Ask a question
Search in Wireless Forums

Wireless Forum

Reply
Posted Jun 4, 2012
9:07:24 AM
View profile
AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

Again like Dual-core HTC ONE X AT&T are going to launch Dual-core Samsung GALAXY S® III. 

 

AT&T Samsung SIII has 1.5GHz dual-core processor, like HTC ONE X>>>> LOL. Quad-core should be announced in USA first then anywhere. but the process is 69, International version has the Quad core & usa version is Dual Core.


 http://www.att.com/galaxysiii/#fbid=rTTks8CkSAN

 

Thanx in Advance

Again like Dual-core HTC ONE X AT&T are going to launch Dual-core Samsung GALAXY S® III. 

 

AT&T Samsung SIII has 1.5GHz dual-core processor, like HTC ONE X>>>> LOL. Quad-core should be announced in USA first then anywhere. but the process is 69, International version has the Quad core & usa version is Dual Core.


 http://www.att.com/galaxysiii/#fbid=rTTks8CkSAN

 

Thanx in Advance

Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket

AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

2,361 views
21 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(21)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 11:00:33 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

I hear that the quad-core processors that are available now don't play well with US cellular networks.  This is why we get the dual-core processors here.

 

I have the international HTC One X.  Graphics performance is smoother on my AT&T Galaxy Note than on the One X.

I hear that the quad-core processors that are available now don't play well with US cellular networks.  This is why we get the dual-core processors here.

 

I have the international HTC One X.  Graphics performance is smoother on my AT&T Galaxy Note than on the One X.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

2 of 22 (2,348 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 11:20:57 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

The samsung quad-core exynos or whatever they call it is supposedly not compatible with LTE as it needs  another radio band and all of this junk is  stuffed on a board.  They will use the dual core in its place for everyone except T-Mo.  Samsung still can use the quad core but they would have to add another board and that would make the phone thicker (not that I care.)   I would rather a thicker phone w/ a hefty all day battery than all this thin nonsense.

The samsung quad-core exynos or whatever they call it is supposedly not compatible with LTE as it needs  another radio band and all of this junk is  stuffed on a board.  They will use the dual core in its place for everyone except T-Mo.  Samsung still can use the quad core but they would have to add another board and that would make the phone thicker (not that I care.)   I would rather a thicker phone w/ a hefty all day battery than all this thin nonsense.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

3 of 22 (2,331 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 11:26:02 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

Qualcomm just hasn't released a quad core CPU with LTE support, but they are working on it.  Quad core or dual core, it doesn't matter.  Few apps are optimized for quad core, and won't anytime soon.  Performance is virtually the same.  The Snapdragon S4 on the One X beats the quad core version on some benchmarks, and the quad core wins on others.  And in real life, you will likely not notice any difference, they both freaking fly.  Quad core is just for marketing, and for nerds that want to fling around cool catch phrases.

Qualcomm just hasn't released a quad core CPU with LTE support, but they are working on it.  Quad core or dual core, it doesn't matter.  Few apps are optimized for quad core, and won't anytime soon.  Performance is virtually the same.  The Snapdragon S4 on the One X beats the quad core version on some benchmarks, and the quad core wins on others.  And in real life, you will likely not notice any difference, they both freaking fly.  Quad core is just for marketing, and for nerds that want to fling around cool catch phrases.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

4 of 22 (2,329 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 11:30:45 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

kinghdmi wrote:

The samsung quad-core exynos or whatever they call it is supposedly not compatible with LTE as it needs  another radio band and all of this junk is  stuffed on a board.  They will use the dual core in its place for everyone except T-Mo.  Samsung still can use the quad core but they would have to add another board and that would make the phone thicker (not that I care.)   I would rather a thicker phone w/ a hefty all day battery than all this thin nonsense.


T-Mobile is getting the dual-core processor version, as well.  The Samsung Galaxy S III phones should be virtually identical regardless of carrier, with the exception of the radios and the pre-installed bloatware.  They aren't doing the one phone-seven variants thing this time around like they did with the original Galaxy S line.


kinghdmi wrote:

The samsung quad-core exynos or whatever they call it is supposedly not compatible with LTE as it needs  another radio band and all of this junk is  stuffed on a board.  They will use the dual core in its place for everyone except T-Mo.  Samsung still can use the quad core but they would have to add another board and that would make the phone thicker (not that I care.)   I would rather a thicker phone w/ a hefty all day battery than all this thin nonsense.


