Black Samsung Galaxy F captured in the wild

2. ArtSim98 (Posts: 3535; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)

I believe 4 is maximum on 32 bit? At least on Windows. I dunno.

17. TechFreak123 (Posts: 85; Member since: 25 Feb 2014)

Android L supports 64 bit so they can use 64-bit chip...

19. CoastCity (Posts: 257; Member since: 07 Mar 2014)

Photos show two different designs, one with curved down side and one with strait (asymmetric). That button in the photo of the symmetric one, spoils the phone's curvage. Looks better on that rendering. I don't like the brushed gold though, I'd like it satin gold.

21. CoastCity (Posts: 257; Member since: 07 Mar 2014)

*straight

22. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4275; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)

Maximum addressable memory while running in 32 bit is about 3.5 GB. They could put 4 GB in the Galaxy F without a 64 bit chip and Android L, but about 512 MB of it would be unavailable for use.

They could put in a 64 bit chip and 4 GB of RAM, and then once the Android L update comes out consumers could finally use that extra 512 MB. It's the ultimate marketing plot, "This update will give your Galaxy F more RAM!"

23. Aploine (Posts: 437; Member since: 24 Oct 2013)

Thanx for that. 512mb look so small to market it. Imho the ultimate plot is that they charge more than $50 for the extra 16gb (from 16 to 32 I mean).

25. Cicero (Posts: 923; Member since: 22 Jan 2014)

Apple charge $100. Better?

5. ArtSim98 (Posts: 3535; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)

Because it's a lazily made render.

10. Chris.P (Posts: 567; Member since: 27 Jun 2013)

Believe it's a sought-after effect. Who knows.

20. CoastCity (Posts: 257; Member since: 07 Mar 2014)

It's a raster kind of graphic effect. You almost can't see pixels in real life displays like this one with 1440 x 2560 resolution. How could you on an image 700 x 500px?

24. bparkerson (unregistered)

That would depend on the display you are actually viewing from not from the display in the picture. Besides, I think what we are looking at is a photoshopped picture and not the actual display...that's what it looks like to me.

6. zuckerboy (banned) (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)

whut ? it is like s5 no difference

8. Bjray (Posts: 187; Member since: 29 May 2014)

Oh really... i.imgur.com/XnJple8.jpg (9th image)

9. tech2 (Posts: 3487; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)

Look at the pics closely. The devil is in the detail. I personally see a lot of difference.

Also, if you're expecting a complete overhaul then that's not going to happen. You just don't outright change the design of a multi-million flagship product which people have grown use to.

None of the OEMs ever radically change their design language may it be Z2 from Z1, M8 from M7, iPhone 6 from iPhone 5s, etc.

11. nctx77 (Posts: 2374; Member since: 03 Sep 2013)

Meh! It pretty much looks like an S5. The only difference is a metal ring lol! Your basically getting exited about a metal ring. The specs are hardly better than a note 3.

14. tech2 (Posts: 3487; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)

Not 'your' its You're.

Lets look at the phone's design a bit more sensibly:

1. No perforated back. This back looks really nice. Not very glossy but not exactly matt either.

2. The metal ring is less accentuated. Also, it is much more darker and smoother unlike the patterned ring on GS5.

3. The phone's speaker is placed down below near the charging port unlike on the back on GS5 which is a big welcome change.

4. The bezels are incredibly small.

On the hardware front,

1. Mostly likely at least SD 805 or a better Exynos

2. QHD, QHD and QHD

3. 3GB Ram.

So yeah, its way better then Note 3. Not to mention the Note series and Galaxy S series are both targeted at different audience. So comparing them is really stupid.