Samsung Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 edge support Quick Charge 2.0 instead of Quick Charge 3.0
posted by Alan F. / Mar 12, 2016, 10:26 PM
To keep a balance between the Snapdragon 820 chipset powered models, and those featuring the Exynos 8890 SoC, Samsung decided that all of its new Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 edge phones would charge at the same speed as Quick Charge 2.0, regardless of which chipset is under the hood. That will still provide pretty fast charging times for each handset. And if you use the Fast Charge Qi Wireless charger, you will be refreshing your juicer at a faster rate than most.
Quick Charge 2.0 charges 75% faster than non Quick Charge handsets. In just 30-minutes, the 3900mAh battery on the Motorola DROID Turbo can be charged up to 60%. Quick Charge 3.0 charges up to 4 times faster. After 30 minutes using this feature, a 2750mAh battery went from 0% to 80% A non Quick Charge phone added just 12% over that same time period.
No one wants to wait hours for the battery on their smartphone to charge. Qualcomm's Quick Charge helps you get to your next destination on time, and with plenty of battery life.
Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013
QC2.0 is plenty fast enough.
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 9:30 PM 15
Posts: 838; Member since: Jun 23, 2012
Agreed, but when QC3.0 is avaliable, that is something to consider when looking at phones.
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 9:51 PM 24
Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014
every specs features like display size or resolution or camera megapixel or speakers quality, you can say enough. But when it comes to battery life stuff like this, it's like the amount of our bank account, no one will say enough. We will continue demand for infinity, as best as they can offer. This techieXP calling battery life stuff is enough, has showing his intelligence as dumb as someone who said it's enough for a small loan of a million dollar.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 4:40 AM 3
Posts: 2364; Member since: Aug 01, 2015
Techie said nothing about battery life(amp hours). I'm sure he as well as everyone would like a phone to last longer per charge. He gave his opinion about Quick Charge 2.0. Also remember that quickly charging a battery is worse for it in the long run. Look it up.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 11:12 AM 1
Posts: 7112; Member since: Mar 04, 2015
Not everyone is in a hurry in life. Like others have,said QC is bad for your battery anyway. Some of us would rather are battery have longer life as in not having to replace it sooner, then it charging ten minutes faster.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 1:13 PM 1
Posts: 26; Member since: May 04, 2015
QC2.0 is not fast enough. based upon your statement you would be saying a 3 inch screen on a smartphone is big enough. or that a 720p resolution screen is good enough, or that 16gb storage phone is good enough...or 128gb phone is big enough. or that the original iphone was good enough. or that 3g speeds are fast enough. or a dvd player is good enough (no need for blu ray or 4k) or maybe the invention of the black and white tv was good enough. or maybe the original model T ford was good enough... or maybe the invention of bronze was good enough (no need for iron). come to think of it we don't need any of what I mention above. we don't even need QC2.0 which you mention. we don't need cell phones at all. I would argue that QC3.0 is nowhere near fast enough. p.s. QC is not just about being fast enough or not
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 11:52 PM 16
Posts: 11; Member since: Mar 11, 2016
Quick Charge 3.0 is designed to charge twice as fast as Quick Charge 1.0 and to be 38 percent more efficient than Quick Charge 2.0. It should also be pointed out that the LG G5, even if it was to have Quick Charge 2.0, would charge more quickly given its smaller battery capacity in comparison to both S7 variations. However, that should also make the charge time on the LG G5 ridiculously fast with QC3.0 lol. Still won't be as fast as just swapping the battery on that same device though, given that they are including a spare battery and battery cradle once again. Choice is a beautiful thing though. EDIT: LG G5 charges 83% in 30 minutes. That gets a thumbs up from me.
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 9:57 PM 12
Posts: 247; Member since: Jul 22, 2015
Even if it has small battery
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 10:08 PM 1
Posts: 11; Member since: Mar 11, 2016
Having a smaller battery doesn't directly mean poor battery life (ie. iPhone 6S Plus, 2750 mah, 9 hrs 11 mins vs iPhone 6 Plus, 2915 mah, 6 hrs 32 mins [phonearena battery tests]). Having been an owner of the 6 Plus and a current owner of the 6s plus, I have firsthand witnessed the battery life increase.
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 10:20 PM 0
That's because of more efficient processor. G5 has a crap SD 820 which is a shame in terms of efficiency. Unlike Apple, Qualcomm just clocks their narrow cores higher to barely match up with Apple in terms of speed. Guessing by how bad the S7 Sd 820 does in terms of battery life, G5 should be pretty pathetic.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 1:58 AM 0
Posts: 803; Member since: Apr 06, 2012
Hey jealous samsung troll, SD820 is way superior. Beats Exynos in Graphics, Single core and is very close in Multi Core which IMO isn't that important now a days. Also, Anandtech review of SD820 equipped S7/Edge clearly finds S7 and S7 Edge getting better battery results than S6 and much better battery results than what Phonearena posted. While Gsmarena review of S7 Exynos finds battery life score as good only. Nothing great. 80 hrs score. And it worsens up very much with Always On Display enabled(mere 49 hrs) So just shut up your unnecessary and useless rants. Trying to prove samsung superior in everything even when it is not ! And before you call me a samsung hater, for your kind info i own Note 4 and S4
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 6:23 AM 5
LMAO. This is not about Samsung or LG. In fact, Samsung mobile division is a completely different company than Samsung LSI. Ice been studying processor architecture way before your daddy porked your mommy. At least exynos s7 scores higher than s6. SD s7 scores lower than s6 LOL. I hate both the s7 and G5, as both suck so much ass, their teeth turn brown. But I'm not getting an SD 820 equipped phone by any means. You can rant and brag about your SD benchmarks. But the exynos s7 beats the SD s7 by 30-40% in geekbench battery test. This is not a debate on which processor is faster (we can debate that later). It's about which is more efficient. And I have proof that exynos is. Want proof? http://www.phonearena.com/revi
Read comment number 4. And since geekbench is processor intensive, it's pretty apparent that exynos is more efficient. Well, the exynos is s**t too, it's just that SD is worse.
I had plans to buy the mi5, but since the 820 is a dud, I won't be buying a phone till the 825 comes out.
About benchmarks I'll wait till a proper website tests both variants. SD 820 has a GPU boost clock, so benchmarks are useless as it will throttle in a minute to the regular clock. SD is 5% faster in single core, exynos is 20% faster in multi core.
But anyway, both are fast enough. For me only efficiency matters as android will run games like s**t anyway.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 9:08 AM 1
Posts: 1821; Member since: Dec 08, 2014
Not that inefficient according to Anandtech, where the SD820 equipped S7 Edge scores 10% longer Wifi browsing times than the 6S Plus. Obviously with a 31% larger battery capacity, but also pushing 34% more pixels and AMOLED, which for browsing tests usually scores a bit lower (higher for video or just looking at pictures, where APL is usually lower). Meaning, ceteris paribus, they could be relatively close in terms of efficiency, or the SD820 could be even better in this area, unless we assume that Android + TW is the more efficient OS, a position hard to defend here.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 7:16 AM 1
Posts: 467; Member since: May 25, 2011
I quit looking at what a battery says because each of us have different set up. I have a 6 Plus thar lasts easily though a day of heavy use. Now my Note 4, doesnt come close, so quick charge is nice. My Note 4 is a work phone, so yesterday I unplugged. Connected to my home wifi and battery dropped to 89% with no use.
posted on Mar 13, 2016, 1:03 PM 0
Posts: 941; Member since: Oct 23, 2013
Kinda disappointed, considering it's Samsung whose always push cutting edge technology. Still better than nothing and wait more than 2 hours till your phone fully charge.
posted on Mar 12, 2016, 9:58 PM 5
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):