's buds will be inferior when scoped for frequencies. But a difference you can't hear is no difference. I find these less harsh in high frequencies than Apple EarPods, which I have used daily for over a year. I disagree strongly that Apples are "significantly better". They fall out of the ears too easily, and the earbud mic is too aggressive at staying off to avoid background noise. Then it cuts in and misses the first consonant of speaking. The Google mic stays "on" more and this the recorded sound is more even with less blasts of ambient hiss.
> But a difference you can't hear is no difference.
Let me be clear here, I did the FR after-the-fact of simply listening to them and comparing them to the buds from all other vendors. There's no point in arguing about subjective evaluation validity when comparing subjectively between units.
Thank you for the super detailed review. The wifi battery and camera tests are comprehensive as usual. Any chance you'll run the additional battery life tests on the Pixel 3 XL and iPhone XR? Thanks again.
The speaker vibration on speaker phone distorts peoples voice. Worse if you put it on a desk. Even at 50% volume. I’m returning my Pixel 3. That air gap between the rear case and the internals is a design shortcoming producing a quality issue.
This review does seem to come to a different conclusion to most others re: the camera.
My experience with google/pixel camera is that in day to day usage it ends up being significantly better. The HDR+ just produces more consistently colorful/contrasty/pretty photos under challenging circumstances.
Your results don't really show that though, so I'm not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay, had to come back as came across another couple of reviews that disagreed with this conclusion. I think you should try using the pixel 3 camera as a daily driver for a bit, and try a larger range of subjects / situations and I think you'll come up with a more positive view of the pixel-as-camera-phone. e.g. this matches my experience better https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-3-ca...
I got to put hands on both the Pixel 3 and 3 XL today. I was really blown away by how perfect the Pixel 3 felt in my hand. The Pixel 3 XL wasn't even remotely appealing in comparison side-by-side. The gesture navigation was fine, but I do agree that it seems pointless relative to the current three button implementation. I currently have a Pixel XL and expect that I won't be able to resist ordering a Pixel 3 much longer.
Great review Andrei! You rightly identified the pixel 3 's camera as its make or break feature and put all your effort there. Your results are very interesting and certainly defensible based on the wealth of data you accumulated. Well done!
Was the name of the camera application that Andrei used listed in the article, I've gone through it a few times and can't see it. What camera application allows you to enable night shift? Anyone?
Impressive, beating a camera site on the review of the camera. I also like your emphasis on the highlights. I am particular with this especially on brightly colored objects. I prefer this choice of Google. You are correct that it has crushed blacks to increase contrast due to the soft highlights. I think you can control exposure despite in HDR mode for night scenes. Lastly, the phone gives me an impression of a Nexus 5 but it has good pricing unlike this. Why dont you set a static scene studio for resolution and low light tests?
I simply refuse to pay more than $1000 for any phone. When did we start accepting this as the norm. Still rocking an immaculate refurbished pixel XL 128gb for $500 on eBay twelve months ago. And when this one dies I'll get last year's model again. If I want to play games I get in my PC. If I want a good photo i use my dslr.
You can't always bring your PC and DSLR with you though, can you? I don't know about you, but if I'm out on the town with my partner I'd rather not lug a big camera around just in case there's a good photo opportunity. It's about having the best experience that's always available in your pocket.
There's pocketable P&S with 1" sensors or even tiny M4/3 bodies that can outshoot $1K phones with relative ease tho, and they're still plenty portable... Photography enthusiasts are spoiled for choices these days despite a shrinking market... I'm not picking sides, I've now bought two Pixels (OG & 3) and I shoot some of those same camera options I alluded to.
When I buy a phone I go to DxO Mobile and from the top ranking I go down until I find a phone within my budget. DxO however is sometimes controversial, so I would like to see a synthetic number from Anandtech, so that I can quickly do the same here as well.
The Pixel3 4k EIS video is linked to the Pixel 2 video and the Pixel2 1080p30 is labeled incorrectly. I don't know if it shows up in the original video or if it's a Youtube encoding issue but the unstabilized Pixel 3 4k video retains a lot more detail than both of the the Pixel 2 4k videos, stabilized and unstabilized. I see it plainly without even needing to pixel peep. Pixel 2 video capture had good stabilization but was always disappointing in all other ways and behind other flagship phones. If they at least improved their encoder for the Pixel 3 like what I'm seeing then it's a good start.
Thanks for the thorough review. One question I have is that there are many other reviewers out there that have praised the included ear buds and even had separate reviews for them they were so impressed. I don't think anyone has claimed the sound quality is top-tier by any means, but they were supposed to sound decent and have excellent Google Assistant support. Just curious if maybe you have a defective set or your standards are unrealistically high?
I wouldn't say my standards are that high - and *maybe* my units are defective. Compared to any other bundled units they sound as if they're covered by tape and very muffled. A quick frequency response comparison ( https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/10586681768783... and yes I know this isn't an absolute measurement, but a relative one to the Apple ones ) represented what I heard, with insanely weaker mid-ranges.
Great review and clearly a lot of effort. As you mention in the camera review, excerpt below, the shadows are darker than should be, which is something I noticed with the Pixel 2 back in 2017. I have found a simple solution that changed how I use my Pixel 2 camera. When setting up the picture, click on a darker area for focus. It will bring up the shadows and the picture will look better than before but with much detail in the shadows. I will take usually 2 pictures, one clicking on the darkest portion of a scene, and the second, clicking on a slighter less darkest portion of the scene. Can you give it a try and let me know what you think?
"A characteristic of Google’s phones we’ll see throughout the pictures is that the processing likes to darken the shadows more than what the sensor actually sees, and this most visible in the trees in these pictures, as the pines in the middle picture lose a lot of detail compared to any other phone, also something that happens throughout darker objects of the whole scene."
I mean, sure, that's a way to do it, but then I'm no longer testing the default capabilities of the phone. I also said this year Samsung overexposes too much in many scenes, and I'm also not going around to adjust that for every shot.
I also notice that in my Gcam port to Note8, I set everything to max for maximum IQ but still sometimes shadows drop to pitch black too fast. Switching to the default camera app with the exact same framing I could get a much finer gradient in the shadows. The reason I still use GCam is higher DR in most instances and less noise, less smearing. Also the slight HDR effect applied works better with snapseed's set of adjustment sliders, especially ambience. The default camera works better with LR, snapseed's often a little quirky and counterintuitive.
Great review! I really wanted to see the display results.
I don't know that you guys ever test this stuff, but it would be nice to see audio output comparisons between phones for the 3.5mm jack. (As it seems like a lot of digital dongles shipping with phones have lower quality than the Qualcomm DAC built into the phones).
And some level of Bluetooth performance analysis would be helpful, whether that's through LDAC bitrate or signal strength. I know the original Pixel had an "antennagate" problem where touching the band on the top right of the phone would immediately cause BT audio to garble and cut. My Pixel 2 was also hit or miss with several BT devices compared to an iPhone 8.
On another note, is testing the Surface Laptop 2 on the agenda at all? I'm mainly looking to see the color accuracy of the display and find out if they're still using that awful SSD the first gen shipped with.