T-Mobile is getting the dual-core processor version, as well.  The Samsung Galaxy S III phones should be virtually identical regardless of carrier, with the exception of the radios and the pre-installed bloatware.  They aren't doing the one phone-seven variants thing this time around like they did with the original Galaxy S line.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

5 of 22 (2,326 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 12:20:58 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Quad=4, dual=2 but 4 is not = 2, 4>2. This is the carriers weak point about The Quad-core in LTE network. whatever the Quad is frm Exynos or Qualcomm. Technology is based on real action in real life, no theory work here, only practical and real
Quad=4, dual=2 but 4 is not = 2, 4>2. This is the carriers weak point about The Quad-core in LTE network. whatever the Quad is frm Exynos or Qualcomm. Technology is based on real action in real life, no theory work here, only practical and real
Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

6 of 22 (2,291 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 4, 2012 1:28:35 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor
Edited by redpoint73 on Jun 4, 2012 at 1:34:46 PM

redhot4400 wrote:
Quad=4, dual=2 but 4 is not = 2, 4>2. This is the carriers weak point about The Quad-core in LTE network. whatever the Quad is frm Exynos or Qualcomm. Technology is based on real action in real life, no theory work here, only practical and real

 

You, my friend, do not understand how multi cores work.  If apps are not optimized for multi cores, than they don't benefit from more cores.  You will only see the benefit in multi taking (switching between apps, processes in background).  I have a single core HTC Flyer that runs circles around the dual core tablets that came out around the same time.

 

This will be the same as with the One X, where everyone was flipping out because the AT&T version was "only" dual core.  Until benchmarks showed it beating the quad core in most benchmarks, and using much less battery.


redhot4400 wrote:
Quad=4, dual=2 but 4 is not = 2, 4>2. This is the carriers weak point about The Quad-core in LTE network. whatever the Quad is frm Exynos or Qualcomm. Technology is based on real action in real life, no theory work here, only practical and real

 

You, my friend, do not understand how multi cores work.  If apps are not optimized for multi cores, than they don't benefit from more cores.  You will only see the benefit in multi taking (switching between apps, processes in background).  I have a single core HTC Flyer that runs circles around the dual core tablets that came out around the same time.

 

This will be the same as with the One X, where everyone was flipping out because the AT&T version was "only" dual core.  Until benchmarks showed it beating the quad core in most benchmarks, and using much less battery.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

[ Edited ]
7 of 22 (2,255 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 5, 2012 12:51:15 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
so the matter is no available Quad core technology for LTE right now for smartphones. means QUALCOMM & Exynos they are unable to make the Quad-core for LTE. But don't go for performance, because first it was single core then dual-core and now the latest invention is Quad-Core (1 then 2 then 4).
so the matter is no available Quad core technology for LTE right now for smartphones. means QUALCOMM & Exynos they are unable to make the Quad-core for LTE. But don't go for performance, because first it was single core then dual-core and now the latest invention is Quad-Core (1 then 2 then 4).
Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

8 of 22 (2,108 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 5, 2012 6:55:42 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor
Edited by redpoint73 on Jun 5, 2012 at 7:04:23 AM

Correct, quad core smartphone CPUs (really SoCs) simply don't exist with LTE support at this time.  Not sure about Samsung's proprietary Exynos SoC, but NVIDIA will not have a quad core Tegra  SoC with LTE support until late this year or even early next year.  Qualcomm is probably next year, also. 

 

What I'm also reading is that the dual core CPU on the SGS3 is clocked at 1.5 GHz, versus 1.4 GHz for the quad core.  This means that apps not optimizing multi cores may actually run faster on the dual core CPU.  So advantages of quad core will likely only be seen while multi-tasking and possibly in the Android interface itself such as the home page and app drawer (I believe ICS is optimized for quad core).  There are other things to consider also (which determine how fast/smooth a phone feels), such as the GPU.

 

All in all, the dual vs. quad core debate is largely just a marketing gimmick for now.  The difference between the dual core and quad core SGS3 is going to be insignificant (or the dual core may even be faster overall).  What does make a huge difference is LTE.  If you are in an LTE market, your data speeds get a huge boost.  I've gone from average 3-4 Mbps at my work to 29 Mbps.  My AT&T data speed at my house was miserable on HSPA, with speeds at 0.5 to 1 Mbps, and often even lower than that.   A few times the data network was just crawling, and I tested it at 0.1 Mbps.  Now on LTE, I get data speeds at the same location at 27 Mbps.  No more painful dialup like speeds at my house.

 

And even if you aren't currenlty in an LTE market, AT&T is rolling out LTE at a pretty decent pace.  Faster than I originally thought, and I think outpacing Verizon.  So even if LTE is not in your area now, it may be sometime soon.

 

 

Correct, quad core smartphone CPUs (really SoCs) simply don't exist with LTE support at this time.  Not sure about Samsung's proprietary Exynos SoC, but NVIDIA will not have a quad core Tegra  SoC with LTE support until late this year or even early next year.  Qualcomm is probably next year, also. 

 

What I'm also reading is that the dual core CPU on the SGS3 is clocked at 1.5 GHz, versus 1.4 GHz for the quad core.  This means that apps not optimizing multi cores may actually run faster on the dual core CPU.  So advantages of quad core will likely only be seen while multi-tasking and possibly in the Android interface itself such as the home page and app drawer (I believe ICS is optimized for quad core).  There are other things to consider also (which determine how fast/smooth a phone feels), such as the GPU.

 

All in all, the dual vs. quad core debate is largely just a marketing gimmick for now.  The difference between the dual core and quad core SGS3 is going to be insignificant (or the dual core may even be faster overall).  What does make a huge difference is LTE.  If you are in an LTE market, your data speeds get a huge boost.  I've gone from average 3-4 Mbps at my work to 29 Mbps.  My AT&T data speed at my house was miserable on HSPA, with speeds at 0.5 to 1 Mbps, and often even lower than that.   A few times the data network was just crawling, and I tested it at 0.1 Mbps.  Now on LTE, I get data speeds at the same location at 27 Mbps.  No more painful dialup like speeds at my house.

 

And even if you aren't currenlty in an LTE market, AT&T is rolling out LTE at a pretty decent pace.  Faster than I originally thought, and I think outpacing Verizon.  So even if LTE is not in your area now, it may be sometime soon.

 

 

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

[ Edited ]
9 of 22 (2,081 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 5, 2012 7:03:22 AM
0
(0)
Guru

Right now, there are very few viable LTE radios from manufacturers other than Qualcomm.  Somehow I've seen LTE radios hung off of TI OMAP4 CPUs, and also off of Samsung's old Hummingbird (see Droid Charge), but it seems like the general theme is:  Support for AT&T's LTE bands currently requires a Qualcomm LTE radio.  Qualcomm won't allow their radio chips to be used with Samsung CPUs.

 

This will change when Intel releases the LTE version of their X-Gold radio chipset series, which is what Samsung uses in nearly all of their HSPA devices.

 

As to performance:

The individual cores of the Snapdragon S4 are significantly more powerful than the cores of the Exynos 4412.

However:  I believe the GPU is weaker, and more importantly, due to being a vastly different configuration from  the international variant, the AT&T variant will lag in updates even more than typical for AT&T handsets.  If you're into using custom firmwares (such as Cyanogenmod), there will be far less development for carrier-mangled version, as there almost always is.

 

Personally:  I won't touch the AT&T-mangled version with a ten foot pole.  I'm probably not even going to bother with the international version since it offers little that my international Note doesn't.  My next device may be the international Note 2 - especially if it lives up to its dual-core Exynos5 rumors.

Right now, there are very few viable LTE radios from manufacturers other than Qualcomm.  Somehow I've seen LTE radios hung off of TI OMAP4 CPUs, and also off of Samsung's old Hummingbird (see Droid Charge), but it seems like the general theme is:  Support for AT&T's LTE bands currently requires a Qualcomm LTE radio.  Qualcomm won't allow their radio chips to be used with Samsung CPUs.

 

This will change when Intel releases the LTE version of their X-Gold radio chipset series, which is what Samsung uses in nearly all of their HSPA devices.

 

As to performance:

The individual cores of the Snapdragon S4 are significantly more powerful than the cores of the Exynos 4412.

However:  I believe the GPU is weaker, and more importantly, due to being a vastly different configuration from  the international variant, the AT&T variant will lag in updates even more than typical for AT&T handsets.  If you're into using custom firmwares (such as Cyanogenmod), there will be far less development for carrier-mangled version, as there almost always is.

 

Personally:  I won't touch the AT&T-mangled version with a ten foot pole.  I'm probably not even going to bother with the international version since it offers little that my international Note doesn't.  My next device may be the international Note 2 - especially if it lives up to its dual-core Exynos5 rumors.

-------------- CyanogenMod 9/10 device co-maintainer for: SGH-I777 (AT&T Galaxy S2) GT-N7000 (International Galaxy Note) GT-N8013 (Galaxy Note 10.1 Wifi)

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

10 of 22 (2,072 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 5, 2012 9:18:30 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
In Samsung-
Exynos 5 Dual core 32 nm (in SIII usa careers): LTE supported,
Exynos 4 Quad-core 45nm (international version SIII): LTE is not supported but and also have powerful Mali 400 GPU,
Exynos 4 dual-core 45nm (in SII Skyrocket) LTE / non LTE both supported
So they are trying to make the processor size more small from 45nm to 32 nm and then 28nm and lower power consumption matter.
Only due to the LTE support USA careers are not able to use Quad Core. But Japan has made the solution about Quad-core for their LTE in Tegra 3. Nvidia Tegra 3 is the most powerful and very good processor for Smartphone. But as usa careers yet not able to build a business relation with Nvidia Tegra3.
plz spend a little time in the below webpage:
http://www.technobuffalo.com/comparisons/benchmarked-nvidia-tegra-3-vs-qualcomm-snapdragon-s4/
Thanx in Advance
In Samsung-
Exynos 5 Dual core 32 nm (in SIII usa careers): LTE supported,
Exynos 4 Quad-core 45nm (international version SIII): LTE is not supported but and also have powerful Mali 400 GPU,
Exynos 4 dual-core 45nm (in SII Skyrocket) LTE / non LTE both supported
So they are trying to make the processor size more small from 45nm to 32 nm and then 28nm and lower power consumption matter.
Only due to the LTE support USA careers are not able to use Quad Core. But Japan has made the solution about Quad-core for their LTE in Tegra 3. Nvidia Tegra 3 is the most powerful and very good processor for Smartphone. But as usa careers yet not able to build a business relation with Nvidia Tegra3.
plz spend a little time in the below webpage:
http://www.technobuffalo.com/comparisons/benchmarked-nvidia-tegra-3-vs-qualcomm-snapdragon-s4/
Thanx in Advance
Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

11 of 22 (2,030 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 7:57:29 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

Still missing the whole point.  You're wringing your hands over something that is completely insignificant.  You can worry about miniscule differences in CPU performance.  But for me, I'll take LTE over the quad core (with no LTE) any day.

Still missing the whole point.  You're wringing your hands over something that is completely insignificant.  You can worry about miniscule differences in CPU performance.  But for me, I'll take LTE over the quad core (with no LTE) any day.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

12 of 22 (1,833 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 10:28:59 AM
0
(0)
Contributor

What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?

What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

13 of 22 (1,797 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 1:01:32 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

"What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?"

 

It doesn't matter because this phone has an SD card slot. 16 Gigs is plenty for apps that are required to remain on the phone.

 

Side note, I love how AT&T is advertising their low price 16 gig SD card for $40. You can get the same card for $12 at Walmart.

"What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?"

 

It doesn't matter because this phone has an SD card slot. 16 Gigs is plenty for apps that are required to remain on the phone.

 

Side note, I love how AT&T is advertising their low price 16 gig SD card for $40. You can get the same card for $12 at Walmart.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

14 of 22 (1,763 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 1:18:13 PM
0
(0)
Guru

redpoint73 wrote:

Still missing the whole point.  You're wringing your hands over something that is completely insignificant.  You can worry about miniscule differences in CPU performance.  But for me, I'll take LTE over the quad core (with no LTE) any day.


That's the problem - LTE right now is not ready for prime time.  It still entails major negative impacts to power management.

 

LTE won't provide acceptable battery life until late 2012 or early 2013.


redpoint73 wrote:

Still missing the whole point.  You're wringing your hands over something that is completely insignificant.  You can worry about miniscule differences in CPU performance.  But for me, I'll take LTE over the quad core (with no LTE) any day.


That's the problem - LTE right now is not ready for prime time.  It still entails major negative impacts to power management.

 

LTE won't provide acceptable battery life until late 2012 or early 2013.

-------------- CyanogenMod 9/10 device co-maintainer for: SGH-I777 (AT&T Galaxy S2) GT-N7000 (International Galaxy Note) GT-N8013 (Galaxy Note 10.1 Wifi)

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

15 of 22 (1,754 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 3:08:43 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

The battery life on my Lumia 900 is fine.  I didn't use my Note on LTE long enough to evaluate the battery life on that phone, but I don't think that our phones have been as bad as what Thunderbolt users were reporting on VZW.

