We first saw Samsung’s new 5.8-inch Galaxy S8 and 6.2-inch Galaxy S8+ at its Unpacked event a few weeks ago. During the event, we saw demos of its new virtual assistant, Bixby, and its DeX docking station, which allows the Galaxy S8 to provide a desktop-like experience by connecting to an external monitor and peripherals, but we didn’t have much time with the phones to do much more than take some pictures and try a couple of the new features. After receiving a Galaxy S8 earlier this week, we wanted to give you some feedback about its design and biometric features, as well as, an initial performance and battery life assessment before we dive into our usual in-depth testing.

My biggest complaint about the design is the location of the fingerprint sensor, which I discuss in the video above. It has been relocated to the back next to the camera, making it difficult to reach and use. The new face unlock feature, the second of the S8’s three biometric authentication options, is flawed too. Despite my best efforts, I was not able to get face unlock to work, not even once. The feature, which relies solely on the front-facing camera for identification, also is not very secure, assuming it works at all. It has already been shown that simply holding a picture in front of the camera is enough to fool it into unlocking the phone. The camera really needs to be augmented with an infrared camera to detect a face’s heat signature as a liveness test, or a second, depth-sensing camera to at least detect a face in three dimensions. So far the iris scanner, which I also demo in the video above, has proven to be the easiest and most reliable biometric option. 

Samsung Galaxy S8 Series
  Samsung Galaxy S8 Samsung Galaxy S8+
SoC Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (US, China, Japan)
4x Kryo 280 Performance @ 2.35GHz
4x Kryo 280 Efficiency @ 1.90GHz
Adreno 540

Samsung Exynos 8895 (rest of world)
4x Exynos M2 @ 2.30GHz
4x Cortex-A53 @ 1.70GHz
ARM Mali-G71
Display 5.8-inch 2960x1440 (18.5:9)
SAMOLED (curved edges)
6.2-inch 2960x1440 (18.5:9)
SAMOLED (curved edges)
Dimensions 148.9 x 68.1 x 8.0 mm
155 grams
159.5 x 73.4 x 8.1 mm
173 grams
RAM 4GB LPDDR4 (US)
NAND 64GB (UFS)
+ microSD
Battery 3000 mAh (11.55 Wh)
non-replaceable
3500 mAh (13.48 Wh)
non-replaceable
Front Camera 8MP, f/1.7, Contrast AF
Rear Camera 12MP, 1.4µm pixels, f/1.7, dual-pixel PDAF, OIS, auto HDR, LED flash
Modem Snapdragon X16 LTE (Integrated)
2G / 3G / 4G LTE (Category 16/13)

Samsung LTE (Integrated)
2G / 3G / 4G LTE (Category 16/13)
SIM Size NanoSIM
Wireless 802.11a/b/g/n/ac 2x2 MU-MIMO, BT 5.0 LE, NFC, GPS/Glonass/Galileo/BDS
Connectivity USB Type-C, 3.5mm headset
Features fingerprint sensor, heart-rate sensor, iris scanner, face unlock, fast charging (Qualcomm QC 2.0 or Adaptive Fast Charging), wireless charging (WPC & PMA), IP68, Mobile HDR Premium
Launch OS Android 7.0 with TouchWiz

Inside the redesigned Galaxy S8 and S8+ is either a Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 or Samsung Exynos 8895 SoC. The US and other regions that require CDMA capability will get the Snapdragon 835, while the rest of the world will get Samsung’s SoC. The new 10nm SoCs are paired with 4GB of LPDDR4 RAM and 64GB of UFS 2.1 NAND. The Galaxy S8 comes with a 3000mAh battery, the same size as the Galaxy S7, while the S8+ comes with a 3500mAh battery, slightly less than the S7 edge’s 3600mAh capacity.

