x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Lots of Snapdragon 835 Galaxy S8 units apparently have UFS 2.0 instead of newer UFS 2.1 memory. Should you care?

Lots of Snapdragon 835 Galaxy S8 units apparently have UFS 2.0 instead of newer UFS 2.1 memory. Should you care?

Lots of Snapdragon 835 Galaxy S8 units apparently have UFS 2.0 instead of newer UFS 2.1 memory. Should you care?

Recently, we've learned of Samsung's Huawei moment. For the uninitiated, the latter liberally dispersed no less than five different kinds of memory technology between versions of its P10 and P10 Lite flagship phones – and some of said technology was more than a little far off from what was being advertised. Samsung is much less sinful towards its customers, though. It's just that some Snapdragon 835-powered versions of the Galaxy S8 and S8+ are using the older UFS 2.0 flash storage standard, instead of the newer UFS 2.1 technology that goes inside most SD 835 units and all Exynos models.

If this could help you make a bit more sense of the chaos, the leading theory – as developed and tested by users of the XDA Developers forum – is that all Exynos variants of the S8 and S8+ get UFS 2.1, all Snapdragon S8+ devices get UFS 2.1 as well, and some Snapdragon 835 Galaxy S8 units are on UFS 2.0. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever get official information by Samsung on the matter, but the company did remove the "2.1" spec from the S8 and S8+ online marketing materials. That's as good as it gets in terms of confirmation.

Should you even care about these specifics? If you put an UFS 2.0 and UFS 2.1 Galaxy S8 side by side, the chances you'll spot any difference – not just "significant", but any at all – are so slim they are virtually non-existent. That's because both standards are so blistering fast, they have eliminated storage memory as a performance bottleneck for the time being. Not that UFS 2.1 isn't a fair bit faster – read speeds are up to 300Mbps quicker, but again, this boost does not affect user experience in any obvious way.

Samsung can't be faulted for sneaking in some UFS 2.0 chips if its warehouses ran low on UFS 2.1 prior to the Galaxy S8 and S8+ launch date. But it wasn't particularly wholesome to market all phones as UFS 2.1 when this absolutely isn't the case. It isn't about the memory, but the principle.

128 Comments
  • Options
    Close





posted on 08 May 2017, 14:35 28

1. bucknassty (Posts: 72; Member since: 24 Mar 2017)


this is unacceptable.... i dont care if marginal.... this is a big component to the "speed" of the device

posted on 08 May 2017, 14:39 10

4. kiko007 (Posts: 4978; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)


I agree to a certain extent. This particular instance is a negligible speed bump, true, but it's a slippery slope advertising your product as having something when it may not. Glad they cleared that up and removed that from the marketing campaign.

Also, Samsung makes UFS storage... why skimp? Margins? Production issues perhaps?

posted on 08 May 2017, 14:43 20

7. Mxyzptlk (unregistered)


I find it unacceptable. It's bad enough to force people to get the curved screen since it's that or nothing, but they pull this stunt?

posted on 08 May 2017, 14:52 36

9. LebronJamesFanboy (Posts: 586; Member since: 23 Mar 2013)


It's 100% unacceptable given the price point.

Any person who tries to defend them here is a blind fanboy.

posted on 08 May 2017, 14:59 2

12. jove39 (Posts: 1938; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Don't read too much into details...wikipedia lists both versions to be similar in performance and protocol support...so chill...your S8 is as good as anybody else's.

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:02 10

13. Busyboy (Posts: 623; Member since: 07 Jan 2015)


The differences are actually pretty significant-UFS 2.1 can reach sequential read speeds of up to 800mb/s while UFS 2.0 gets around 400mb/s. While you probably won't notice the difference in day to day usage,

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:16 10

17. Finalflash (Posts: 3432; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)


Its the same thing with Apple's previous modem issue with Intel modems being slower. The fanboys defended that but this is unacceptable? Some fanboys even praised Apple for throttling the QC modems to even out performance. Regardless, this is acceptable but not appreciated, and as long as it's not a significant difference, it matters little.

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:21

20. jove39 (Posts: 1938; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Forgot to mention wikipedia link, take a look -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Flash_Storage

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:23 3

21. ph00ny (Posts: 1396; Member since: 26 May 2011)


If it's advertised as having UFS 2.1 without any disclaimer then people should definitely cared.

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:29 6

22. marorun (Posts: 5029; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Yep its as unacceptable than apple using cheaper memory with lower speed on 32 gb phone versus 128 and 256 gb version.

Those phone maker love milking the client its sad.

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:30 3

23. marorun (Posts: 5029; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Finalflash the fact apple use slower memory for 32 gb versus 128/256 gb version of iphone is much worst than making a faster component slow to the slower one.

So i would use the onboard memory example instead if i was you.

posted on 08 May 2017, 15:37 9

28. kiko007 (Posts: 4978; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)


Apple doesn't use slower memory in the 32 GB model. Lower storage= lower speeds. Stop spreading lies please.

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:08 7

38. Ninetysix (Posts: 2569; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)


http://pocketnow.com/2016/10/09/is-apple-using-slower-flash-storage-on-the-iphone-7

More you know.

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:09 3

39. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 13501; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


All I can say is, I dropped this on another article and a iFanboy said specifcally "all OEM's do this" and that he was basically ok with it, since it was Apple.

Yet that SAME fanboy today, is saying, this is wrong and unacceptable...lol

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:10

41. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 13501; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


I posted that before from here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW2-TIbcTIg

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:11 1

42. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 13501; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


Accoring to Wikipedia...UFS 2.0 and 2.1 are the same speed. lol

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:14 3

43. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 13501; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)


Coming from a fanboy who defends everything Apple?

According to Wikipedia...both UFS 2.0 and 2.1 have the same speed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Flash_Storage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW2-TIbcTIg

According to this video, Apple uses slower storage in its 32GB model vs its 128/256 model.

But you all cryign foul?

I showed this to another fanboy days ago. He said, and I quote..>ALL OEMS DO IT>

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:40 6

46. maherk (Posts: 4615; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


Force people to buy curved screen? Lmao
I get it that you hate anything Samsung, but that is dumb, because I'm sure those who don't like curved screens would've looked somewhere else when buying a new smartphone, UNLESS, you're admitting that the S8 is the best phone out there and those who are looking to get the best or nothing are forced to get the S8 even though they hate curved screens ;)

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:45 14

49. LebronJamesFanboy (Posts: 586; Member since: 23 Mar 2013)


TechieXP1969 = Blind Fanboy

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:46 7

50. maherk (Posts: 4615; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


Not disagreeing, but he is as blind as MXY, both act like their lives depends on Samsung and Apple's success.

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:54 4

53. toukale (Posts: 63; Member since: 10 Jun 2015)


@Finalflash, Why spread nonsense. In Apple's case while true the Qualcomm moderms is capable of a higher speed, Apple capped it so both the Intel and Qualcomm moderms would perform the same to avoid this exact non sense. And most of all Apple did not advertise a higher speed in their advertisements.and not deliver.

posted on 08 May 2017, 16:54 1

54. LebronJamesFanboy (Posts: 586; Member since: 23 Mar 2013)


100% agree Maherk.

How are you enjoying your S8?

posted on 08 May 2017, 17:12

60. maherk (Posts: 4615; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


I'm loving it, the new aspect ratio is by far the favorite feature in the phone, and I was pissed that Samsung out a 3000 mah battery to power such a massive screen, but I'm well surprised by the battery life I'm receiving, I'm getting atleast 2 hrs more of sot than I used to get on the regular S7.

What about you, what are you rocking atm? And how do you like it?

posted on 08 May 2017, 17:19 4

63. trojan_horse (Posts: 3893; Member since: 06 May 2016)


"And most of all Apple did not advertise a higher speed in their advertisements.and not deliver."

Yeah but the fact that the Qualcomm model is capable of higher speeds than what Apple capped it at, shows a false representation of the Qualcomm modem, and it's the reason why Qualcomm sued Apple over it.

posted on 08 May 2017, 17:29

66. LebronJamesFanboy (Posts: 586; Member since: 23 Mar 2013)


That's cool to hear because the Aspect Ratio is my main concern.

Shout out to ordinary for recommending the S7 Edge to me (Exynos Version) because I've been using it like crazy, and still use my Mi Note 2 quite a bit which has also been dope.

What SOT do you average on the S8?

posted on 08 May 2017, 17:35

70. maherk (Posts: 4615; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


Depends whether I spend my day at my business + home where I am on WIFI all the time, or if I'm out where I have no access to WIFI at all.
If I'm at my business and home, I'll easily get 6:30 of sot, but if I'm only using 4G, I'm averaging 4:30 of sot, mind you that I barely get two bars of network signal due to the horrible coverage we get here in Lebanon​.

Any plans to upgrade?

posted on 08 May 2017, 17:56 2

73. Mreveryphone (Posts: 1158; Member since: 22 Apr 2014)


Seriously... Y'all need to man the F up and stop crying about milliseconds that you won't ever experience with the difference of ufs 2.0 v. 2.1... I could see if it was a huge gap like version 1 being used as opposed to version 8 but it's not... Smh... Cry babies...

posted on 08 May 2017, 18:32 5

78. willard12 (Posts: 1966; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)


Cool. Now what about this one, brosephine?

http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-check-if-iphone-6-6-plus-has-mlc-or-tlc-nand-flash-memory-video/

posted on 08 May 2017, 18:44

79. Ninetysix (Posts: 2569; Member since: 08 Oct 2012)


6 != 7

posted on 08 May 2017, 19:40 1

87. cheetah2k (Posts: 1713; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)


Samsung can get Farrrrrked... They've dropped the ball repeatedly in recent times.. #overit

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories