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.

Now that Sammy has corrected its marketing and you know what's going on with the flagship duo, we can all sleep soundly and hope we don't get any "hardware lotteries" like Huawei and Samsung's in the near future.

ALSO READ


source: XDA Developers

Related phones

Galaxy S8
  • Display 5.8" 1440 x 2960 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 8 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, Octa-core, 2350 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB + microSDXC
  • Battery 3000 mAh
Galaxy S8+
  • Display 6.2" 1440 x 2960 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 8 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, Octa-core, 2450 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB + microSDXC
  • Battery 3500 mAh(24h 3G talk time)

FEATURED VIDEO

128 Comments

1. bucknassty

Posts: 1189; Member since: Mar 24, 2017

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

4. kiko007

Posts: 7379; Member since: Feb 17, 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?

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?

9. LebronJamesFanboy

Posts: 671; Member since: Mar 23, 2013

It's 100% unacceptable given the price point. Any person who tries to defend them here is a blind fanboy.

17. Finalflash

Posts: 4049; Member since: Jul 23, 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.

23. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 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.

28. kiko007

Posts: 7379; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

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

124. Macready

Posts: 1786; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

No, this depends on the implementation. If you use several smaller modules to get to the higher capacity, then yes, the phone with the larger capacity will end up with more lanes and more speed. But this isn't true for all phones with varying capacities.

39. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 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

42. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

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

53. toukale

Posts: 588; Member since: Jun 10, 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.

63. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 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.

96. Leo_MC

Posts: 5879; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Has Apple advertised the QC modem? I don't think so, Apple has said the iPhone is capable of that speed. Period. Do you know, without using the web, who has build the 3rd mic on your phone? I don't think so and you shouldn't care; you should only care that it records sounds just as the phone maker says it does.

22. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 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.

38. Ninetysix

Posts: 2931; Member since: Oct 08, 2012

41. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

I posted that before from here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW2-TIbcTIg

79. Ninetysix

Posts: 2931; Member since: Oct 08, 2012

6 != 7

94. willard12 unregistered

You're really reaching when you gotta go with the "well, Apple hasn't done it since they got caught doing it for at least 2 years after lots of devices crashed" excuse. When the S9 uses different versions of UFS, you're gonna have a really good point next year.

43. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 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_Storagehttps://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>

49. LebronJamesFanboy

Posts: 671; Member since: Mar 23, 2013

TechieXP1969 = Blind Fanboy

50. maherk

Posts: 6522; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

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

54. LebronJamesFanboy

Posts: 671; Member since: Mar 23, 2013

100% agree Maherk. How are you enjoying your S8?

60. maherk

Posts: 6522; Member since: Feb 10, 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?

66. LebronJamesFanboy

Posts: 671; Member since: Mar 23, 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?

70. maherk

Posts: 6522; Member since: Feb 10, 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?

97. Leo_MC

Posts: 5879; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

That's is less than what to expect, giving the figures in battery tests all over the internet. That's even less than iPhone 7; are you sure there's no problem with the device/a piece of software?

111. Phonehex

Posts: 697; Member since: Feb 16, 2016

What are your settings ,kindly please elaborate i am only managing 4 hours SoT on my 8+. I have screen at 80% . 50%wifi/50% Lte , Always on display on infinity mode. wallpaper is infinity , location services on , bluetooth on (gear s3) , WQHD+ mode.

115. maherk

Posts: 6522; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

I have everything switched on, but I keep the brightness set on automatic, and the screen resolution set at FHD+.

91. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Dude i could care less how taste storage is. I'm not arguing for better or for worse. I simply brought up a fact Apple does the same, but you all call Samsung out for it. Faster stuff costs money. Now let's be fair. The S8 and S8+ are spec' d identical. The fact the s8 uses a slightly slower internal flash is such a small thing when you compare how gimp the base iPhone is to the plus model. Before the IPhone 7, the previous models didn't even share the same cameras. Even now the plus has more ram VS the base iPhone 7. Yet Samsung specs both s6, s7 and s8 the same. What delusions am I have troll? My point was factual.. I never defended Samsung. I simply said Apple does the same but you all. So long Samsung out for doing the same? Both models Re not equal 100%. Th3 S6 and S6 edge were not 100% identical. The S7 and S7 edge were not 100% identical. So why do you expect the S8 to be any difference? Who is being blind...butthead???!!

Latest Stories