Samsung Galaxy On7 (2016) appears on GFXBench carrying Snapdragon 625 chipset

posted by Alan F.

Jun 22, 2016, 12:06 PM

The Samsung Galaxy On7 (2016) is benchmarked by GFXBench

Some rumored information about the latest iteration of Samsung's budget Galaxy On7 handset has surfaced. The Samsung Galaxy On7 (2016) could be unveiled next month, or in August at the latest. With an expected price range of $150 to $200, the wallet friendly device was recently benchmarked on GFXBench.

According to GFXBench, the handset will be equipped with a 4.8-inch display. Considering that last year's Samsung Galaxy On7 sports a 5.5-inch display, this could be a mistake on the part of the site which might not have picked up the screen size accurately. It happens. The resolution of the screen will be 1080 x 1920 (FHD).

The Snapdragon 625 SoC is most likely under the hood, considering that the phone employs the Adreno 506 GPU. The unit is driven by an octa-core 2GHz CPU. 3GB of RAM is inside along with 16GB of native storage. A 13MP camera graces the back of the handset, and an 8MP front-facing camera snaps selfies and handles video chats. Android 6.0.1 is pre-installed.

The 2016 version of the Galaxy On7 would appear to be a nice improvement over last year's variant of the phone, which has the aforementioned 5.5-inch display and a 720 x 1280 HD resolution. Last year's model also comes with a quad-core 1.3GHz CPU, 1.5GB of RAM and 8GB of native storage.

By the way, we are confident that the Samsung SM-G6100 model benchmarked is the Galaxy On7 (2016). Last year's version, the Samsung Galaxy On7 (2015) is model number SM-G6000.

Samsung Galaxy On7

View more + 15 images

Thanks for the tip!

via Mobipicker

Options

10 Comments

10. ibend

Posts: 6747; Member since: Sep 30, 2014

Samsung + SD625 + 16GB Storage + 3GB RAM + FHD = under $200????? impossible

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 7:56 PM 0

6. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

The Galaxy brand is rally starting to look like the name implies. But, they really have diluted it pretty bad. I think the Galaxy should be just mid-ranged an high-end. So the A, S and Note should be the mid-ranged to flagship and the J for the Galaxy on the low-end. Then for the tablets, Galaxy Tab, Tab S and then a Note. But not to many sizes. Just make a 7" Tab, a 10" tab. A 8" Note and 10" Note. Then everything else can just be Samsung Z Series or whatever letter. But don't call everything a Galaxy. The phone above looks decent though. cheap metal is now the new plastic. Thanks guys, thanks for ruining the smartphone my making everything metal.

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 1:27 PM 2

8. siddharthayadav202

Posts: 286; Member since: Apr 23, 2016

Yeah..7 inch and 8 inch do not make sense.. For a tab, They are almost equal.. Unless 8 inch is note, its just one more device to prepare updates for... This must have been J7 2016.

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 1:45 PM 0

9. haikallp

Posts: 319; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

Yeah, all Samsung phones are called Galaxies now. Kindda stupid.

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 4:13 PM 0

5. siddharthayadav202

For $150-200?? I will get one at Launch...

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 1:17 PM 0

2. GreenMan

Posts: 2704; Member since: Nov 09, 2015

Isn't it funny? You hear a phone ring and it could be anybody; but a ringing phone has to be answered, doesn't it... Woah! I mean, isn't it funny that the top of the line SD820 runs on just FOUR cylinders... Cores whereas the nippy and cheapy ones are V8s... Ahem, I mean Octa Cores? We all know why Apple is sticking with Dual Core like how Ducati is sticking with L-Twin (Well, basically a 90 Degree V-Twin! L-Twin just sounds classier). Less cores or cylinder means better power and fuel efficiency, respectively... Better Torque and ' Cyber Torque'... Less manufacturing cost and overall zippyness albeit at a cost of less bragging rights cause Dual Core and Twin Cylinders can't abuse Benchmarking softwares and Dynos respectively... I know, I'm a geek and a grease monkey at the same time! It's kinda weird, really...

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 12:41 PM 1

3. GreenMan

And MORE overall zippyness...! And how come I forget my G'Day? Seems like I'm still not 100% Sober... Or perhaps, its my age to blame? Well, whatever. I'm outta here... Don't want to get 'limited' yet again! G'Day!

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 12:48 PM 0

4. TmoRep

Posts: 107; Member since: Apr 20, 2016

Nothing can compare to the almighty i6 24v 5.9l... well Maybe....

posted on Jun 22, 2016, 1:13 PM 0

7. TechieXP1969

Your claim about the cylinders is false. A short-black V6 for example, can get equal gas mileage as a typical 4 cylinder and yet offer a more powerful engine. A short-block V8 can offer more power, and still be as efficient and offer the same gas mileage as a typical V6. You claim is just BS. For the SUV I use for work, even though I chose the V4, the V6 offers more power, yet only gets 1 MPH less on city and highway as the one I have. The fact is brush, based on PA's own test of the iPhone 6S Plus and the Note 5, they claimed both phones last equally the same amount of time. The fact the Note has an engine with 4 times the cylinders, and a gas tank (RAM) that is twice as large, which means it can hold even more gas (apps) and the fact it is chalked full of features and still manages to last as long or longer than the iPhone in many site tests, show that your claim is nothign more than BS. Stop it already. Also in most octa-core phones, all 8 cores are not running at the same time. Its only 4 at a time. If someone made a benchmark app that would fire all 8 cores, the 4 faster cores, would drop clock speed to match the 4 slower cores. It seems you would know this. The same happens in PC's. This is why in the old days when you had 2 separate sockets for the CPU, you wanted to make sure they match because the faster one would always drop to the speed of the slower one, same with RAM. The reason Apple stick with dualcore, is on iOS 4 cores would provide no benefit because their 2 big dualcore already suck more juice than most phones that have quads. Also since the iPhone has no features to push, no full multi-tasking, low resolution displays like 750p, there is no need to have more cores that will just be sitting idle and draining battery. That and Apple is juts a cheap trying to make as much money as they can, while giving you nothing.