x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

Samsung Galaxy S7

Call Quality

Vastly improved over its predecessor, there’s a ton of emphasis on clarity.

Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

Adopting yet another feature first presented to us by the Note 5, the S7 now offers an ‘extra volume’ mode for those times when it’s noisy around. Without it enabled, the volume is still plenty loud for our liking, more than capable of accentuating every word and syllable uttered by our caller. Appropriately so, the addition of the ‘extra volume’ mode is there if you’re somehow hard of hearing.

Voices thankfully pack a lot of substance through the earpiece, clean and without any distortion. It’s actually an improvement over last year’s quality with the S6, so we’re elated by this. The good fortune extends to the other end of the line as well, where the microphones in the phone help to produce voices to our callers that are audible and distinctive.
Samsung Galaxy S7 Review
Samsung Galaxy S7 Review
Samsung Galaxy S7 Review
Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

Moving onto the final piece of the puzzle, the speakerphone’s quality is that proverbial chink in the armor. Sure, the ‘extra’ volume’ is at our disposal even with the speakerphone, but it doesn’t seem to do a whole lot to amplify the speaker’s initially weak output. Voice are discernible nonetheless, however, it only becomes problematic when there’s a ton of ambient background noise – where it then starts to fade.


A bigger battery still isn’t enough to deliver marked improvements.

Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

In the time since the S6’s release, the engineers over at Samsung have somehow managed to stuff an even beefier sized battery into the S7’s chassis. This year’s flagship is now endowed with a moderate 3000 mAh battery, up from last year’s 2550 mAh capacity. We’ll applaud to that reality, right?

Well, not so fast! The phone powers us through the usual one day of normal use in our experience thus far, which is an average result for most things nowadays. What's more, its performance in our custom battery benchmark test is also about average. Resulting with an on-screen time of 6 hours and 37 minutes, it’s almost a full 30 minutes down from its predecessor’s tally – and a good one hour less than the S5’s mark.

On one hand, we’re concerned by all of this, but it'd have been worse if its real-world performance reflected such a drop. Luckily, it doesn't. And that’s what matters more to us. While it might lean towards the S7 requiring frequent charging, especially for power users, Samsung has successfully improved the handset’s charging efficiency. Requiring only 88 minutes to get back to full capacity, it’s actually more efficient than the S6 – so even for a short period, it’ll give the phone a solid chunk of charge. That’s something good if you can spare something like 15 or 30 minutes.

And lastly, the S7 continues to be understood as the Swiss Army knife of smartphones because it continues to offer the convenience of wireless charging – something you won’t find with many of its competitors.

Battery Benchmarks

Battery life (hours)
Higher is better
Samsung Galaxy S7 6h 37 min (Average)
Samsung Galaxy S6 7h 14 min (Good)
Apple iPhone 6s 8h 15 min (Excellent)
Charging time (minutes)
Lower is better
Samsung Galaxy S7 88
Samsung Galaxy S6 78
Apple iPhone 6s 150
View all


It’s rather tough to say where the Galaxy S7 is positioned in Samsung’s fabled history. Without a doubt, last year brought a stunning (and surging) change to the series that wasn’t felt prior to the S6. In one fell swoop, Samsung completely altered its reputation with the introduction of a new, premium design language established with the S6 line. In doing so, however, they did something unusual in the process by stripping off some of the S5’s notable features.

Samsung Galaxy S7 Review
After getting some intimate time in with its latest flagship, the Galaxy S7, Samsung has us once again pondering its placement. We certainly applaud the fact that they’re able to once again bring back a water-resistant construction and expandable storage to the phone, but at the same time, it really makes us wonder if the S7 is what the S6 should’ve been from the onset. When we look at the new phone, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that it’s an iterative move on Samsung’s part.

Each and every year, consumers demand to be blown away, which is fine and dandy, but not totally realistic. But even though that’s not plausible all the time, the Samsung Galaxy S7 shows us what a proper successive smartphone should be like. Sure, not every aspect of the phone is entirely improved per se, but when we factor in how there’s more good than bad here, it’s a no-brainer deduction that the S7 is an excellent phone.

Naturally, there’s always the matter of pricing, which for the Galaxy S7 is hovering roughly around $700 for most of the major domestic wireless carriers. That’s definitely on the pricey side and whatnot, but how many phones out there can say that they offer nearly the same arsenal packed by the S7 – there are none in fact! There are plenty of water-resistant phones out there, but how many are blessed with premium designs? Or how about expandable storage? Or how about built-in wireless charging?

None, so that’s exactly why the Samsung Galaxy S7 is so highly acclaimed and unique. And as we look ahead, the Galaxy S7 is the first true flagship to beat in 2016 – there’s just no hiding that prestigious title.

Always a relevant player in the space, Samsung has yet another formidable offering that sets the benchmark high for all other phones coming out this year. The specs might not be a tremendous upgrade, but at the end of the day, when you want a phone that just works, the Galaxy S7 fits the bill. When we think of a flagship, we envision something that just works flawlessly and without much hassle. This is exactly that!

Software version of the review unit: Android Version: 6.0.1; Build Number: MMB29M.G930VVRU1APB1


  • Water resistant construction with a premium design
  • Always On Display takes the hassle out of checking out the time
  • Outstanding low-light performance with the camera
  • Substantial improvement to its call quality


  • Body is fingerprint magnet
  • Display brightness could be higher
PhoneArena rating:
User rating:
8.512 Reviews

  • Options

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:07

2. tonyv (Posts: 54; Member since: 12 Mar 2014)

been patiently waiting :D thanks guys!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 09:06 7

22. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)

PA so S7 got only 9 ???? so still is worse than iphone 6s right which has 9.3 ??

