Samsung Galaxy S5 Active (AT&T variant) poses for the camera once more

posted by Florin T. / May 29, 2014, 1:39 PM

Samsung Galaxy S5 Active (AT&T variant) poses for the camera once more

In case you have any doubts that the Samsung Galaxy S5 Active is real... well, you shouldn’t. After appearing in a few videos and a press image, the unannounced S5 Active can now be seen in a new set of photos - thanks to @evleaks. This is the Galaxy S5 Active that’s made for AT&T, thus having the model number SM-G870A.

As we already told you, the Galaxy S5 Active sports a 5.2-inch 1080p Super AMOLED display which is a tad larger than the 5.1-inch screen of the regular S5. The new handset has a rugged design, and should be IP68-certified, thus being as waterproof as Sony’s Xperia Z2 flagship. Most of the other features of the S5 Active are similar to the ones that we can find on the regular S5, including: a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor, 2GB of RAM, 16MP rear camera, and a heart rate monitor. The new smartphone doesn’t seem to have a fingerprint recognition sensor.

Unfortunately, we still don’t know when the Galaxy S5 Active is supposed to be announced. Perhaps Samsung is waiting to present it at the same time with the Galaxy S5 Prime? We’ll let you know!

source: @evleaks

Options

15 Comments

1. Eonnaydra

Posts: 217; Member since: Oct 23, 2012

Still a better design than S5's.

posted on May 29, 2014, 1:51 PM 6

3. bbblader

Posts: 590; Member since: Oct 24, 2011

Yes,buy a phone for it's design,not performance. And the S5 design may be bad,but it's better than the leaks of the S5 Active.

posted on May 29, 2014, 1:56 PM 1

15. 0xFFFF

Posts: 3806; Member since: Apr 16, 2014

I agree. There's no mention of KNOX so maybe the S5 Active even has an unlocked bootloader. http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/samsung/galaxy-s5-active-titanium-gray.html

posted on May 29, 2014, 11:52 PM 0

2. RuiBacelar

Posts: 153; Member since: Feb 25, 2014

Still better construction, but Ugly got Fugly, it's like Frankenstein ate a regular S5 and this is the result 24h later.

posted on May 29, 2014, 1:54 PM 5

4. amats69

Posts: 1527; Member since: Nov 12, 2012

Ohh i thought samsung already fired the incharge of design team?

posted on May 29, 2014, 2:15 PM 2

8. CyberFalcon

Posts: 223; Member since: Apr 17, 2014

Dude this phone might be the reason y they fired the design team incharge...

posted on May 29, 2014, 3:00 PM 3

5. AvantGarde

Posts: 2; Member since: Oct 25, 2012

Anyone know if it will offer built-in or at least accept a charging adapter for Qi wireless charging? I don't see the 2 metal prongs found in other Samsung phones.

posted on May 29, 2014, 2:17 PM 0

13. Napalm_3nema

Posts: 2236; Member since: Jun 14, 2013

It's AT&T, so you can guarantee it does not have Qi. They screw their customers because they belong to the PMA.

posted on May 29, 2014, 6:29 PM 0

6. IliyaBeshkov

Posts: 261; Member since: Jul 09, 2012

From what I remember Z2 has an IP58, not IP68 certification..

posted on May 29, 2014, 2:20 PM 0

12. buccob

Posts: 2980; Member since: Jun 19, 2012

The Z2 is IP58 thus having the same water proof ness as the S5 Active. The difference comes in the dust proof indication (#6). IP58 = IP68 for waterproof

posted on May 29, 2014, 6:11 PM 2

7. Bjray

Posts: 199; Member since: May 29, 2014

Gotta admit, those metal backplates make the internals of that phone look very high quality / premium.

posted on May 29, 2014, 2:26 PM 2

9. adwienc

Posts: 136; Member since: Mar 26, 2014

Ugliest phone of the year. Just horrible design and no point in release as S5 is already waterproof.

posted on May 29, 2014, 3:53 PM 0

10. _Bone_

Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012

This will be salt water proof effectively making the first real usable waterproof flagship, since showering with your phones makes a lot less sense than swimming in the sea and recording what's underneath.

posted on May 29, 2014, 4:59 PM 0

11. gigaraga

Posts: 1454; Member since: Mar 29, 2013

This phones back looks really good...hope its not plastic...but it probably would be (not like there is anything wrong with that..LOOKS GREAT actually