The battery life on my Lumia 900 is fine.  I didn't use my Note on LTE long enough to evaluate the battery life on that phone, but I don't think that our phones have been as bad as what Thunderbolt users were reporting on VZW.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

16 of 22 (1,722 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 6, 2012 11:45:59 PM
0
(0)
Scholar
Kainam wrote: What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?
AT&T is offering nothing. without Quad core they are offering u the SIII. coz they r unable to make Quad-core with LTE
Kainam wrote: What about AT&T not offering the 32GB version of the S3?
AT&T is offering nothing. without Quad core they are offering u the SIII. coz they r unable to make Quad-core with LTE
Samsung Galaxy SII Skyrocket

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

17 of 22 (1,665 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 7, 2012 6:57:56 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

redhot4400 wrote:
coz they r unable to make Quad-core with LTE

Yeah, so we've heard.   lol


redhot4400 wrote:
coz they r unable to make Quad-core with LTE

Yeah, so we've heard.   lol

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

18 of 22 (1,641 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 7, 2012 7:00:55 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

21stNow wrote:

The battery life on my Lumia 900 is fine.  I didn't use my Note on LTE long enough to evaluate the battery life on that phone, but I don't think that our phones have been as bad as what Thunderbolt users were reporting on VZW.


No issues on the One X either.  I easily get through a day (up to 24 hours ) on a single charge on LTE, and the 29 Mbps speed is sweet.  Not that you really need speed like that for much of anything.  But its good to know the data network is not going to be a bottle neck for anything you want to do.  Especially when I was previously getting 1 Mbps or less at my house on HSPA, and just browsing simple web pages was agonizing.


21stNow wrote:

The battery life on my Lumia 900 is fine.  I didn't use my Note on LTE long enough to evaluate the battery life on that phone, but I don't think that our phones have been as bad as what Thunderbolt users were reporting on VZW.


No issues on the One X either.  I easily get through a day (up to 24 hours ) on a single charge on LTE, and the 29 Mbps speed is sweet.  Not that you really need speed like that for much of anything.  But its good to know the data network is not going to be a bottle neck for anything you want to do.  Especially when I was previously getting 1 Mbps or less at my house on HSPA, and just browsing simple web pages was agonizing.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

19 of 22 (1,639 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 7, 2012 7:32:22 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

"and the 29 Mbps speed is sweet.  Not that you really need speed like that for much of anything".

 

I stop at the "sweet" part.  That level of speed comes in handy.  I had problems with my home Wi-fi a couple of nights ago.  I switched off Wi-fi on the Lumia and watched the video over LTE and had flawless transmission of a Youtube video.  If I had had the patience, I would have switched the SIM card to the Note so I could have the best speed and picture quality.

 

With LTE, my phone goes from being something I use if I have to, to being my preferred web connection.

"and the 29 Mbps speed is sweet.  Not that you really need speed like that for much of anything".

 

I stop at the "sweet" part.  That level of speed comes in handy.  I had problems with my home Wi-fi a couple of nights ago.  I switched off Wi-fi on the Lumia and watched the video over LTE and had flawless transmission of a Youtube video.  If I had had the patience, I would have switched the SIM card to the Note so I could have the best speed and picture quality.

 

With LTE, my phone goes from being something I use if I have to, to being my preferred web connection.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

20 of 22 (1,632 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 7, 2012 7:56:21 AM
0
(0)
Teacher
FYI the exynos quadcores are LTE compatible they just need a separate "radio", Samsung is releasing the GS3 in certain markets with both their quad and LTE.
FYI the exynos quadcores are LTE compatible they just need a separate "radio", Samsung is releasing the GS3 in certain markets with both their quad and LTE.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

21 of 22 (1,625 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jun 11, 2012 12:43:46 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

what about audio chipset.. anyone know what one the att version is going to use.. because if it is not the wolfson like the international i will cancel my order and get that one.. as only that will have voodoo sound to enable settles that make it useable recording video in concerts.. sgs ii was no good.

 

still using my sgs i.

what about audio chipset.. anyone know what one the att version is going to use.. because if it is not the wolfson like the international i will cancel my order and get that one.. as only that will have voodoo sound to enable settles that make it useable recording video in concerts.. sgs ii was no good.

 

still using my sgs i.

Re: AT&T Samsung GALAXY S® III <<<<

22 of 22 (1,400 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post