Samsung Galaxy S7 ReviewSamsung Galaxy S7 9
Now that Mobile World Congress 2016 is behind us, it’s almost unanimous what phone came out as the biggest winner of mobile’s biggest show. Samsung’s announcements have always been in grandeur style, almost in excess at times. This same observation got all the more reaffirmed with the introduction of the Samsung Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 edge, which got unveiled to a crowd filled with anticipating journalists, industry experts, analysts, and much more. As before, the former is designed to be Samsung's mainstream flagship offering, and the latter is the more futuristic, curved-screen variation. It is the standard S7 edition that we'll explore in this review.
S5. In particular, the expandable storage and water resistance features were suddenly omitted from the S6’s arsenal.
Always the one to please its fan base, however, Samsung has brought those two features back to the S7 – while subtly refining its design in the process. This is all fine and dandy, especially when it does nothing more than to exemplify the phone’s quantified arsenal. However, since it’s the first major flagship being released this year, it obviously needs to set the bar high. While we came out confident of that realization right after its official announcement, is it really going keep the competition at bay? For at least the first half of the year?
The package contains:
- Samsung Galaxy S7
- Rapid wall charger
- microUSB cable
- SIM ejector tool
- Stereo headphones
- User guide
A design that is both elegant and practical? Sure, it's possible! An enhanced S6 design meets microSD slot and water resistance.
One quick look at the S7, most people not familiar with the new phone might not realize any differences about it. Yes, it’s incredibly well built with its signature glass surfaces and metal trim body – just like the S6 before it. Our particular unit, a gold platinum one, exudes a distinctive gold color that shimmers in the light. However, it’s still a magnet for fingerprints and smudges, so know that you’ll probably need to constantly wipe it clean.
Upon closer inspection, Samsung has made some subtle alterations to the design of the S7 that makes it feel better in the hand – albeit, we wouldn’t go far to proclaim it’s like greatly better. Specifically, the glass surface on the front of the phone slopes downward around the sides to meet with the metal trim bezel, giving it a more seamless finish. Secondly, the S7 also adopts the curved back edges that we were first introduced to with the Note 5. This decision, a logical one at that, allows our hand to wrap a bit more naturally around the back of the phone. All of this, gives the S7 an extremely comfortable feel in the hand.
Looking around the phone, everything from before is in its familiar location. From the power button on the right edge, to the volume controls on the left, and the speaker grill, mic, microUSB port, and 3.5mm headphone jack all positioned on the bottom, nothing is out of order with its placements. The fingerprint sensor, which is incorporated into the home button, is still just as quick and responsive as before. Interestingly, though, the button itself doesn’t protrude as much – it's almost flush with the surface, in fact. Meanwhile, the camera lens on the back is not as protruding as before.
142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9 mm
5.36 oz (152 g)
143.4 x 70.5 x 6.8 mm
4.87 oz (138 g)
149.4 x 73.9 x 7.3 mm
5.61 oz (159 g)
138.3 x 67.1 x 7.1 mm
5.04 oz (143 g)
One key thing to note that’s missing this time is the IR blaster, something that Samsung has decided to scale back with its devices. Say what you will about this decision, it’s something that we’ve been accustomed to seeing in many flagships, so to find it omitted is rather telling about its worth to consumers.
The return of water-resistance & microSD slot
While the changes to the S7’s design might be perceived as subtly refined, there are actually two notable changes that are worth mentioning. First and foremost, the nanoSIM slot on the top edge of the phone now doubles as a microSD slot as well, bringing back expandable storage to Sammy’s flagship. Another feature that went missing with last year’s S6, a water-resistant construction, makes its comeback in a stunning fashion.
With its IP68 rating, the Galaxy S7 ups its game by fashioning a water resistant construction to a premium looking smartphone. This means that it can be submerged in up to 5 feet of water for 30 minutes with no compromise, ensuring that minor accidents, such as spills, will no longer be of concern to this prized handset. Best of all, there’s no worry about having to close up ports and such, much like what you have to do with many of Sony’s Xperia phones, seeing that it’s been treated for water resistance.
Not only does the S7 look stunning and feel incredible in the hand, but the reintroduction of a water resistant package just completes its no-compromise stature. Many phones have impressive designs, but few go to the same length as to what Samsung achieves with the S7.
Even with a couple of minor hiccups, it’s still one of the better looking screens out there.
By now, we’re accustomed to Samsung’s expertise when it comes to displays. Each successive device thus far has been equipped with a better display. For the S7, they’ve stuck to the same recipe, featuring a 5.1-inch 1440 x 2560 Super AMOLED display. Details are superb, thanks to its incredibly high resolution, resulting in a pixel density of 576 ppi.
Color temperature appears to be just a tad higher than before, at around 6850K, which might actually help with the screen not looking as greenish as before. Another surprise relates to its luminance, which peaks out at a lower 484 nits this time around – versus the brighter 563 nit luminance produced by the S6’s screen.
The S7’s screen looks mighty impressive to the eye, and even though some of the qualities we've measured might indicate just a slight dip from before, they’re not deal breakers in any sort of way.
Display measurements and quality
|Maximum brightness (nits)Higher is better||Minimum brightness (nits)Lower is better||Contrast Higher is better||Color temperature (Kelvins)||Gamma||Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better||Delta E grayscale Lower is better|
|Samsung Galaxy S6||563
|Apple iPhone 6s||554
|Samsung Galaxy S7||484
The numbers below represent the amount of deviation in the respective property, observed when a display is viewed from a 45-degree angle as opposed to direct viewing.
|Maximum brightness Lower is better||Minimum brightness Lower is better||Contrast Lower is better||Color temperature Lower is better||Gamma Lower is better||Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better||Delta E grayscale Lower is better|
|Samsung Galaxy S7||55.2%
|Samsung Galaxy S6||56.1%
|Apple iPhone 6s||82.9%
The CIE 1931 xy color gamut chart represents the set (area) of colors that a display can reproduce, with the sRGB colorspace (the highlighted triangle) serving as reference. The chart also provides a visual representation of a display's color accuracy. The small squares across the boundaries of the triangle are the reference points for the various colors, while the small dots are the actual measurements. Ideally, each dot should be positioned on top of its respective square. The 'x: CIE31' and 'y: CIE31' values in the table below the chart indicate the position of each measurement on the chart. 'Y' shows the luminance (in nits) of each measured color, while 'Target Y' is the desired luminance level for that color. Finally, 'ΔE 2000' is the Delta E value of the measured color. Delta E values of below 2 are ideal.
This measurements are made using SpectraCal's CalMAN calibration software.
The Color accuracy chart gives an idea of how close a display's measured colors are to their referential values. The first line holds the measured (actual) colors, while the second line holds the reference (target) colors. The closer the actual colors are to the target ones, the better.
This measurements are made using SpectraCal's CalMAN calibration software.
The Grayscale accuracy chart shows whether a display has a correct white balance (balance between red, green and blue) across different levels of grey (from dark to bright). The closer the Actual colors are to the Target ones, the better.
This measurements are made using SpectraCal's CalMAN calibration software.
22. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)
PA so S7 got only 9 ???? so still is worse than iphone 6s right which has 9.3 ??
36. uggman (Posts: 56; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
0.3 is not that much, besides this site uses critics, some of them like apple products, the video review for the iphone 6S was 15 minutes long, for the GS7 only 6 min, that should pretty much paint the image.
41. SayMobile (Posts: 91; Member since: 29 Jan 2014)
No way can it get less points than the S6 , you have most definately made a mistake here PA., 9 is totally unacceptable ,considering the praises and rave reviews the S7's been getting from all over .
57. MaryPoopins (Posts: 133; Member since: 15 Jan 2015)
It's a John V review of an android phone. Be thankful it's a 9 and didn't start with an 8 :D
59. mrochester (Posts: 521; Member since: 17 Aug 2014)
Of course. The S7 has Android, so it loses points for that. If the S7 had iOS, it would score much higher.
Imagine an S7 with iOS?! Talk about a geeks ultimate wet dream!
63. flavius22 (Posts: 121; Member since: 23 Aug 2015)
Jay-sus man, iphone is one and a half year old, the score was given when it was reviewed, this would be like 19 if they would keep adding
5. nebula (Posts: 473; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)
Dear PA do something about camera gallery it's terribly slow to upload images and I have like 100Mb/s fast broadband. Other than that you are great guys!
9. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3605; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
Technically, 100mbps is a bogus 99% of all time!
23. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)
it is because they uploading unnecessary too high quality pictures which has 5-10MB .. pointless.. I would be happy with 2 to 3MB pictures
39. nebula (Posts: 473; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)
True, because given size they provide to view onnthe gallery there is no absolutly no gain . Full size image cold be provided optionally though.
53. ibend (Posts: 3167; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)
they upload image straight from S7 (I've just checked EXIF of that image)..
agree that they should resize it to 2-3MB, and store real image somewhere else just in case someone want to visit it
6. johanbiff (Posts: 387; Member since: 31 Mar 2015)
and this is why im really lucky to get the exynos version of this phone! crappy browser speeds compaird to 8890 and crappy battery life!
7. der_damo (Posts: 159; Member since: 16 Sep 2014)
Why is battery not a minus if it's worse than the last two phones?
40. XaErO (Posts: 296; Member since: 25 Sep 2012)
@PA : I think; something terribly may have gone wrong with the battery test .. or may be you can try different carrier branded S7 ..
51. bur60 (Posts: 821; Member since: 07 Jul 2014)
Only PA has this battery score... other (very reliable reviewers) get more than 9hours of SOT on the screentest
8. johanbiff (Posts: 387; Member since: 31 Mar 2015)
oh, and phone arena still can`t do benchmarks..could of atleast updated the friggin antutu scores for the older phones
10. shnibz (Posts: 275; Member since: 18 Sep 2011)
After 5 days with mine, I'd give it a 9.7 it's seriously almost perfect IMO. My previous G4 seems like such junk and like a very poorly thought out design compared to the S7. Also with the same size battery the S7 lasts MUCH longer with the same amount of usage.
68. john_abraham (Posts: 1; Member since: 14 Mar 2016)
good to hear that, are you using s7 or s7 edge ?
14. pooma (Posts: 58; Member since: 01 Oct 2015)
OMG, PA u guys r crazy fast to review the phone, i was expecting review of s7 in near future but not this much fast, BTW pleasant surprise..
15. Shocky (Posts: 2068; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Don't think I'll bother with the Galaxy S7, fair rating imo.
It's just a refined Galaxy S6 and I'm not convinced Exynos is best option this year.
16. rd_nest (Posts: 1578; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)
Qualcomm batterylife doesn't look promising.
Head over to Anandtech to check more detailed review.
24. Shocky (Posts: 2068; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Yeah, looks we have a sprinter (Snapdragon 820) and the long distance runner (Exynos 8890).
Looks like Qualcomm messed up again, but it might be due to something Samsung have done, we will have confirmation soon enough.
25. uzimafioso (Posts: 190; Member since: 15 Jul 2014)
No. If you actually want to benchmark Qualcomm's battery with Exynos or A9 just get 3 1080p stock Android phones with the same battery capacity. You can't, but this isn't too bad. Maybe PA's battery tool needs to be updated or maybe it's Marshmallow+Touchwiz needing work. Wait for HTC and Motorola to equip 820s. LG and Samsung are bloated and PA is using Verizon...
28. Shocky (Posts: 2068; Member since: 16 May 2012)
We don't need to wait that long, if both versions of the Galaxy S7 have the same issues with battery life it's Samsung's fault, if it's just Snapdragon 820 with issues it's Qualcomm's.
35. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 1932; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)
At least in Anandtech battery life test the S7 does better than the S6 and the S7 edge does better than the 6s plus which is what you would expect from a new samsung device.
Pa needs a new battery test.
17. GreenMan (Posts: 754; Member since: 09 Nov 2015)
A score of 9...???
Clever, VERY clever move, lads...!
Even if a Samsung Phone deserves a 5, give it a 9 cause otherwise, you won't be able to withstand the overwhelming stomping, whining and "buzz" from "sMoths"!
Anyways, my personal unbiased opinion about this flagship is that... Well, I quite like it myself...! The first Samsung Android Phone in year that I find interesting and appealing...!!! And that's coming from a die-hard Nexus user and an Android Purist...
50. EcoCare (Posts: 354; Member since: 30 Jul 2014)
I believe this deserves more than 9, it has everything both average and power users want (except removable battery). Everything else is perfect.
52. B4Real (unregistered)
And ir blaster.
18. saif2711 (Posts: 69; Member since: 22 Feb 2016)
9 is too low for very high end device like s7..atleast 9.2 was expected
19. dimas (Posts: 1810; Member since: 22 Jul 2014)
That battery life benchmark, I don't believe that. Note 5 got 3000mah but have insane duration. Better to get second, third and fourth opinions from other reviewers in the future since I'm expecting more on s7 edge's 3600mah battery.
20. biboo (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)
How musc samsung payed do give this high rate?? The touchwiz will deduct 3 or more from the rating
21. Lauticol (Posts: 312; Member since: 25 Jun 2011)
PA's battery reviews are crap anyways. Any of my phones could achieve the SOT they said. HTC M7, LG G2, Moto G3, Note 4.
27. oozz009 (Posts: 463; Member since: 22 Jun 2015)
Wait what!! Are my eyes deceiving me somehow?? Since when does the iPhone 6s have a better battery than the Galaxy s6 and s7. I thought it was Samsung who laughed at Apple users who being wall hugs users and not the other way around:D
In any case, can someone please confirm me that this is true because I'm having trouble to believe it!!
54. ibend (Posts: 3167; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)
as everyone already said...
please visit anandtech for more legit battery bench
29. androidwindows (Posts: 184; Member since: 04 Oct 2014)
iphone 7 review by John V
61. bucky (Posts: 2444; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
I would honestly do that just to piss you guys off.
30. mayur007 (Posts: 562; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
what about the tv-out?
is that by MHL or something else
32. Tomgabriele (Posts: 22; Member since: 25 Feb 2016)
Is there any insight as to why a much larger battery wouldn't last as long? Especially when the SD820 is supposed to be more power efficient
33. Clars123 (Posts: 555; Member since: 16 Mar 2015)
PA's crap battery life test?.take it from someone who actually has an S7 edge
34. Sondae (Posts: 277; Member since: 02 Jan 2013)
Waoh! the photos looks good and crisp. I sure like to have this phone. Seriously P.A. give it a 9?.
37. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 1932; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)
Everyone needs to see this. No offense to PA but they run a lot more test.
38. INCOMPARABLE (Posts: 33; Member since: 05 Mar 2014)
Ray S going hard on reviews...
John V Good Job
44. lpratas (Posts: 235; Member since: 09 Nov 2011)
When the reviews of Samsung flagships are made by John V are always shiity. He has always scored and reviewed the Samsung flaghips with a inferior remark to the Apple phones. I don't know what this guy has against the Samsung phones and brand, maybe he is of any asiatic country origin that have some or much contempt and repugnance for Korea and their products, because he also gives to the LG flaghips inferior scores, or then he has become so pro american than only sees in his front Apple phones.
45. lpratas (Posts: 235; Member since: 09 Nov 2011)
John Velasco you seem philippine, it's only you or in your country oringin don't appreciate South Koreans and their products?
46. BradyCrack (Posts: 434; Member since: 29 Dec 2015)
This is terrible. People make these reviews with a lot of effort, and people scream at them, chucking them away as lies and biased. All I see is a bunch of butt hurt children.
48. ben10man (Posts: 7; Member since: 31 Mar 2014)
Phonearena: Battery life endurance test on the Galaxy S7 = 6 hrs 37 mins?
Blame Qualcomm's Snapdragon 820 for eating up so much battery life!
Bet the international model of the Galaxy S7 w/ Exynos 8 Octa is more power-efficient than Qualcomms offering!
56. paralepiped (Posts: 13; Member since: 16 Dec 2015)
It turns out that GS7 is worse than GS6 if we consider PhoneArena's rating (9.0 vs 9.3)??? Еspecially, I noticed their conclusion about the GS7's battery life which is in a total contradiction with other reviews e.g. CNET.
62. bucky (Posts: 2444; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
you are looking at this the wrong way. The phone is rated based off of today's current crop of phones. Its been a year of improvements from all manufacturers that has raised the bar for scores as it does every year.
58. benmoran (Posts: 4; Member since: 18 Feb 2016)
That battery life thing is a bit saddening but then this is after intense use right? But hopefully they'd make these phones to last longer than this.