I'm seeing a very strange behavior with the sample images and would like to know if anyone else has encountered it. If I right-click and select "Open Link in New Window" I get a new window that shows the full-size version of the currently displayed sample the first time I click on the image. If I then pick a different sample the in-page sample image changes and the link name shown when I hover on the sample image changes, but if I right click and open in a new window again I get the same image I saw the first time; the URL displayed in the new window is the same as for the first sample image and is not the URL that was displayed when I right clicked on the sample image. To see a different full-size image from a given set of samples I have to reload that page of the review.
Has anyone else seen anything like this? I've been trying to figure out anything that could be wrong on my end to get these results, and I haven't had any luck. I'd like to blame it on my Comcast connection, but I can't figure out how they could accomplish this either.
I've tried this on Firefox 63 with all add-ons disabled and on Chromium 70 with identical results.
"Currently the silicon, as well as Google using the most up-to-date version of Qualcomm’s scheduler, make this the snappiest and fastest device on the market."
Lower scores on some benchmarks on different OSs, does not mean "slower", just so you know.
I like the design of new Google pixel 3 more than its predecessor. Judging by the specifications, it becomes clear that this will be the flagship smartphone, so we can expect the cost of this phone to be too high in many countries. I would like to protest, namely to do stress testing for similar games https://casinos-top-online.co.uk/. Really looking forward to when it appears in sales.
Display specifications are wrong it should be Pixel 3xl have 6.3" Samsungs Amoled not LG's P-OLED and Pixel 3 have 5.5" lg's p-Oled not Samsung's Amoled
I almost want other major reviewers to acknowledge and comment on this review, since it brings up a lot of issues and disparities with the main conclusions of many other big review sites. I find this to be a fresh and honest look at what the product is rather than a drinking the cool aid product promotion. Google still has a lot of work to do to catch up to Samsung and Apple hardware, but they're pricing like they don't. The low light photo feature is really neat, but I think it's far more limited than many people are imagining. You can't capture any motion in the frame when pushing these limits, so it's only for dark landscapes. And close up still life can be captured with a flash, so while it may be a vast improvement in a certain situation, that situation is going to likely be a small fraction of the pictures we generally want to take. I feel like people are getting overly worked up by this like it's going to revolutionize photography (computational photography in general, sure; this specific feature? not so much).
You're looking at this wrong, *flash*, not night sight, should be the last resort. On axis flash is almost always ugly and detrimental to what you're trying to capture, and severely interferes with post processing, night sight saves the need for flash, which is the way to go.
"I’ve never really understood why people claimed the Pixel 2 camera to be good in low-light, because in my experience as well as visible in these sample shots, the Pixels were never really competitive and are outclassed by the better sensors from Samsung and Apple, when capturing in traditional modes."
It's not that Samsung or Apple used 'better sensors', they just used longer exposure times (down to 1/4s), while the Pixel 2 would try to stick to 1/25 to 1/40s to avoid motion blur in human subjects, and only reluctantly dropping to 1/15s in very very dark situations.
The reason many were impressed by the low light performance of the Pixel 2 was that it could retain good image quality in *less* low light (but still low light - such as indoors) conditions, while not having human subjects blurred. Also, iPhone motion estimation would jack up the shutter speed (to ~1/30s) when any movement was detected (human subject or shaky hands), and image quality would drop drastically, below that of the Pixel 2 (b/c it wouldn't also average as many frames as the Pixel cameras do). Things have improved with the XS.
So it's a question of *how* low light of a scene are you interested in, and are you photographing human subjects or still scenes.
Thanks for the review, very nice comparisons, and great work in particular with your display evaluation. It's irksome that despite having a proper CMS in the OS, every app appears to be rendering to sRGB. Google Photos app is even color profile aware, but converts images with ICC profiles (say: P3 or even ProPhotoRGB images) to sRGB for output (which means in 'Adaptive' screen mode, the sRGB output gets stretched, yielding oversaturated inaccurate colors). This just isn't how color management is meant to work - the CMS should take the embedded ICC profile and convert to the display profile.
Love the detailed review, Andrei. Could you comment on the quality of the sound recording of the videos on Pixel 3, reading a lot of complaints on that.
Andrei, thank you for the thorough review, especially the display section.
Did you evaluate display uniformity at all? A lot of users (me included) are reporting a green-to-pink gradient across the display. It's very easy to notice with a gray background at low brightness levels in low to moderate light (think: using the phone in bed with only a bedside reading lamp illuminating the room). I'm curious whether only some devices are susceptible to this or if you noticed it on your Pixel 3 sample as well.
Going forward, I would really like to see some measurement of uniformity included in display evaluations. If the dE at the centerpoint of the display is very low, that's great, but if the display isn't also uniform it can be a misleading indication of the overall quality of the display.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
135 Comments
Back to Article
saleri6251 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hello Andrei,Thanks for the review as always. Just curious do you have any thoughts on the Titan M Security Chip?
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I didn't have much time to get into it, we covered Google Hot Chips presentation: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13248/hot-chips-201...cha0z_ - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Hey, as we speak about chips - can you include/test the note 9 exynos? It's bigger body compared to the s9 and also has a lot better coolling. We all read your articles about the exynos 9810 + a lot about in @ xda, but it will be really nice to see where the more popular note 9 exynos stands with it's bigger coolling and body compared to the competition and s9/s9+.If you have the time and the desire, otherwise it's also cool - you do a lot of great reviews about phones/mobile SOCs. Keep it up and cheers!
cha0z_ - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
No edit here: I am aiming primary at the sustained performance of the system/GPU tests. I am sure you already guessed it, but for the other members of the community.jordanclock - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
As a P3XL owner, I can say this review completely matches my experiences.Also, that camera comparison is insane and Andrei is a mad-man for taking that many pictures AND THEN REVIEWING THEM ALL.
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Thanks! The camera was a lot of work.This should also serve as a good comparison between all important phones over the last year or two. It's something I hope I won't have to do again till the S10.
jordanclock - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
That last night shot is pretty similar to a comparison I showed my friends when they thought that it was just a gimmick.Have you also found that using the night shot for every shot seems to be a good default? I found that in general the night shot results are "good enough" compared to HDR+, but obviously has the benefit of better low-light results.
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I've posted night mode pictures in daylight scenes as well, just to answer this question.There's no obvious difference and you can stay in night mode all the time, the only negative is that it'll be slower in terms of capture.
melgross - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
I’ve read that night mode is done after capture, not during, as Google, and other manufactures do their auto modes. So likely that’s why it’s slower.s.yu - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
Thank you for again the best set of samples on the net!This night mode just doesn't cease to amaze me, it preserves DR and enough(I'd say over 80%) resolution while accurately suppressing noise that it surpasses auto often enough even in daytime!
This is two notches above Huawei's night mode implementation, while Pixel's auto was better in the first place.
s.yu - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
Oh, I don't know what happened to the site but I'm experiencing frequent problems trying to view samples in full size, I see the correct URL when I hover my cursor over the sample but when I shift-click it(any other sample) only the first sample of the group is opened.s.yu - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
Correction...it just gets stuck at the first sample of the group that I clicked, if I click say the XS sample then I only get the XS sample, click on another sample and I wouldn't be able to open the full sized version of that in a new tab, the new tab would load the XS sample instead.Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
As long as you aren't photographing anything moving... The shutter speeds used will lead to more blurring.Badelhas - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
Andrei, didn't Google say that the "Night Shot" feature will eventually come to the Pixel 2? If so, the main advantage is gone, we can just buy a Pixel 2, which is much cheaper...Cheers
s.yu - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
There's only one minor issue I'd like to bring up, I don't think Pixel3 clipped more highlight in night mode than Mate20P, all the blue areas are in fact not clipped, only, well, in highlight territory. Only pure white is clipped and from my preliminary examination of the sample with the spotlights illuminating the tree in the center, I'd say Pixel clipped a little less highlight.So I then downloaded the samples to view them in lightroom(the issue I mentioned seems to have been limited to page 7, I'm not having problems on page 8). When checking for clipping with the inbuilt tool I noticed that the Mate20P shot had unnatural readings, the tool only labeled two jagged streaks across the surface of the nearest spotlight, while a proper clipping of something like that should at least look remotely round, so I determined that to be software artifacts and added a slight 5 to the global highlight slider, which would just label whatever looked like pure white on that spotlight as clipped.
On the pixel sample I did the same thing only slightly less, adding 2 to the slider already made pixel's clipping area look properly round(and the same size as Mate20P's). Then I went back to examine the clipping on the tree branches, it was too close to call. So I believe that Pixel and Mate20P retain the same amount (within 1/6 of a stop difference) of highlight DR, only Huawei's algorithm favors aggressively suppressing whatever it has available which Pixel does not.
Adding that to the far superior detail retention I say Pixel's clearly the new night king.
chief-worminger - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hello Andrei,Thank you for the thorough review. I wonder when you say in the battery life section that "SoC efficiency can go either way", do you mean that some 845 chips might be more efficient than some 835 chips, and vice versa? If not can you please clarify?
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
In synthetic tests, the S845 was about equally efficient in terms of energy usage as the S835 - so only minor factors such as software scheduling might push the efficiency in one direction or the other.saleri6251 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hello Andrei, I remember a few months ago on twitter you mentioned that a lot of people thought the S845 was going to have massive improvements on battery life, but the logic was very flawed. What was the flaw in the logic?Also any hopes for next year when everyone will be on the 7nm chips?
eurico - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I'd love to see some Sony phones used in comparisons, I understand that Sony's been lagging a bit behind lately, but still they do have some decent references in battery life and camera performance.Samus - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Sony has one of the, if not the best, camera UI. But the phones and sensors leave a lot to be desired.Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
They're not using bad sensors, I mean, they often manufacture everyone else's, the post processing is often horrid for Sony tho. You think they could get someone from their dedicated camera division to better tune that (they don't have the greatest JPEG engine either but it's gotten better every year).Edwardmcardle - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Awesome review as always. Will there be a mate 20 pro review? Have one and am considering returning because of odd screen issue. Also the new performance mode seems to suck battery, but animations seem laggy when not engaged...would be great to have a professional insight!luikiedook - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Excellent review, and comparison photos galore! I think a lot of the day light photos is a matter of opinion. Personally I find the iPhone Xs and Samsung photos over exposed and less pleasing than the pixel photos. The outdoor seating area for example, the black table tops look reflective and almost white in the iphone Xs and Samsung photos.Most of the time the Pixel photos are darker, but I'm not convinced there is less detail, most of the time.
The p20 pro seems to crush everything in 5x zoom.
melgross - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
The shadows on the Pixel are all blocked up. It’s pretty obvious. Some people mistakenly equate black shadows with better contrast, as Google apparently does, but that’s wrong. You can always darken the shadows later in a quick edit. But if the detail is killed on the photo, you can never retrieve it.Dr. Swag - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hey Andrei, you got the displays mixed up. The 3XL uses a Samsung amoled panel whereas the 3 uses a p-oled from LG. The table on the first page says the opposite.warrenk81 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
haven't even read the article yet, just want to say i'm so happy to see smartphones review return to Anandtech!!spooh - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Pixel XL used in the review has optics issue affecting corner sharpness, and light fallof. I think it's also slightly less sharp than good unit.I've had one with the same issue, but returned it.
id4andrei - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
The Verge reviewer Vlad Savov is a big fan of Google's computational photography. He makes it seem like the Pixel is clearly above the latest flagships. Your expansive review paints a different picture, that of a phone that tries to keep up with a single camera module.On a personal level I have a dilemma. Isn't computational photography basically post-processing? Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
> Even if it produces a subjectively better outcome out of stitching several shots, isn't it "fake" somehow as it is not an accurate representation of a frame?Not really. If a sensor fails to have sufficient dynamic range by itself, then even with no processing that's also going to lead no an "inaccurate representation".
Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
It's a little fancier than the post processing you could (easily) manage yourself, mostly cause of the way they chop up frames in tiles to then stack them intelligently... You could say it's "fake" in instances where their algorithm just decided to drop a tile to avoid artefacts or movement etc., but wouldn't you just clone those out yourself if you were anal about the overall end result?It's an interesting question without a straightforward answer IMO. It's just gonna vary by shot and usage case, if you're getting consistently better DR then you're consistently closer to "what you see", but all photography is ultimately an interpretation.
jospoortvliet - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
It combines multiple images into one - not something you would manually be able to reasonably do. I mean, maybe, but it is very hard. It isn't just applying some filters you can do on any picture.Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Um, HDR is a pretty common technique for photographers and the burst rates and high end stabilization of today's cameras make it more accessible than ever... So using HDR or HDR-like methods (Google actually combines multiple frames with similar exposures IIRC) to increase DR or average noise out is not the least bit uncommon, it's not hard to do and a lot of software packages automate it to a very high degree.Where Google's approach differs significantly and what makes it so accessible as the primary mode (and part of what makes Night Sight great, it's just building upon the same algorithms but with slower shutter speeds) is in the smart tiling they employ before stacking all the frames. That's what makes it usable even with subject motion in the frame and other variable lighting conditions... They break each frame down into tiles and they combine those tiles individually, dropping some as needed if the subject moved across tiles or blurred out... That's obviously way beyond the normal post processing techniques people do by hand.
Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Note: I'm referring mostly to stills in standard HDR+ and Night Sight, what they've done with Super Res Zoom is somewhat impressive but still pretty gimmicky in the end IMO... If I needed a longer focal length I'd just shoot a discrete camera or a phone with a longer focal length in optics.Ikefu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Keep us posted on when the LG V40 comparison is coming! I'm between a 3 XL and a V40 and these reviews are phenomenal. Love it Andrei!Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
If the V40 is anywhere near the G7's camera performance, which some reviews have hinted at, then the 3XL might be a better choice.Ikefu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
True, but I'm slightly addicted to the wide angle camera for landscapes and stadiums. I'm still holding on to my shred of hope when your review hits.Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I'll do a quick check on the V40 tomorrow and write back here - the Mate 20's review is next in line to be published first.Arbie - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Great, because the V30 and V40, along with the Samsung S9 and S9+, seem to be the only brand phones supporting all the T-Mobile bands (eg. 71). That really limits choice if you want max compatibility with that carrier.Which leads me to wonder how the S9 compares in general to the S9+; primarily in low light. The latter is well-documented here.
Phenomenal review overall, thanks.
imaheadcase - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
The stand is not bundled with the phone, its a separate purchase. Not sure why you said that.Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I wrote that it was bundled with the review phone, I edited the sentence to clarify this.Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
It was thrown in by VZW and some Canadian carriers! Pretty overpriced for the rest of us tho... :|imaheadcase - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I've not had any memory problems with mine. Also should be noted the stand is not bundled with phone, even thought it was with review it makes it sound like its normal.Edwardmcardle - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Awesome review as always. Will there be a mate 20 pro review? Have one and am considering returning because of odd screen issue. Also the new performance mode seems to suck battery, but animations seem laggy when not engaged...would be great to have a professional insight!Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Yes I'll follow up with the Mate 20's review next week. And yes the screen on the Pro is sub-optimal, as well as battery life, but that's not related to the perf mode.arayoflight - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hey Andrei, can you check other SD845 phones with PCMark on Android 9 as well, so we can find out whether Google's performance is due to their firmware or the OS itself. You probably already have the OP6/T.Andrei Frumusanu - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
The OP6 in this review had Android 9 scores, the rest of the phones didn't have an update as of yet.InitrINwAndRatouSpeL - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Nice wallpaper - where could I find that?norazi - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
This review left out the best feature on the Pixel IMHO... Call Screen, it has completely transformed how I answer phone callsImpulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Possibly cause it's location based.Genspirit - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Just a note that the detail in the shadow isn't being "crushed" so much as it is just darkened. If you lighten the photo after taking it you can easily see the details in the shadows.Also I have to say I love my headphones that came with it, maybe just a fit thing.
Rmrx8 - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
I actually like the ear buds. I bought them for my pixel 2 and I enjoy them just as much as Apple EarPods. Too bad more time wasn't spent on this on the review. Reviews of these have been mixed with people either loving them or hating them. I do lots of recording and the cut in on the mic is much less aggressive than the apple buds, which is a good thing for me. The higher frequencies on googles buds are attenuated a bit. But otherwise I like them and they don't fall out. Also age matters. I'm 51. Undoubtedly a younger person will have better hearing and maybe find more problems, as you age the differences start to disappear.TidalWaveOne - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
My Pixel 2 will do just fine... hopefully the Pixel 4 will be good enough to justify an upgrade.Genspirit - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Also did i just miss it or was there no mention of the selfie camera or numerous camera features like top shot? Or live google lens integration. I love the in-depth testing on performance and the camera but I do feel like a lot of what makes the pixel a pixel was left out.BNSFguy - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
" I would easily choose USB-C earbuds from any other primary smartphone vendor."That's pretty comical statement seeing that there are very, very, few choices for "USB - C" headphones, and most, if not all, are significantly more expensive than the $30.00 Google USB-C Headphones included for FREE with the phone. I mean, just go shopping for a pair of USB-C headphones. You won't find a single pair at any retail store such as Best Buy, and very few online anywhere.
imaheadcase - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
THat is why most people use bluetoothpapoose34328 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Hi Andrei,Thank you for your very thorough review! Very informative
cfenton - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
My take away from this review is that it's probably better to try to get a cheap used Pixel 2. Google have lost their edge in daylight photo quality, and the Pixel 2 looks almost as good using Night Shift.Also, since Night Shift seems to be mostly a software feature, is there any reason it couldn't be ported to other Android phones? Obviously Google won't do it, but is there any hope that some clever XDA person will. I remember the Pixel camera was ported to other S820 devices, with varying degrees of success.
arayoflight - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
It's already been ported to many Nokia and Xiaomi devices, and active work is being done to make it work on OnePlus devices as well.bull2760 - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I made the switch to the PIXEL 3 from Apple iPhones. It's very interesting to see that a hardware testing site has not mentioned any of the cellular signal issues that are plaguing iPhone XS and XS Max users. I had the iPhone 10SX Max for 4 days and returned it due to extremely poor cellular service I was getting. From my research it is due to the 4x4 antennas that are being used. FCC testing shows that the new iPhones have signal issues when not in a strong signal area. I experienced this with the short time I had the phone. 4 dropped calls/call failed within minutes of each other. I'd be sitting next to my wife her on her iPhone 7 me on my MAX and my phone would have no service. I looked at her phone and she is pulling almost 3/4 antenna signal. Why is Tom's not diving into this? Anyway I got tired of Apple's crap and decided it was time to try my first Android phone. I looked at the Galaxy Note, and while I like the phone I'm not a fan of the curved edge screen. Plus the key point for me with buying the Pixel 3 is pure Android no UI installed on top of it so as Google roles out the next version of Android my phone will get the update automatically. So far so good, I'm really liking the Pixel 3. I should mention I am not a heavy gamer, I didn't buy a cell phone to game. I use it primarily for business answering email on the fly and calling customers.pjcamp - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
"In order to combat this low memory, one new hardware/software feature is an application memory management 'lowmmemorykiller' background application/daemon which applies various settings to keep certain software in memory for fast app loading times. Whilst in general I don’t put as much value into this as some other people do, I did however notice that in everyday use the phones did need to reload applications more often. There have been user reports already that the phones are struggling to keep things open and alive in memory. "That's because software never compensates for skimping on the hardware. They could include more memory, but Google wants to push you into the cloud for everything. They could include removable storage but Google thinks people who use USB sticks every day will be confused.
If it weren't for the fact that every other vendor seems to be dumber than a sack of doorknobs, Pixels would be going nowhere fast, but that isn't saying much. Lenovo essentially killed Motorola, Nokia won't sell anything of significance in the US, and everyone else can't resist product positioning by skinning the life out of Android.
Impulses - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Meh, their memory management is still over-aggressive here... Some of the instances I've seen of apps getting killed after opening the camera don't even happen on my OG Pixel with the same amount of RAM.Arbie - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Is anyone actually in favor of not having a headphone jack?I get it that you *can* make the phone very slightly thinner without one; OTOH keeping the same thickness *can* permit longer battery life, which everyone wants. I also understand that you *can* put a superlative DAC in a dongle, for audiophiles. But that can be done anyway.
Killing the jack seems to bring no benefit to the majority of folks, and is going to alienate a lot of them. So - why? Such a change can't just be due to fashion.
zanon - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Yes, and it blows my mind that so many so-called tech enthusiasts are actually actively against improvements to archaic technology. Wires suck, they get snagged on things, they limit movement, they act as antennas that pick up things like GSM sync signals, etc. We used them because that was the best that could be done in the 70s and 80s. But that's not the case now. They offer literally zero inherent advantages except one: the antenna part, they can in principle (and in a few phones over the years) act as physical antennas for classic radio broadcasts. But that simply hasn't been that motivating to the developed world market in a long time, as evidenced by the fact that it's not a major advertised universal Android feature and Apple never bothered with it at all.Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems. Audio quality is not an issue, Bluetooth 5 has plenty of bandwidth for even lossless audio (and 256 AAC let alone Sony's fat codec is transparent anyway). Run time is fine, once something gets to 10-18 hours+ on a charge that meets what I'd ever listen to in a single session with no breaks (when it could be charged). Symmetric encryption is cheap and easy now and means it's as secure (or more given TEMPEST) as wired. Some stuff is still lacking, like easy switching between multiple wireless sources, but that's not a fault of the inherent tech so much as there hasn't been any real demand for it yet because wires have hung on so damn long. We're already seeing way more cool adapters for existing products get released due to increased demand and so I expect the market to work it's typical magic.
I'm delighted to see that relic go. I have no nostalgia towards it anymore then I do towards 8-track or MMX or 10base ethernet or whatever.
cfenton - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
"Beyond that wireless should be fine, and I think people confuse implementation trouble due to companies doing a bad job or market immaturity with real problems."But those are real problems for everyday use. Just because the technology is theoretically there doesn't mean it works well in practice. I use wireless headphones with my Galaxy S7 in the winter because I hate threading a cord through my coat. About 20% of the time my headphones only connect for voice calls, but not media. I have to either fiddle with menus, or turn them off and on again. I'm using a $100+ over-ear set, not some cheap $20 ear-buds from a no-name brand. It's annoying enough that I still use my wired headphones at home, and outside in the summer.
I've heard Apple's solution is a lot better, but I don't have an iPhone, and don't particularly like Beats.
If getting rid of the headphone jack added anything to the phone, or somehow made bluetooth better, I'd be all for it. But it seems to add nothing. Samsung has shown with the Galaxy S9 that you can make a very nice modern phone and still have room for a headphone jack. So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?
zanon - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
But how do you think we have *ever* gotten from A to B there? I'm only in my late-30s so not really old, but even so I can still remember most of the PC era and I can't remember any significant technology that didn't take many years to get refined, to fill out niches, to unambiguously beat what it replaced. Not just in hardware but often even in software, take audio and video codecs for example, there have been a number of replacement cycles where the technically superior standard spec for a while was inferior in practice to highly refined encoders for the previous generation.At some point somebody has to get the ball rolling and there will be a few generations where people just have to deal with compromises. The only way we've ever gotten great tech is for a real market to get established and then iterated upon. In the case of BT audio, in just the last year I've seen more improvements in things like BT adapters then like the previous 5 years at least. Just a few days ago a bunch of BT5 gen 2 refined ones came out at lower prices and better performance.
>"So why not have both until the real world problems with wireless get worked out?"
Because that has never, ever worked. If the old thing is still available major players just use the old thing. Inertia is very powerful. Somebody sometime has to bite the bullet, and given the realities of mass manufacturing you can't "have all the problems worked out" in version 1.0. Version 1.0 is always going to have issues. But you can't get ver2 or ver3 without going through 1.0 first. In this case Apple has shown it can be done very well and with more vendors going that way there is now a clear market of people ready to spend money on it and 3rd parties are starting to react and iterate. Now we can look forward to having way better stuff in another year or 2, whereas if they had all put it off then there is no reason to expect that'd be the case anymore then it was the last decade.
If you really don't want to be on the bleeding edge there then no problem, just get an older device! Mobile lasts a lot longer now, Apple already supports their stuff 5+ years and Google is getting better too. But those of us who like to live nearer the edge have always had to deal with that edge being rougher then those who follow. Somebody has to go first though.
porcupineLTD - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Nice mental gymnastics to justify an idiotic trend.zanon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Nice brainless technophobia from a luddite lol. Why don't you go back to your retro forum hole and cling to your VGA and CRT claiming they're the best ever and all this flatscreen stuff is a sheeple fad?Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
CRT still haven't been surpassed for some fast refresh applications... And likely never will by LCD, OLED might get there.rabidpeach - Friday, July 31, 2020 - link
it's not technophobia! you can get wired speakers that are sufficiently sensitive that are much bigger than the bs wireless earbuds you insert. likewise the full size wireless bose whatevers. it's not a big range of headphones but there is a sweet spot of larger phones that can be driven by mobile device. it exzists.cfenton - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great. Well, I don't have any 5.0 stuff, so maybe they finally got it right, but version 4.0 is still pretty inconsistent. If wireless worked as well as wired, I'd be all for it, but in my experience, it doesn't yet.As for transitions not happening unless forced, I'm not sure that's true. Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists. It's only in the last five years or so that laptops have been shipping without ethernet ports, and desktops still have them. Again, I'm not against having good wireless tech, I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone.
zanon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
>"But we're not on version 1.0 of Bluetooth, we're on version 5.0 and it's still not great."It is great (or at least getting close) from some vendors, which shows that the technical foundation is there. Once that exists the only real way to have progress happen sustainable is to have a market for it so hundreds to thousands of attempts will be made, most of which will be mediocre, but some of which will be good and then get copied/followed in turn. To your own point:
>"Lots of people use Wi-Fi even though wired ethernet still exists."
WiFi was introduced *20 years ago*. Yes, 1998. And it stunk. It was a long time before it even achieved the kind of technical spec it needed, 802.11n took 11 years, 802.11ac took 15 years. Both came after smartphones and notebooks overtaking desktops, demand drove innovation and pricing. Of course, even now in 2018 a lot of WiFi stuff on the market is still junk and will still give a bad experience, but at least there are good options.
I think a better example would be USB replacing PS2 & ADB ports. Wow were there a lot of howls over that. We're seeing some of the exact same thing now in fact with USB-C and TB3, and people raging about adapters and "everything was fine before" and the early pains of these standards (plenty of junk USB-C implementations). But the fact is USB-C is a nice connector that solves physical and speed problems.
>"I just don't think it's 100% there yet and removing wired connections doesn't seem to add anything to the phone."
I absolutely agree it's not 100% there yet! There is clearly a ways to go. But I also don't think it'll ever go from 20% or even 50% to 100% in one leap either, no matter when they started the first few versions would have compromises. But I've seen more progress in the last year then the last decade, and once people know that something can be done well it tends to drag up the industry because customers are less willing to accept excuses of "oh nobody can do this."
mrvco - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
Agreed. I have a couple pairs of BT headpones and the convenience is nice... until the battery runs out when I'm boarding an international flight. I'm still using a Pixel XL as my daily driver and just ordered an LG v40. I also have an iPhone 8plus for app testing / demos and keeping track of the dongle is annoying.I still haven't heard a compelling reason for removing the headphone jack beyond pedantic and otherwise pointless spec sheet glossing. I'll take a slightly thicker phone all day and everyday if it means a larger battery and the same goes for a phone with a headphone jack.
Arbie - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
What a rant! But what could you do except blather about "forcing the future" and "a few generations will have to deal with compromises"? That malarkey lost all meaning long ago; maybe you missed the memo.I have a BT headset for when I want to listen and be mobile - only. Compared to my wired earbuds it's bulky, heavy, expensive, complex, requires setup, creates rub noise, *and* needs daily charging. Now - add a dongle with similar issues! In all those aspects, wireless is a regression even it if works flawessly. If we had only that, and someone invented wired phones, it would be hailed as a miracle because, where they are convenient, those have no equal.
So removing even the option of wired is stupid *unless* there is some major compensation for doing so. I don't see any, and you don't either.
nonig - Wednesday, November 14, 2018 - link
Rarely has a post resonated with me like this one has. I wholeheartedly agree.Back when Apple announced, that they'd be dropping the minijack I thought "damit!" as I almost just had gotten a decent headset for my phone. I like to listen to music and the thought of having to accept wireless only irked me.
On the other hand, I am a tech enthusiast and had two years prior gotten my first tenure and therefore a decent salary - so I thought to myself; why not splurge and get a 'real' high end headset? I got myself the Beoplay H8 (around $350 I think) and haven't looked back.
My only alternatives was the Airpods or a headset similar to the B&O (Denon, Bose, Sennheiser, B&W and so on).
To me, it marked my final maturity into the form of 'good enough'-adulthood. I don't need 'wannabe pro'-performance or other pseudo/placebo. It just has to work, be good enough and reliable. Never really being able to put it into words until I read your post - and I totally agree.
I too used to claim, that only wired was good enough, until I got used to the comforts of WiFi.
I too used to claim, that FireWire400/800 was infinitely superior to USB2.0/3.0, until I tried a newer USB3.0 external hard drive.
I too used to claim, that only the golden terminals on my SoundBlaster Audigy was good enough for my MP3's until I realized it just doesn't matter.
I too used to claim, that CDs was superior to AAC or whatever, until discovered the joy streaming music.
I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy movies was on bluray, until I realized I just wanna watch movies and not bother with stupid intros, trailers, copyright/piracy splashes - Netflix, HBO, Youtube (still ads, but 5 seconds is manageable).
I too used to claim, that the only way to enjoy audio was on the B&W speakers via our NAD amp, until I realized bitrate doesn't determine how much I (or my kids) like a song or not.
So on and so forth.
Today, I just don't bother anymore.
Music is best enjoyed when I don't have to untangle stupid wires first. I just put on my headset, turn them on, and instant music or Airplay to our wireless speakers around the house - provided the kids hasn't hidden them somewhere.
I guess people don't like change (I'm not claiming that they're stuck up or something, just that sometimes change doesn't seem rational when 'the old stuff seems to work just fine') and I like your point.
Let's get back to serial and parallel ports, so much easier, when different things use different ports. Today, everything is USB and it can be soooo confusing.
Let's get back to when phones only used to be phones.
Let's get back to when cameras was cameras.
Let's get back to when portable music devices used cassette tapes.
Let's get back to when cars was jump started by hand.
Let's get back to using horses. Less pollution! (I honestly don't know, if replacing combustion based motor transportation with live stock would decrease pollution - XKCD/Randall are you reading this?)
Anywho.
All I wanted to say was; I agree.
erple2 - Thursday, November 22, 2018 - link
I'm not that averse to new tech, provided it eventually (fairly quickly) surpasses what it is replacing. In the case of bluetooth (version 5 no less), we're still not there yet. My cheap (~$20) bluetooth headphones don't always work, have issues with: mediocre sound, noticeable audio lag, and have to be charged, and don't really last that long on a charge. By contrast, my cheap (~$8) wired headphones always work, have mediocre sound, no audio lag, don't need to be charged, and don't cause a small (but noticeable) drain on my phone's battery life.Each of the other things you mentioned saddened me with the race to acceptance of mediocrity, though :( While I appreciate the conveniences of WiFi, I still plug my laptop in to wired connections when reasonably possible - it's just faster in all cases, and more reliable. That's kind of a problem with most new technology - I'm just not sure if the improved convenience of new technology always makes up for its shortcomings (hint: it only sometimes does).
amosbatto - Friday, November 30, 2018 - link
These kind of comments really annoy me. First of all, you are needlessly promoting planned obsolescence for no tangible benefit. Millions of headphones and speakers all over the planet will be thrown away for no good reason, except that Apple figured out a way to make more profits selling us dongles and Beats wireless headset. I have a hi-fi system that I bought in high school which will never work with Bluetooth. You are telling me to throw out a $1000 system, just because it doesn´t work with Bluetooth and replace it with Bluetooth speakers of lesser quality.Bluetooth´s quality still isn´t as good as a wired audio. I have had very bad experience with Bluetooth ear buds. First, I bought some Apple-style ear buds, that don´t have a wire. Two days later, I was washing dishes and it slipped out of my ear and fell in the sink and the water destroyed it. Next, I bought a Bluetooth set with wires connected to a magnetic clip. I´m guessing that the clip wasn´t strong enough, because I lost it when walking. These experiences have convinced me to return to wired ear buds.
imaheadcase - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
What are you having problems with wireless? Every smartphone i've had i've used the bluetooth all the time and never had a issue with it.Wireless is just plain silly to have now-a-days, wireless is better for working, running, pretty much all aspects.
ummduh - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Literally every bluetooth connection I have is problematic. I only have 2 left due to having so many issues with it. I HATE BT. I don't know who's fault it is, the accessory devices' implementation, or differences in phone manufacturers' implementation, but it doesn't really matter. I consistently have problems with it. It never just works for me.cfenton - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
I have connection issues. When I turn my headphones on, sometimes they only grab the call audio output, but not the media audio output. I have to go into my bluetooth settings to fix it and that's a hassle, especially when I'm out in the winter with gloves on.Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
I'm not gonna defend dropping the jack, but these instances where people swear they have to fiddle with settings each and every time they pair BT stuff can only be due to two things... Bad software (some phones/devices do have a shitty BT stack, and Google is often on the latest which doesn't always play nice with older stuff) AND/OR an incredibly noisy RF environment. I don't often encounter the latter, but I don't live in an apartment or the middle of NYC.Impulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Bluetooth audio bandwidth has actually not increased since BT2.1+EDR AFAIK (half a decade ago), a lot of vendors trip over themselves to boast about the BT spec supported by the chip in their products but that's just all it is... The A2DP profile hasn't seen major changes and most of the bandwidth improvements in latter BT spec revisions were for BT LE and wearable devices that started off at a much lower floor (than A2DP over 2.1+EDR).The provisions for better 3rd party codecs like Sony's LDAC were even present in the BT spec all the way back then, that wasn't added in recent revisions, tho the codecs themselves have gotten better and now represent a decent improvement over stock SBC. I'm not knocking BT mind you, I think overall it's better implemented these days so there *has* been improvement in the user experience and SQ even if it's not due to spec revisions (and it's not).
I'm still not in favor of dropping the jack myself, but it's not a deal breaker for me. I use a BT adapter most of the time if I'm on the go (EarStudio ES100 right now) and have the dongle as a backup if that's out of battery. I have a pretty decent home setup tho and BT would absolutely be a bottleneck there, it still hasn't become totally transparent or enough for lossless the way the stereo BT profile is laid out AFAIK.
melgross - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
I can’t stand wired headphones for mobile devices. They’re more than annoying.serjrps - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Any plan to include the latest OnePlus camera updates in the review, maybe along with a OnePlus 6T review?HunterAMG - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Ah yes, the only review that matters.The only thing I disagree with, though, is with the quality of the included ear buds. They are not great for sure, but in my experience they are okay, and they match or surpass the apple ear pods' quality, which I was using before. I'm curious if you just happened to get a defective unit.
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
The Apple headphones are significantly better. I'll follow up with actual frequency response measurements of both.Andrei Frumusanu - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Here's a very quick follow-up: https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/10586681768783...Rmrx8 - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
What's interesting to me is you now have ultra expensive phones that test your hearing and make a sound profile. Changing EQ to fit your profile and maximize your enjoyment of the music. Why would that be a thing if everyone heard all frequencies equally like a measuring device? You don't like them. That's fine. I like them and grab them more often than Apple's. I'll be the first to admit I'm older and my hearing is probably different from when I was a teenager. At the end of the day, it IS subjective for different people based upon age, ear shape, etc.Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
> What's interesting to me is you now have ultra expensive phones that test your hearing and make a sound profile. Changing EQ to fit your profile and maximize your enjoyment of the music.The Pixels have no such option, the sound you get out of the box is what you're stuck with.
Rmrx8 - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
How old are you Andrei? It'll affect your subjective listening evaluations. I have no doubt google's buds will be inferior when scoped for frequencies. But a difference you can't hear is no difference. I find these less harsh in high frequencies than Apple EarPods, which I have used daily for over a year. I disagree strongly that Apples are "significantly better". They fall out of the ears too easily, and the earbud mic is too aggressive at staying off to avoid background noise. Then it cuts in and misses the first consonant of speaking. The Google mic stays "on" more and this the recorded sound is more even with less blasts of ambient hiss.Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
> But a difference you can't hear is no difference.Let me be clear here, I did the FR after-the-fact of simply listening to them and comparing them to the buds from all other vendors. There's no point in arguing about subjective evaluation validity when comparing subjectively between units.
unrulycow - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I'm really disliking the ad that moves to the corner when you scroll past it. Ads should not follow you.sheltem - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
Thank you for the super detailed review. The wifi battery and camera tests are comprehensive as usual. Any chance you'll run the additional battery life tests on the Pixel 3 XL and iPhone XR? Thanks again.Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
If I can get both those phones.Nephelai - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
The speaker vibration on speaker phone distorts peoples voice. Worse if you put it on a desk. Even at 50% volume. I’m returning my Pixel 3. That air gap between the rear case and the internals is a design shortcoming producing a quality issue.Awful - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
This review does seem to come to a different conclusion to most others re: the camera.My experience with google/pixel camera is that in day to day usage it ends up being significantly better. The HDR+ just produces more consistently colorful/contrasty/pretty photos under challenging circumstances.
Your results don't really show that though, so I'm not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Awful - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
Okay, had to come back as came across another couple of reviews that disagreed with this conclusion. I think you should try using the pixel 3 camera as a daily driver for a bit, and try a larger range of subjects / situations and I think you'll come up with a more positive view of the pixel-as-camera-phone. e.g. this matches my experience better https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-3-ca...Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Those shots are no different from mine. Plus they're just 2.8MP resized images.Like I said, the Pixels tend to darken shadows and raise highlights in order to achieve this contrast.
mrvco - Friday, November 2, 2018 - link
I got to put hands on both the Pixel 3 and 3 XL today. I was really blown away by how perfect the Pixel 3 felt in my hand. The Pixel 3 XL wasn't even remotely appealing in comparison side-by-side. The gesture navigation was fine, but I do agree that it seems pointless relative to the current three button implementation. I currently have a Pixel XL and expect that I won't be able to resist ordering a Pixel 3 much longer.Lau_Tech - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Great review Andrei! You rightly identified the pixel 3 's camera as its make or break feature and put all your effort there. Your results are very interesting and certainly defensible based on the wealth of data you accumulated. Well done!satori3000 - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Was the name of the camera application that Andrei used listed in the article, I've gone through it a few times and can't see it. What camera application allows you to enable night shift? Anyone?Dr. Swag - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
https://www.xda-developers.com/google-camera-photo...satori3000 - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Appreciated. Was hoping this was an application, I'm not side loading anythingImpulses - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
It's gonna be available as an update to the stock camera pretty soon.zodiacfml - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Impressive, beating a camera site on the review of the camera. I also like your emphasis on the highlights. I am particular with this especially on brightly colored objects. I prefer this choice of Google.You are correct that it has crushed blacks to increase contrast due to the soft highlights.
I think you can control exposure despite in HDR mode for night scenes.
Lastly, the phone gives me an impression of a Nexus 5 but it has good pricing unlike this.
Why dont you set a static scene studio for resolution and low light tests?
Ethos Evoss - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Overrated crap phone ..Simsurf - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
I simply refuse to pay more than $1000 for any phone. When did we start accepting this as the norm. Still rocking an immaculate refurbished pixel XL 128gb for $500 on eBay twelve months ago. And when this one dies I'll get last year's model again. If I want to play games I get in my PC. If I want a good photo i use my dslr.Commodus - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
You can't always bring your PC and DSLR with you though, can you? I don't know about you, but if I'm out on the town with my partner I'd rather not lug a big camera around just in case there's a good photo opportunity. It's about having the best experience that's always available in your pocket.Impulses - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
There's pocketable P&S with 1" sensors or even tiny M4/3 bodies that can outshoot $1K phones with relative ease tho, and they're still plenty portable... Photography enthusiasts are spoiled for choices these days despite a shrinking market... I'm not picking sides, I've now bought two Pixels (OG & 3) and I shoot some of those same camera options I alluded to.Arbie - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
"There's pocketable P&S with 1" sensors or even tiny M4/3 bodies that can outshoot $1K phones with relative ease".Examples? I want small size and good low-light performance at auto settings.
zodiacfml - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
It is not even increasing part cost. The Pocophone F1 has flagship specs at only $300buxe2quec - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
When I buy a phone I go to DxO Mobile and from the top ranking I go down until I find a phone within my budget.DxO however is sometimes controversial, so I would like to see a synthetic number from Anandtech, so that I can quickly do the same here as well.
misaki - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
The Pixel3 4k EIS video is linked to the Pixel 2 video and the Pixel2 1080p30 is labeled incorrectly.I don't know if it shows up in the original video or if it's a Youtube encoding issue but the unstabilized Pixel 3 4k video retains a lot more detail than both of the the Pixel 2 4k videos, stabilized and unstabilized. I see it plainly without even needing to pixel peep. Pixel 2 video capture had good stabilization but was always disappointing in all other ways and behind other flagship phones. If they at least improved their encoder for the Pixel 3 like what I'm seeing then it's a good start.
cwolf78 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Thanks for the thorough review. One question I have is that there are many other reviewers out there that have praised the included ear buds and even had separate reviews for them they were so impressed. I don't think anyone has claimed the sound quality is top-tier by any means, but they were supposed to sound decent and have excellent Google Assistant support. Just curious if maybe you have a defective set or your standards are unrealistically high?Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
I wouldn't say my standards are that high - and *maybe* my units are defective. Compared to any other bundled units they sound as if they're covered by tape and very muffled. A quick frequency response comparison ( https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/10586681768783... and yes I know this isn't an absolute measurement, but a relative one to the Apple ones ) represented what I heard, with insanely weaker mid-ranges.Fluffywings - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Hi Andrei,Great review and clearly a lot of effort. As you mention in the camera review, excerpt below, the shadows are darker than should be, which is something I noticed with the Pixel 2 back in 2017. I have found a simple solution that changed how I use my Pixel 2 camera. When setting up the picture, click on a darker area for focus. It will bring up the shadows and the picture will look better than before but with much detail in the shadows. I will take usually 2 pictures, one clicking on the darkest portion of a scene, and the second, clicking on a slighter less darkest portion of the scene.
Can you give it a try and let me know what you think?
"A characteristic of Google’s phones we’ll see throughout the pictures is that the processing likes to darken the shadows more than what the sensor actually sees, and this most visible in the trees in these pictures, as the pines in the middle picture lose a lot of detail compared to any other phone, also something that happens throughout darker objects of the whole scene."
Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
I mean, sure, that's a way to do it, but then I'm no longer testing the default capabilities of the phone. I also said this year Samsung overexposes too much in many scenes, and I'm also not going around to adjust that for every shot.Fluffywings - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
Makes sense. Most people will use the phone in the same way.s.yu - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I also notice that in my Gcam port to Note8, I set everything to max for maximum IQ but still sometimes shadows drop to pitch black too fast. Switching to the default camera app with the exact same framing I could get a much finer gradient in the shadows.The reason I still use GCam is higher DR in most instances and less noise, less smearing. Also the slight HDR effect applied works better with snapseed's set of adjustment sliders, especially ambience. The default camera works better with LR, snapseed's often a little quirky and counterintuitive.
stacey94 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Great review! I really wanted to see the display results.I don't know that you guys ever test this stuff, but it would be nice to see audio output comparisons between phones for the 3.5mm jack. (As it seems like a lot of digital dongles shipping with phones have lower quality than the Qualcomm DAC built into the phones).
And some level of Bluetooth performance analysis would be helpful, whether that's through LDAC bitrate or signal strength. I know the original Pixel had an "antennagate" problem where touching the band on the top right of the phone would immediately cause BT audio to garble and cut. My Pixel 2 was also hit or miss with several BT devices compared to an iPhone 8.
On another note, is testing the Surface Laptop 2 on the agenda at all? I'm mainly looking to see the color accuracy of the display and find out if they're still using that awful SSD the first gen shipped with.
dgtangman - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
I'm seeing a very strange behavior with the sample images and would like to know if anyone else has encountered it. If I right-click and select "Open Link in New Window" I get a new window that shows the full-size version of the currently displayed sample the first time I click on the image. If I then pick a different sample the in-page sample image changes and the link name shown when I hover on the sample image changes, but if I right click and open in a new window again I get the same image I saw the first time; the URL displayed in the new window is the same as for the first sample image and is not the URL that was displayed when I right clicked on the sample image. To see a different full-size image from a given set of samples I have to reload that page of the review.Has anyone else seen anything like this? I've been trying to figure out anything that could be wrong on my end to get these results, and I haven't had any luck. I'd like to blame it on my Comcast connection, but I can't figure out how they could accomplish this either.
I've tried this on Firefox 63 with all add-ons disabled and on Chromium 70 with identical results.
Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
I can't replicate your issue in any browser. Sounds really odd.s.yu - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
Oh I had the exact same problem, but only on page 7, by page 8 it's gone but I didn't go back to check again.AceMcLoud - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Still slower than my old iPhone 7. Amazing.Nikophin - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"Currently the silicon, as well as Google using the most up-to-date version of Qualcomm’s scheduler, make this the snappiest and fastest device on the market."Lower scores on some benchmarks on different OSs, does not mean "slower", just so you know.
evan89 - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link
I like the design of new Google pixel 3 more than its predecessor. Judging by the specifications, it becomes clear that this will be the flagship smartphone, so we can expect the cost of this phone to be too high in many countries. I would like to protest, namely to do stress testing for similar games https://casinos-top-online.co.uk/. Really looking forward to when it appears in sales.Himanshu 011 - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Display specifications are wrong it should be Pixel 3xl have 6.3" Samsungs Amoled not LG's P-OLED and Pixel 3 have 5.5" lg's p-Oled not Samsung's AmoledAs found by ifixit guys https://www.91mobiles.com/hub/pixel-3-xl-teardown-...
darkich - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Just have to say you are the greatest smartphone expert and authority on Earth, Andrei.Astonishing review that puts others of this kind to shame.
RedBeardMcGee - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
I wish you would test speaker distortion. I am hearing lots of distortion even at the lowest listening levels with my pixel 3xl.santz - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
that was an awesome read. superb hard work on the photos evaluation.Ashan360 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
I almost want other major reviewers to acknowledge and comment on this review, since it brings up a lot of issues and disparities with the main conclusions of many other big review sites. I find this to be a fresh and honest look at what the product is rather than a drinking the cool aid product promotion. Google still has a lot of work to do to catch up to Samsung and Apple hardware, but they're pricing like they don't. The low light photo feature is really neat, but I think it's far more limited than many people are imagining. You can't capture any motion in the frame when pushing these limits, so it's only for dark landscapes. And close up still life can be captured with a flash, so while it may be a vast improvement in a certain situation, that situation is going to likely be a small fraction of the pictures we generally want to take. I feel like people are getting overly worked up by this like it's going to revolutionize photography (computational photography in general, sure; this specific feature? not so much).s.yu - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
You're looking at this wrong, *flash*, not night sight, should be the last resort. On axis flash is almost always ugly and detrimental to what you're trying to capture, and severely interferes with post processing, night sight saves the need for flash, which is the way to go.sarangiman - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
"I’ve never really understood why people claimed the Pixel 2 camera to be good in low-light, because in my experience as well as visible in these sample shots, the Pixels were never really competitive and are outclassed by the better sensors from Samsung and Apple, when capturing in traditional modes."It's not that Samsung or Apple used 'better sensors', they just used longer exposure times (down to 1/4s), while the Pixel 2 would try to stick to 1/25 to 1/40s to avoid motion blur in human subjects, and only reluctantly dropping to 1/15s in very very dark situations.
The reason many were impressed by the low light performance of the Pixel 2 was that it could retain good image quality in *less* low light (but still low light - such as indoors) conditions, while not having human subjects blurred. Also, iPhone motion estimation would jack up the shutter speed (to ~1/30s) when any movement was detected (human subject or shaky hands), and image quality would drop drastically, below that of the Pixel 2 (b/c it wouldn't also average as many frames as the Pixel cameras do). Things have improved with the XS.
So it's a question of *how* low light of a scene are you interested in, and are you photographing human subjects or still scenes.
Thanks for the review, very nice comparisons, and great work in particular with your display evaluation. It's irksome that despite having a proper CMS in the OS, every app appears to be rendering to sRGB. Google Photos app is even color profile aware, but converts images with ICC profiles (say: P3 or even ProPhotoRGB images) to sRGB for output (which means in 'Adaptive' screen mode, the sRGB output gets stretched, yielding oversaturated inaccurate colors). This just isn't how color management is meant to work - the CMS should take the embedded ICC profile and convert to the display profile.
makkumatr - Saturday, November 24, 2018 - link
Love the detailed review, Andrei.Could you comment on the quality of the sound recording of the videos on Pixel 3, reading a lot of complaints on that.
ErikSwan - Tuesday, December 18, 2018 - link
Andrei, thank you for the thorough review, especially the display section.Did you evaluate display uniformity at all? A lot of users (me included) are reporting a green-to-pink gradient across the display. It's very easy to notice with a gray background at low brightness levels in low to moderate light (think: using the phone in bed with only a bedside reading lamp illuminating the room). I'm curious whether only some devices are susceptible to this or if you noticed it on your Pixel 3 sample as well.
Going forward, I would really like to see some measurement of uniformity included in display evaluations. If the dE at the centerpoint of the display is very low, that's great, but if the display isn't also uniform it can be a misleading indication of the overall quality of the display.
Thanks!
ducksu - Thursday, May 16, 2019 - link
What's the best screen mode for pixel 3?