PCMark - Work 2.0 Performance Overall

PCMark - Web Browsing 2.0

PCMark - Writing 2.0

PCMark - Data Manipulation 2.0

PCMark - Video Editing 2.0

PCMark - Photo Editing 2.0

In PCMark, which is our best indicator of general system performance, the Galaxy S8 with Snapdragon 835 performs quite well, besting even the Mate 9 overall. Because this is the first S835 retail device we’ve tested, I’ve also included Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 835 MDP/S, which the company uses internally for hardware testing and software development, as a reference point. In most of these tests, the Galaxy S8 performs about the same as the Snapdragon 835 MDP/S, which is certainly a good sign.

The Galaxy S8 does particularly well in the Writing test, outscoring the Mate 9 by 13% and the Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) by 85%. The Writing test, which previous Galaxy phones struggle with, uses a fairly bursty workload, frequently migrating threads between the little and big cores. Perhaps this is an indication that Samsung is utilizing the big cores more aggressively than in the past. The Galaxy S8 is also 9% faster than the Mate 9 in the Web Browsing test and 37% faster than the S7 (S820).

PCMark - Work 2.0 Battery Life

The Galaxy S8 achieves over 8 hours of screen-on-time while continuously crunching through the PCMark workloads, 46% longer than the Galaxy S7 that has the same 3000mAh battery, which suggests some nice efficiency gains from the new SoC, display, or other components. While the Galaxy S7 can struggle to last a full day on a single charge depending on how it’s used, these initial results suggest the Galaxy S8 will encounter fewer scenarios where it will need to use its fast charging or wireless charging abilities to stretch battery life till the end of the day.

While we’ve only had the Galaxy S8 for a couple of days, our first impression is generally positive. It’s packed with features, TouchWiz is more refined, and it performed well in our first performance and battery life tests. A few issues are already apparent, however. Your face probably will not be smiling if you try to rely on it to unlock the phone, and the fingerprint sensor is located in just about the worst possible place. Samsung’s Bixby assistant also is not yet fully functional; fortunately, you can still use Google Assistant while you’re waiting for Bixby to mature.

POST A COMMENT

129 Comments

View All Comments

  • fanofanand - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    A 47% increase in battery life is a very small upgrade? Do we really need more processing power in phones? Most people would gladly take the increased battery life over more performance. Seems to me like they focused on the right things this time around. I would still prefer removable batteries, but that seems to be a pipe dream these days. Reply
  • JeffFlanagan - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    Sure, but it's a nice upgrade from the S6. I'm not a fan of the curved display, but it's much more responsive, and runs much cooler than my S6. I expect it to be much better for VR. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, April 22, 2017 - link

    You're on crack! The 835 SoC is MASSIVELY faster than the 82x. Did you read the article and actually see how the S7 stacks up?? The stopgap 820 is showing its age. Reply
  • Chidoro - Sunday, April 23, 2017 - link

    The 835 is not a very small upgrade over the 820. Reply
  • Cliff34 - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    How come in the graph S6 is rated faster than S7? Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    Because different SoCs.

    The S7 had the Snapdragon 820 while the S6 had the Exynos 7420.
    Reply
  • dstarr3 - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    No removable battery, no sale. You'd think Samsung of all companies would've learned. The whole Note 7 fiasco could've been averted if they could've just shipped customers new batteries. But nope, they need to save 0.5mm on the phone's thickness, and god forbid they make a phone that you can keep operating for over two years. Reply
  • frowertr - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    Going to be harder and harder to buy smart phones for you I think if you decide to not buy them for that reason alone. Reply
  • IronicTonic - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    They couldn't design a sleek and slim body like this without ditching the removable battery. Battery life has improved over the years, and with options like quick charging, wireless charging, it's irrelevant that it does not have a removable battery. To be honest, I consider it more of hassle to have to remove my battery and replace it on the go rather than just use my brain to remember to charge it periodically. People who want removable batteries need to get over it and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Seriously. Move on and stop holding back progress for the sake of your inability to adapt. Reply
  • lilmoe - Friday, April 21, 2017 - link

    I get the design aspect of it and I'm not blaming Samsung for bending to public pressure. But saying that demanding a removable battery is backwards thinking is going too far. I still would like a "Classic" variant of the Galaxy S with a removable battery. I'd ditch my GS7e for that in a heart beat. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now