|
||||||||
The best phone for signal strength? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
Good article. Weird how they then go on to test GSM900 though. Focus should surely be on newer technologies? Disagree slightly with the results in terms of real world bearing but suppose I'm not allowed to really.
Discrepency there was massive too. I suspect many phones focussed on the one decent band, being OK for others. What that means is that you really need to matchyour smartphone to your chosen network and location, that network using specific bands often unique to itself. It is also pathetic that networks do not help with grading smartphone signals. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
Haha, that figures!
Though the Galaxy S4 did quite well on 2G, it was the 5th worst phone for 3G, which is what actually matters! Added to the fact that the S4 likes dropping down to 2G a lot anyway (whilst 3G is still usable), and you can see why there's a problem... I think that, if I was to get a new phone, I'd get an LG G4.... http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-antenner/ But the main UK 3G band is 2100. The 2nd table down shows it in 2100 order, best first. Remembering a 3db upward increase is a doubling of signal quality, the S4 whilst outclassed by the Nokia 925 for 3G does achieve a very good 5th place. The bottom phones only get one third the signal, making choice of phone extremely vital for a fair few people, the Xperia Z showing as maybe the best all round phone, that Nokia being useless at 2G 900. It again shows you really should choose a phone that suits your network and its local bands. Of course, no one really seems to want to help you chose, info likely only coming to light, if ever, too late. |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,324
|
Quote:
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?
http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-antenner/ But the main UK 3G band is 2100. The 2nd table down shows it in 2100 order, best first. Remembering a 3db upward increase is a doubling of signal quality, the S4 whilst outclassed by the Nokia 925 for 3G does achieve a very good 5th place. The bottom phones only get one third the signal, making choice of phone extremely vital for a fair few people, the Xperia Z showing as maybe the best all round phone, that Nokia being useless at 2G 900. It again shows you really should choose a phone that suits your network and its local bands. Of course, no one really seems to want to help you chose, info likely only coming to light, if ever, too late. |
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
The Google Nexus 6P has fantastic signal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 932
|
Quote:
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?
http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-antenner/ But the main UK 3G band is 2100. The 2nd table down shows it in 2100 order, best first. Remembering a 3db upward increase is a doubling of signal quality, the S4 whilst outclassed by the Nokia 925 for 3G does achieve a very good 5th place. The bottom phones only get one third the signal, making choice of phone extremely vital for a fair few people, the Xperia Z showing as maybe the best all round phone, that Nokia being useless at 2G 900. It again shows you really should choose a phone that suits your network and its local bands. Of course, no one really seems to want to help you chose, info likely only coming to light, if ever, too late. The real annoying thing about the S4 though, is making it seem like you have a better signal by dropping down to useless 2G too early. I mean, what's the point in having a smartphone if it wants to chug along on a network band that allows a maximum of about 150kbps? When my S4 gives up, I'm going to get something that not only is recommended to have a good antenna for weaker 3G signals, but also the option to totally turn off 2G GSM, whilst allowing both 3G and 4G. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 983
|
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance. I'm disappointed to see how poorly the iphone SE does - that may be off my options list now... |
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Grimsby, United Kingdom
Posts: 848
|
How are HTC phones reception wise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
How are HTC phones reception wise?
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
I find the 6s to be quite good. Certainly an improvement over LG G4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance. The iPhone 6S+ doesn't do very well in this test and I'm quite shocked, I find it to be almost as good as my Nexus 6, which is the best phone I've ever used in terms of signal strength. The Nexus 6 would hold a signal for dear life where phones like the Galaxy S4/S6 and HTC m8 would have absolutely nothing. The iPhone 6S is certainly not as good as the Nexus, but it beats the other phones I've mentioned quite easily in my personal usage. I still wish that signal strength/antenna performance was a category of testing that reviewers performed every time a new smartphone was released. It seems that unless there's something catastrophically wrong, people just blame their carrier rather than the device. This has got to change, manufacturers are free to cheap out on antennas, as long as the device has a reasonable and working signal, it's considered to be perfectly adequate. It can be the difference between having EDGE or 4G indoors, or even no signal vs a working signal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,725
|
Agree entirely that publication of signal reception performance should be a compulsory part of all mobile phone and tablet specifications. Most online reviews barely even touch on this aspect, of which both 4G data and 2G voice/text performance are the most important IMO (the latter for reasons of security/safety/emergency use).
