x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.

Samsung Galaxy Grand Neo Review

Posted: , by Daniel P.

Tags:

Go to page

Samsung Galaxy Grand Neo Review
Samsung Galaxy Grand Neo Review
Call quality

Call quality is slightly above average, both in the earpiece, and via the single microphone

The earpiece of the Grand Neo is pretty good in terms of strength, and we even had to tone it down a few notches. Call quality doesn't have annoying hissing or distortions, and is of about average clarity and fullness. The handset's microphone picked our voice well, relaying it loud and clear to the other side. There is no second mic for active noise cancellation, so the other end should be prepped for some background noise in louder environments.

Battery

Low-res screen and basic processor should result in a lasting handset

Grand Neo arrives with a 2100 mAh battery that Samsung quotes to be good for up to 11 hours of talk time in 3G mode, 10 hours of browsing via Wi-Fi, and 8 hours of video playback, which are pretty good numbers. With that screen resolution and processor, the Neo might turn out to be an endurance champ, but we'll wait for our battery tests to give you the full picture.

Conclusion


Galaxy Grand Neo seems a bit of an odd bird, giving in on specs even compared to last year's Galaxy Grand, let alone to the newer Grand 2. The only advantage it holds before the Grand, for instance, is the quad-core versus dual-core processor, if that can be called an advantage at all.

Its specs are pretty basic, and the pixel density so low, that in order to appeal to big-screen lovers, the Galaxy Grand Neo has to muster up an enticing price. However, the suggested retail tag is a tad under 300 USD or EUR, and that's where it clashes with more capable handsets for the price.

For the same price you can get the 5” Alcatel OneTouch Idol X, which flaunts a 1080p display and 13 MP camera in a much slimmer, lighter package. The LG L9 II also deserves your attention, as it goes for less than the Grand Neo, and offers a 4.7” HD display, and 1080p video recording in a very compact chassis. If you don't mind a smaller, 4.5” screen, you can save a hundred, and give the Moto G a chance, as it sports higher pixel density, and is already on Android KitKat.

Software version: JDQ39.I9060XXUANA2


Pros

  • Good still photos
  • Decent call quality
  • Easy access to the battery, SIM and memory cards

Cons

  • Too low screen pixel density
  • Relatively chubby and heavy chassis
  • Video recording in 720p only
  • There are much better handsets for the money now
PhoneArena rating:
5
User rating:
8.8 5 Reviews
Pages:

12 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 20 Feb 2014, 05:39

1. PorkyBurger (Posts: 230; Member since: 18 May 2013)


LOL, I would give it 4/10 if I could. This device is just so dissapointing like most of the Samsung lower-end products are. OG Grand was an OK device, but why they made it even worse, like I doubt the pricing of this device could go lower than first-gen Grand. (o.x)

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 06:38 3

5. nokia12 (Posts: 325; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)


i would give this device
"Not Fit for rating"

lol...

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 05:40 4

2. X.E.R.O. (unregistered)


Score should be lower, I don't even know why Samsung bothered to make this.

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 06:10 1

3. hafini_27 (Posts: 254; Member since: 31 Oct 2013)


Sámung seriously need to stop flooding the market.

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 06:20 3

4. Martin_Cooper (Posts: 459; Member since: 30 Jul 2013)


No cause that strategy gave them the 80% market share of android. Flooding the market with so many models that in most cases a user will most probably buy a samsung since there is one for every price. They might be s**t but still when you go to a store half of the models will be samsung, that gives them high probability of being sold than other brand. Samsung is all about quantity over quality.

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 09:17

6. newbey123 (Posts: 431; Member since: 19 Mar 2012)


Samsung products I find to be the lowest quality, but people blindly buy them just becaus they are everywhere, kind of like Toyotas.

posted on 21 Feb 2014, 02:06

11. cripton805 (Posts: 943; Member since: 18 Mar 2012)


My toyota has been extremely reliable and their reliability ratings have been the best... Before you try to use an analogy. Please do a little research.

What's high quality to you? BMW, Ford, Kia? Which one of your cars have failed and what failed? People tend to over react over a busted radiator or worn out brake pads.

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 11:56

7. rajasasuke (Posts: 17; Member since: 19 Feb 2014)


samsung only cares about high end flagship

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 19:12

8. Bioload25 (Posts: 210; Member since: 12 Nov 2012)


And what about the "brand new" Galaxy Xyz.5 Grand Big Neo Lime White SD 100000 10G edition?

posted on 20 Feb 2014, 21:34 1

9. najib1312 (Posts: 102; Member since: 08 May 2013)


5/10 for this pointless device and 2/10 for Jolla which atleast offers a truly unique experience to users??

Seriously, give me one good reason why people should buy this phone?

posted on 21 Feb 2014, 01:59

10. cripton805 (Posts: 943; Member since: 18 Mar 2012)


Looking at the specs, how did the Lumia 525 get a 7.8???
I mean seriously, even THIS is better than a 525, yet this got a far lower score... The price doesnt justify losing by a 2.8 points...

They compared the lumia to a moto g, but compared this to an s4... logic...

posted on 25 Feb 2014, 01:26

12. screenprotector (Posts: 4; Member since: 25 Feb 2014)


The best screen protector Glass reinforced technology: using imported glass material, specially on the original glass hardness resistance to scratching by strengthening processing, at an astonishing 9 h hardness, can effectively prevent the paster scratched for a long time, and has high light transmittance.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Display5.0 inches, 480 x 800 pixels (186 ppi) TFT
Camera5 megapixels
Hardware
Broadcom BCM23550, Quad core, 1200 MHz, Cortex-A7 processor
1024 MB RAM
Size5.66 x 3.04 x 0.38 inches
(143.7 x 77.1 x 9.6 mm)
5.75 oz  (163 g)

Latest stories