x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close






Apple iPhone 4S vs Motorola DROID BIONIC vs Samsung Galaxy S II T-Mobile

0. phoneArena 27 Oct 2011, 09:44 posted on

All launched relatively close to one another, the Motorola DROID BIONIC, Samsung Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, and Apple iPhone 4S are all vying for supremacy in being proclaimed as the best of the best. We’ve all waited long enough this year to finally see these quality smartphones, so which one will ultimately outgun the rest in finding itself home in your hands?...

This is a discussion for a review. To read the whole review, click here

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:26 1

15. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


the Bionic isn't THAT inferior to the Razr. it's still a very nice phone and is clearly proven to be better than the phones it's compared to here. the only thing the other Galaxy S IIs have over the Bionic is Exynos without that the Bionic would eat them alive with it's OMAP4 and LTE support like you saw happen here with T-Mobile's Galaxy S II which made that a reality and sacrificed power for data speed which is unwise to do against the Droid Bionic being that it's the most rounded in terms of power and data speed.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:31

18. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


oh and SA+ is good too, it's a trade off for qHD but i think we all like SA+ better.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 12:29 2

39. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


What I'm trying to say is that they're comparing the T-mobile version of the SGS2. It isn't a bad phone but it is not the best variation of the SGS2. The verizon and AT&T versions have better processors. And that is the base of every phone. That way, remove the LTE and the SGS2 will eat the bionic alive. Besides, though LTE is fast, it's still just in it's infancy. The drawback of poor battery life is just too big of a con. The exynos versions of the SGS2 have better battery life than the Tmobile version.

the bionic isn't the most rounded in terms. LEt's see.

Design: bionic:6 SGS2:9
interface: bionic:9 SGS2:8
camera: bionic:6 SGS2:8
Processor: bionic:8 SGS2(exynos):9
Battery life: bionic:6 SGS2: 8
Web-browser: bionic:9 SGS2:8
Screen: bionic: 5 SGS2:9
All the binoic has is 4G. Other than that, it is an inferior phone in every aspect. The interface changes are minimal and can't be exaggerated .

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 12:55

47. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


well when actually pitting the Sprint or AT&T versions of the Galaxy S II against the Droid Bionic having to face the trade-offs between the more powerful Exynos Processor in the Galaxy S II and LTE in the Bionic is an inevitability however the reason why i say the Bionic is the most well rounded is because it has an OMAP4 with LTE. the OMAP4 is the next best processor you can get in a phone and for those who don't necessarily need the most power but needs a great deal of it will find it in an OMAP4 powered phone and then having LTE is a great trade-off for the additional power that you miss out on by not having Exynos. well yeah LTE is still pretty new but everything has got to be new at some point and even now in it's "infancy" it's still pretty fucking great. battery life with LTE isn't as bad on the Bionic as HSPA+ 42mbps is on the T-Mobile Galaxy S II is and the Bionic doesn't even have the lower resolution, more power efficient SA+ screen the Galaxy S II uses. it's a trade-off for having greater data speeds.

where the hell are you getting those numbers? xD
that probably sums it up when comparing an Epic 4G Touch to the Droid Bionic but remember i said the most rounded in terms of power and data. maybe you got too swept away in trying to battle my logic that you forgot what i said?

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 14:12

60. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


I'm not trying to battle your logic. All I'm saying is that the bionic has nothing other than 4G data speeds on its hand. Its higher resolution is still crappy because of the pentile matrix making it's actual ppi way lower than what you'd expect. Battry life was only 10 hours...in my eyes, that's pretty bad.