After reading the comments about the Samsung S5/6 earlier in the thread I was a bit concerned about my choice to get a Samsung S7 next week but the 2016 tests mentioned in post #81 (many thanks to that poster) appear to show a considerable improvement over their previous models so I'm OK with it now. On the other hand, it partly explains the less-than-reliable reception issues that my daughter is having with iPhone 6. Glad to find this thread, it's a much overlooked subject IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Deep South (Yorkshire)
Posts: 3,416
|
I can only speak from point of view of using Samsungs and IPhones over the past few years.
I have found iPhones to be MUCH better in terms of signal. Samsungs have generally had poor reception and I've owned the Note 4, S4, S5 and when I sold the S4 and S5 the new owners BOTH commented on how crap the signal is and even had to get the phone 'repaired' by Samsung. A couple of my mates have Samsungs and are always cutting out in reception areas where they shouldnt be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,725
|
That seems to be generally agreed in the thread, except that the newest S7 series appear to be much improved over the previous few models, according to the scientific tests. It will be interesting to see how iPhone 7 turns out, when it's tested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 28
|
The Best Phone
Perhaps the S6 is a little too similar to the rest of the competition (it looks stunningly like an iPhone at the bottom) but at least there's the Galaxy S6 Edge for those that want a have a better signal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under Your Bed
Posts: 5,489
|
Heard good things about the Nexus 6P and signal strength. Good phone for the money theses days too (and with Nougat).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,324
|
Have to say my S7 really is excellent at keeping signal and I live in a poor signal area, it always has signal and my iPhone 6S rarely gets signal at home
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 97
|
Quote:
Have to say my S7 really is excellent at keeping signal and I live in a poor signal area, it always has signal and my iPhone 6S rarely gets signal at home
I find the S7 works well on EE because I essentially have 4G all the time, except inside a few buildings. Even then, I can often send a text or open Google on zero bars of 4G. I can also make VoLTE calls on very weak 4G ie. when data has stalled. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
Seems Huawei went down with the P9 which is a shame.
The Google Pixel seems to be pretty reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 61
|
I've seen the S7 mentioned on here but does anyone know how the S7 Edge is in terms of signal quality?
If the S7 Edge isn't very good for signals (I've seen others comment on how poor the S4/S5/S6/Note 3/Note 4 are) then what would a good alternative be, on the Android front? |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
The S7 is fantastic and the Edge uses the same antenna system does it not? It's also bigger and so should provide a better signal like the iPhone 7 Plus provides a better signal than the 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
The S7 is fantastic and the Edge uses the same antenna system does it not? It's also bigger and so should provide a better signal like the iPhone 7 Plus provides a better signal than the 7.
Didn't know if there was any difference between the S7 and the S7 edge (because the Samsung's don't have visible antenna lines, like the iPhones). Is this the case for 4G as well? I have read through this thread and notice a couple of other users commenting on prior Samsung's dropping to 2G, is the S7/S7 edge OK in this manner or does it also drop back to 2G? |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
|
It stays on 4G all the time and seems to work better at lower signal levels than other phones I've used recently.
I was particularly impressed with the S7 forced to 4G on Three how much more widespread 800MHz was than I thought. The signal just went on and on whilst I was in the car. |
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
It stays on 4G all the time and seems to work better at lower signal levels than other phones I've used recently.
I was particularly impressed with the S7 forced to 4G on Three how much more widespread 800MHz was than I thought. The signal just went on and on whilst I was in the car. One last question: I've read up on the EE thread (and on a separate thread) that EE will soon be launching 4G on its 800MHz frequency. Will an unlocked S7 edge do or does it have to be bought from EE in the first place? Assuming that the S7 Edge supports EE's 800MHz, which it should do if it supports Three 800MHz. |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 301
|
It must be bought directly from EE to work natively. I believe it can be flashed with an EE ROM to make it work, but someone can properly confirm that
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:42.