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 10:22 2

31. adecvat (Posts: 321; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)

Pretty sure

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 11:34 10

36. uggman (Posts: 57; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)

0.3 is not that much, besides this site uses critics, some of them like apple products, the video review for the iphone 6S was 15 minutes long, for the GS7 only 6 min, that should pretty much paint the image.

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 12:30 4

41. SayMobile (Posts: 106; Member since: 29 Jan 2014)

No way can it get less points than the S6 , you have most definately made a mistake here PA., 9 is totally unacceptable ,considering the praises and rave reviews the S7's been getting from all over .

posted on 09 Mar 2016, 20:29 3

57. MaryPoopins (Posts: 208; Member since: 15 Jan 2015)

It's a John V review of an android phone. Be thankful it's a 9 and didn't start with an 8 :D

posted on 10 Mar 2016, 01:45 1

59. mrochester (Posts: 639; Member since: 17 Aug 2014)

Of course. The S7 has Android, so it loses points for that. If the S7 had iOS, it would score much higher.

Imagine an S7 with iOS?! Talk about a geeks ultimate wet dream!

posted on 11 Mar 2016, 06:34

63. flavius22 (Posts: 212; Member since: 23 Aug 2015)

Jay-sus man, iphone is one and a half year old, the score was given when it was reviewed, this would be like 19 if they would keep adding

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:07

3. der_damo (Posts: 202; Member since: 16 Sep 2014)

this is a pretty good rating :x

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:08

4. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

Friggin 9!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:11 1

5. nebula (Posts: 903; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)

Dear PA do something about camera gallery it's terribly slow to upload images and I have like 100Mb/s fast broadband. Other than that you are great guys!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:17

9. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

Technically, 100mbps is a bogus 99% of all time!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:26

13. nebula (Posts: 903; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)

Technically speaking I fall into 1% !

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 09:13

26. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4319; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

Well, good for you mate!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 13:15 1

42. ZetZet (Posts: 22; Member since: 21 Apr 2015)

in europe it's correct 99% of the time.

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 09:08

23. MSi_GS70 (unregistered)

it is because they uploading unnecessary too high quality pictures which has 5-10MB .. pointless.. I would be happy with 2 to 3MB pictures

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 11:59

39. nebula (Posts: 903; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)

True, because given size they provide to view onnthe gallery there is no absolutly no gain . Full size image cold be provided optionally though.

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 22:32 1

53. ibend (Posts: 6675; Member since: 30 Sep 2014)

they upload image straight from S7 (I've just checked EXIF of that image)..
agree that they should resize it to 2-3MB, and store real image somewhere else just in case someone want to visit it

posted on 14 Mar 2016, 15:12

67. canner (Posts: 68; Member since: 29 Feb 2016)

lol everyones a critic XD

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:13

6. johanbiff (Posts: 414; Member since: 31 Mar 2015)

and this is why im really lucky to get the exynos version of this phone! crappy browser speeds compaird to 8890 and crappy battery life!

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:13

7. der_damo (Posts: 202; Member since: 16 Sep 2014)

Why is battery not a minus if it's worse than the last two phones?

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:22 16

12. Arschsalat (banned) (Posts: 158; Member since: 29 Feb 2016)

Because it´s not true.

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 12:18 1

40. XaErO (Posts: 333; Member since: 25 Sep 2012)

@PA : I think; something terribly may have gone wrong with the battery test .. or may be you can try different carrier branded S7 ..

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 18:12 6

51. bur60 (Posts: 878; Member since: 07 Jul 2014)

Only PA has this battery score... other (very reliable reviewers) get more than 9hours of SOT on the screentest

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:14

8. johanbiff (Posts: 414; Member since: 31 Mar 2015)

oh, and phone arena still can`t do benchmarks..could of atleast updated the friggin antutu scores for the older phones

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:20 16

10. shnibz (Posts: 390; Member since: 18 Sep 2011)

After 5 days with mine, I'd give it a 9.7 it's seriously almost perfect IMO. My previous G4 seems like such junk and like a very poorly thought out design compared to the S7. Also with the same size battery the S7 lasts MUCH longer with the same amount of usage.

posted on 14 Mar 2016, 19:59

68. john_abraham (Posts: 1; Member since: 14 Mar 2016)

good to hear that, are you using s7 or s7 edge ?

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:26

14. pooma (Posts: 60; Member since: 01 Oct 2015)

OMG, PA u guys r crazy fast to review the phone, i was expecting review of s7 in near future but not this much fast, BTW pleasant surprise..

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:29

15. Shocky (unregistered)

Don't think I'll bother with the Galaxy S7, fair rating imo.

It's just a refined Galaxy S6 and I'm not convinced Exynos is best option this year.

posted on 08 Mar 2016, 08:30 1

16. rd_nest (Posts: 1656; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)

Qualcomm batterylife doesn't look promising.
Head over to Anandtech to check more detailed review.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Samsung Galaxy S7

Samsung Galaxy S7

OS: Android 7.0 6.0
view full specs
PhoneArena rating:
Display5.1 inches, 1440 x 2560 pixels (576 ppi) Super AMOLED
Camera12 megapixels
Qualcomm Snapdragon 820, Quad-core, 2200 MHz, Kryo processor
Size5.61 x 2.74 x 0.31 inches
(142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9 mm)
5.36 oz  (152 g)

Latest stories