I don't think the bionic is a worthy buy also because of the droid razr upping it so fast. No matter what you say, the SGS2 is the better phone. it reaches high enough speeds without sacrificing battery life and also has a great camera and a screen. The droid bionics screen doesn't even come close, the camera is worse than my x10 mini and its battery life is pure bulls**t.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 15:35 1

71. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


dude..it's definitely better than T-Mobile's Galaxy S II. don't you know anything about how different Qualcomm S3s are from OMAPs? the Galaxy S II for T-Mobile has a PROJECTED 11 hours. it 1-UP'd the Bionic which has a higher resolution, less energy efficient screen by an hour. that's so much better huh? the Bionic isn't a worthy buy on Verizon right now but it's a better buy than the iPhone 4S and T-Mobile's Galaxy S II that's the point. they share the same price range now. HSPA+ 42mbps isn't quite as good as LTE and it eats battery just like any LTE device. the camera is better but that doesn't break the lead the Bionic has in more important things like speed and power.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 03:11

89. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


HSPA+ doesn't eat up battery like LTE. LTE is known to suck all the battery life from a smartphone. You seem to be blinded by your favoritism for motorola. For the hundredth time, the bionic only has LTE on its plate. It's camera is inferior, its battery life is inferior, its screen is inferor and its processor is inferior. It also has signal strength issues. The SGS2's browser is just as good if not better because it can even run 1080p youtube videos with ease. 4G is the only thing it's missing.

What I don't understand is why they took the T-mobile variant when they could have taken the verizon variant. This in itself shows that they didn't want to show the bionic in bad light. And this review is a bit biased.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 06:41

90. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


*At&t, not verizon

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 10:35

92. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


yes it does. look at any T-Mobile Galaxy S II or Amaze 4G review. everybody is raging about the battery life. there's a difference in having that 42mbps. Camera is better on the Galaxy S II, the Displays have trade-offs so that's a matter of opinion, the battery life is NOT inferior. i don't even think you know what you're talking about with the battery life. i think you're just going on the fact that LTE devices are known for sucking battery and they are but HSPA+ 42mbps devices are following right in their footsteps. the OMAP4 processor in the Bionic is better than the S3 the T-Mobile version uses. remember this comparison was made between the Bionic and the T-Mobile version. you act like the T-Mobile version is the red-headed stepchild or something. that's the only version i'm saying the Bionic kills. the AT&T and Sprint versions put up more of a fight but that's only because of Exynos. that's the only different factor between the T-Mobile version and the others. the Bionic is made by Motorola and Motorola always has the best sound quality and the best radios. you seemed to have conveniently forgot about that in the comparison. the Bionic can run 1080p Youtube videos with ease too. just how much powerful do you think the Galaxy S II is over the Bionic? not that much.

okay, tell me what the difference is between the AT&T version and the T-Mobile version is again? oh that's right, Exynos. that proves my point that without that the Galaxy S II can fall to the Droid Bionic just like it did here.

biased? Phone Arena loves the Galaxy S II as much as any of us. they compared the Bionic and the T-Mobile Galaxy S II because they're the most similar. Samsung and T-Mobile wanted to deliver superior data speeds with 42mbps on a Galaxy S II, naturally that put it in a position to where it'll be pitted against the Droid Bionic being that it's the most poweful LTE phone availiable but the combination of the OMAP4 and LTE simply can't be beat by anything striving for better data speeds in this generation other than a better OMAP4 with LTE like what's in the Galaxy Nexus and the Droid Razr or if Samsung somehow gets an Exynos working with LTE.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 11:44

93. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


You talk about how the the Galaxy S2 falls without the Exynos in it. But you forget that the bionic falls without the 4G in it. If you remove 4G out of the equation, then the bionic is quite useless against the others. And haven you heard about the complaints of funny noises made by the bionic. I'm not going to fight with a person who will support a phone just because they have it and don't want to feel like it was a waste of money. So have fun with your bionic.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 12:33

94. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


yeah, that's not the case here though. xD
there's no Bionic without 4G unless you count the Droid 3 but this isn't the Droid 3 vs the T-Mobile Galaxy S II is it? it's the Droid Bionic vs. the T-Mobile Galaxy S II and 4G LTE is a factor. if this was the Epic 4G Touch vs. the Droid Bionic then i'd say there's trade-offs but it's not. it's the Droid Bionic vs. the T-Mobile Galaxy S II and Phone Arena and I are saying the Droid Bionic is better. i'm not biased at all, i just set priorities spec wise and the Bionic meets those better. i don't have any complaints about funny noises with my Bionic and don't pull out the bugs because the Galaxy S II series has a history of bugs as well.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 13:43

95. AKm007 (Posts: 108; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


Okay, i have to answer this. This is just sad. What I'm trying to say is "Why didn't they take the At&t version or the epic touch? It's not like the T-mobile ersion and the bionic were both from the same carrier. This makes no sense becuase they took motorola's finest, apple's finest and then left samsung with the T-mobile disappointment. And you said that the SGS2 without exynos is nothing. I say that the bionic without its 4G is nothing. And if you'll see, even without the exynos, the SGS2 is better in every way except data speeds. If the bionic loses its 4G capabilities, its becomes last year's crapola.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 14:16

98. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


of course you'll answer. you're not going to let it go. xD
i explained that to you Samsung took the route Motorola did in trying to balence power and data so naturally we'll see how their "well rounded" creations stack up. yeah so? we're not comparing a 4G-less Bionic. why are you trying to handicap the Bionic for no reason? since Exynos was replaced with an S3 the Bionic would also be more powerful. more power, more speed, more reliable. sounds like a winner to me. i was only talking about this comparison from the get go. if you disagree with a point i made about this comparison please let it be known but if you're going to insist on making this about the AT&T or Sprint Galaxy S II ask Phone Arena to do a comparison between one of them and the Bionic and we'll see what they think and we can discuss it there.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 15:20

101. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


my guess was so they would have a phone per carrier.. but sprint is missing from the list. the Tmobile SGS2 is definately the weakest version, they should have used the sprint version.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 10:25 1

6. doubler86 (Posts: 320; Member since: 26 Jan 2011)


Great review, pretty overall fair. The only thing I would say is I agree with most of the reviews that have actually labels the Galaxy S II camera better than the iPhone 4S's camera. In this review it goes on about how the details are better on the iPhone's camera when it was the only one that couldn't capture the flame on the candle, while the flame is clear and defined on the Galaxy S II.

As much hype as the iPhone 4S camera has gotten when compared side by side, the Galaxy S II has been the better of the two. (even with the T-Mobile version lol)

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 10:27 1

8. zhieson (Posts: 10; Member since: 21 Jun 2011)


I think he means future proof in terms of features and compared to the other two. Nothing of the Bionic will be phased out anytime soon. Sure, the new phones will be faster but they won't offer anything significant in terms of usability.

Having Dual-core, LTE, and all the standard high end features makes it somewhat future proof OF THE THREE PHONES.

But the Nexus Prime/RAZR are definitely worth waiting for at this point.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 10:31 2

9. DROIDX0430 (Posts: 468; Member since: 24 Nov 2010)


Not a fair comparison---Bionic and GSII are much more superior in all aspects of performance--- offering LTE-- vice 3g, 1GB of RAM, vice 512mb; 1.0-1.2 dual core, vice dual core 800 mhz; 4.3 or bigger screen--vice 3.7 display and the list can continue, but I will stop there... Comparison should have been Iphone4s to Droid 1 and even at that comparison the iphone4s would have a hard time competing....

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:35 2

20. HTCiscool (Posts: 449; Member since: 16 Jul 2011)


Even though the droids have more RAM, multitasking is much smoother on the 4S. And the 800MHz processor on the 4S is more powerful than the Exynos SoC and the OMAP4.

You have a point with the screen though, 3.5 inches now is too small.

You're definitely right about LTE however.

Instead of having a war about which one IS best, just wait for the Galaxy Nexus or Droid Razr.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:43 2

22. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


Multitasking on the iPhone is no where near to the extent that it is on a true Multitasking platform like Android has been since the very beginning.

it's definitely more powerful than the OMAP4 but the differences between the A5 and the Exynos are so minimal being that they're pretty much the same thing that i'm sure the extra MHz that the all the different versions of Exynos has can offset the A5. you can't really get a good comparison unless you were comparing Apples to Apples or Oranges to Oranges.

damn straight! xD

yeah. those are the true Goliaths.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 12:27

36. Snapdude (Posts: 128; Member since: 27 Aug 2009)


the a5 is on par with the omap 4460 soc but does trail behind exynos and the upcoming omap 4470 (which is already in final testing).please check facts before saying such things

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 12:45

46. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


me? check facts? oh that's right. you probably don't know. i'm Thump3r. i check my facts bro. xD
the A5 is most certainly better than the OMAP4430 and the 4460, the 4470 however might be on par. don't you know anything about the A5's GPU? it uses an PowerVR SGX543(MP2). the 4430 uses an SGX540 and the 4460 right after that uses a higher clocked SGX540, the OMAP4470 has the same thing the 4460 does but with a dedicated 2D Graphics Core. the Galaxy S II uses an ARM Mali-400 which i know the least about but i know it's still not quite as good as the A5's SGX543(MP2).

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 15:11

68. Snapdude (Posts: 128; Member since: 27 Aug 2009)


not talking about the gpu, the 4460 cpu is on par with a5 raw I/O processing power

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 15:38

72. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


that's irrelevant.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 15:26

102. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


The A5 and the Exynos are twin chips. The only real difference between them is GPU. The A5 uses a much stronger GPU than the exynos. The A5 is severely underclocked because as a platform iOS is much less processor intensive and doesnt need the increased horsepower. The GPU is much stronger to make up for it while its playing games and such.

It is still apples to oranges though, as to properly test them against each other, they would need to be running the same OS to keep all things equal.
On the Android side of the fence however, Exynos is king in nearly every category.

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 16:42 1

107. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


mmhmm, mmhmm! >:D
King and remixfa know what they're talking about broskiii!

posted on 28 Oct 2011, 18:05 1

109. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


lol.. you know it KK :)

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 14:47 2

62. Ivan6479 (Posts: 250; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)


Say what? Multitasking doesn't even exist on the iPhone!

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:02 2

12. Johnny_Mnemonic (Posts: 240; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)


I totally agree with this answer. ( the iPhone 4S, it isn’t necessarily classified as a next-generation iPhone, since it’s nothing more than an incremental upgrade. )

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:28

16. KingKurogiii (Posts: 5711; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


it's the choice you have for this year so if Apple didn't do enough to compete that's their problem because sadly it's going to compete with phones like this and be knocked down by phones like this all. year. long.

posted on 27 Oct 2011, 11:30 1

17. GALAXY-S (Posts: 701; Member since: 07 Jun 2011)


"Even though it’s sporting a rehashed design, the Apple iPhone 4S is clearly the more premium looking and feeling handset out of the bunch "

"Of course, it shines brightly in the dark, but in reality, the Retina Display of the iPhone 4S produces the most accurate looking colors "

"Also, the clearly defined dedicated power button of the iPhone 4S is by far the most distinguishable and responsive out of the three devices"

"Without a doubt though, the iPhone 4S provides us with the most responsive performance "

"Clearly, the beauty about the iOS 5 experience found on the iPhone 4S is the fact that it’s simplistic, uncomplicated, and absolutely responsive. "

"Even though the iPhone 4S continues to excel in offering us a sensual web browsing experience, which has been a staple since the first iPhone,"

"Ultimately, we have to give the slight edge to the iPhone 4S with its f2.4 lens, which allows it to excel in low lighting situations"

"However, we still have to hand it to the iPhone 4S in the end with its sparkling high quality and crystal-clear audio recording"

"Previously, when an app was made available for iOS and Android, the iOS version of the app generally received more love with their polished form."


this was the worst review i have read here!!
.. Iphonearena indeed!!

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories