x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) officially unveiled: Galaxy S6 hardware inside a familiar body

Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) officially unveiled: Galaxy S6 hardware inside a familiar body

Posted: , posted by Mihai A.

Tags :

Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) officially unveiled: Galaxy S6 hardware inside a familiar body
After being leaked online in a multitude of spots in the past few months, the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) was officially unveiled earlier today in South Korea. As the name suggests, this is an updated version of last year’s Galaxy A8. 

In terms of design, there aren’t too many differences between the Galaxy A8 (2016) and its predecessor: we get the same curves, the same metal build, as well as the slim profile that’s characteristic of Samsung’s Galaxy A series.
 
The display of the phone is a 5.7-inch Super AMOLED panel running at a resolution of 1080 by 1920 pixels. Although this is no QHD panel, the sharpness will suffice for most users. 

Under the hood, the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) is based on the same platform as last year’s Samsung Galaxy S6. This means that we get a Samsung Exynos 7420 chipset (with four ARM Cortex-A53 CPU cores and four ARM Cortex-A57 CPU cores) paired with 3GB of RAM and 32GB of integrated storage. Unless you’re looking for extreme performance, this is a setup that offers plenty of processing power even for demanding tasks. 


The Galaxy A8 (2016) also makes use of the same 16MP primary shooter as last year’s Galaxy S6, which is definitely great news for mobile photography enthusiasts. On the front of the handset, an 8MP secondary shooter is there to take care of selfies. 

Other specs include a Samsung Pay-ready fingerprint sensor integrated with the physical home button on the front, Android 6.0.1 Marshmallow with the new Grace UX that debuted on the Galaxy Note 7, as well as a 3300mAh battery. 

At the moment, we don’t know when or if the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016) will make it to other markets besides South Korea, where the handset will launch as an SK Telecom exclusive. On Samsung’s home turf, the handset will become available for pre-order tomorrow, October the 1st, at a price of KRW 649,000. That’s about $580 at the current international conversion rates, and a bit of a high price given that the A8 is highly similar to last year’s Galaxy S6 in terms of internal hardware.

What do you guys think of the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2016)? Is anyone hoping for the handset to be eventually launched in the United States?

source: SK Telecom

24 Comments
  • Options
    Close





posted on 30 Sep 2016, 05:47 13

2. Myphoneisonfire (Posts: 396; Member since: 05 Sep 2016)


After spending your entire years salary on one single iPhone 6. you cant afford any more phones. Hence your hate toward the amazing samsung devices.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:21

8. Zylam (Posts: 1158; Member since: 20 Oct 2010)


LMAO what you saying this to Mihai now?

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 06:50 3

4. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4375; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)


Oneplus 3, Axon 7 and Mi5 even a better and cheaper phone than this...i think the Redmi Note 4/3pro is even better than this!

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 06:52 4

5. phonehome (Posts: 811; Member since: 19 Dec 2014)


No removable battery.

No thank you.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:13 3

6. bubbadoes (Posts: 1225; Member since: 03 May 2012)


nothing new. the note 7 has the s7 parts and everyone waited for the next big flop! sammy has been doing this forever. and they bash apple. funny

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:57 5

13. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


I genuinely don't expect you to be smart enough to understand, but you do realize that until the S6/Note 5, that they were completely different every generation, right? Also, the S7/Note 7 are equivalent to the iP7 and iP7+, in which the hardware is different from the S6 -> S7. Not so much from the iP6s to the iP 7. Again, not that I expect you to be smart enough to understand any of how this works.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:12 1

15. bubbadoes (Posts: 1225; Member since: 03 May 2012)


Here is my post again. The Note 7 has the same parts as the S7. True or False. why you go on a rant about the S6,Note 5's and ip7's and 7 plus'.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:18 1

16. hwb01 (Posts: 355; Member since: 17 Apr 2014)


The iPhone 7 and 7 plus have the same parts

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:33 1

21. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Ok, keep up with me sparky. I know this is going to be difficult for you. The iP7 and 7+ have the same parts. This is the equivalent to the S7/N7 combo....... Just like the S6/N5 was the same as the iP6s/6s+. You are the one that brought up Apple, you just weren't smart enough to realize how stupid your own point was.

The iP6s=iP7, the S6/N5

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:47

23. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


I'm not sure why part of my post was axed. but S6/N5 less than S7/N7

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:19

7. willywanta (Posts: 427; Member since: 04 Jun 2014)


serene blue

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:34

9. Darkkracker (Posts: 250; Member since: 11 Jun 2016)


i could buy a used s7 on ebay for cheaper than that or two s6's with hd display.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:22 1

18. AmashAziz (Posts: 1602; Member since: 30 Jun 2014)


S6 has a 2k (quad hd) display. HD is 0.5k.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:40

22. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


Huh?
"2k" is 2560x1440, FHD is 1920x1080 and HD is 1280x720. "4k" is 3840x2160. HD isn't ".5k". From a mathematics perspective, "quad hd" has 4x the pixels as HD, hence the name.

3.69 million vs 921 thousand pixels.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:49

25. AmashAziz (Posts: 1602; Member since: 30 Jun 2014)


I didn't understand what were you trying to prove....... But as much as I know, 1080p is fhd (1k), an increase of 360p brings it to 2k (qhd). Therefore a decrease of 360p should be noted as hd (0.5k).

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 09:22

26. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


No, I don't know where you are getting these random "k's" from. I gave you the horizontal and vertical lines of resolution above. There is no "half k". "QuadHD" has 4 times as many individual pixels as standard HD. You multiply the length by the width to get the number of total pixels. I gave those numbers above. It's basically 1 million pixels vs 4 million pixels. 2k is the stupid designation given to WQHD by various people who don't actually understand how the numbers work. The "2k" comes from the 2500 part of the resolution referring to the horizontal line count. Really, "2k" should have referred to "FHD" since it was actually closer to "2k". Just like how UHD is referred to as "4k". Those acronyms are meaningless. The actual display names are HD, FHD, WQHD, and UHD. UHD technically is broken out individually, but those will probably given their own titles eventually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 10:32

27. AmashAziz (Posts: 1602; Member since: 30 Jun 2014)


I know what all that. I put the 'k' there just for easy-ness of the reader, because meaning of wqhd and uhd are particularly looked up on google. If you have so much knowledge, just tell me if calling 720p display as 0.5k would be correct or not. I guess it would! But prove me wrong if possible, by providing links too.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 10:59

28. 14545 (Posts: 1680; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)


No, it wouldn't. 0.5k doesn't exist. 2k refers to the 2560 part of the 2560x1440 display designation. Therefore, 1280 would be the number you would technically be looking for, which would be "1k". Which is still irrelevant. There is no "easiness" to the reader, it's just plain wrong. What you are asking is for me to prove the statement "cats fly" wrong with links that don't exist. Anyone that understands display technology knows it's wrong and the proof was already presented. 2k doesn't refer to the vertical lines, it refers to the horizontal ones. So your "assertion" is that 1440 would be "2k", which clearly it isn't in any way, shape, or form. 2k isn't even correct, as I stated before. People latched on to "2k" because TV's came out with UHD (4k), where phones only increased WQHD. So people stupidly started calling WQHD "2k" with no real basis in fact because they didn't know what to really call it. Then, blogs like this one continued this trend. In reality, if we were to call anything "2k" it would be FHD. Where WQHD should really be 3k, or 2.5k. Which again, still doesn't make sense. You clearly understand very little about display designation. If you "added" 360 lines of resolution, as you asserted before, then you would have increased from 1080 to..... 1440..... So, how does it make sense to refer to 1440 as "2k"? Really, how does it make sense to refer to 2560 as "2k"? Why are you so emotionally tied to this fictitious number you made up? Accept that you were wrong and move on. I gave you all you needed to know in the above link. Heck do a search for "0.5k" and tell me what comes up? Nothing, because there is no such thing. It's 0.9 Mpx vs 3.6 Mpx. That's where the quad comes from, nothing more, nothing less.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:35 1

10. Darkkracker (Posts: 250; Member since: 11 Jun 2016)


I would also take an exploding Sammy over a dull useless iturd anyday as well.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:35

11. trojan_horse (Posts: 5325; Member since: 06 May 2016)


Wonder if the thickness of the A8 2016 is still at 5.9mm, like the original A8.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 07:45

12. Deepak129 (Posts: 10; Member since: 30 Sep 2016)


we can see its launch in India soon as samsung has discontinued S6 from India so peoviding the same specs in new body with right pricing would be interesting to see

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:24

19. AmashAziz (Posts: 1602; Member since: 30 Jun 2014)


Price will be around 50000 inr, that's my guess, considering pricing on previous models.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 08:48

24. iLovesarcasm (Posts: 587; Member since: 20 Oct 2014)


iPhone 7 Plus killer.

posted on 30 Sep 2016, 15:44

29. FrankUnderwood2 (Posts: 243; Member since: 01 Oct 2015)


I don't get it. What is the purpose of these overly priced Galaxy A models, when Samsung already unveiled perfectly capable Galaxy C-5 and C-7? not to mention they are much more inexpensive.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories