x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

Samsung Gravity Q Review

Samsung Gravity Q

Posted: , by John V.



Call Quality

Samsung Gravity Q Review
You might as well stick to text messaging as your mode of communication, since call quality is absolutely horrendous. For starters, the earpiece is extremely weak, which doesn’t help when voices are muffled through it. Meanwhile, our callers don’t fare well either, seeing that the microphone picks up everything. And finally, the speakerphone has a distinct crackle to it.


Rarely using any data connection, its 1000 mAh battery permits us two solid days of normal usage. That’s not too bad, but we’re guessing that light users will be able to churn out even more time.


Let’s talk about cost briefly here, as the Samsung Gravity Q for T-Mobile requires a down payment of $9.99 up front, then 24 monthly installment payments of $6 each, which brings its total cost to $153.99. Looking at the figure, it’s not that bad, but come on, this is a quick messaging device we’re dealing with here. We can name a host of other prepaid entry-level Android smartphones that deliver a significantly better experience than this. Even though it’s a device that would be an ideal first phone for kids, we would totally overlook this in a heartbeat – especially when this is simply the kind of phone we could’ve gotten three years ago.


  • Easy to use


  • Low quality display
  • Sluggish performance
  • Horrible call quality
PhoneArena rating:
User rating:
Not rated

  • Options

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:19 5

1. wicpromd (Posts: 266; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)

still Biased
why PA why???
it should have scored -2

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:21 5

2. Kurai (unregistered)

That's too generous . . . it should have scored -10 at least . . .

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:28 1

5. veer.d (Posts: 88; Member since: 12 Jul 2013)

its nice to see they start giving actual rating samsung poorly designed phone

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:23

3. veer.d (Posts: 88; Member since: 12 Jul 2013)

first time they rated the samsung product very low

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:26 8

4. sriuslywtf (Posts: 297; Member since: 09 Jul 2013)

"the Gravity Q is powered by a 416MHz single-core processor with 128GB of RAM".

Page 2 "Interface and Functionality".

Is this real? holy crap. Galaxy Note 3 is in shame in terms or ram!

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 07:00

7. Just.Saying (Posts: 132; Member since: 04 Apr 2013)

lol, Come on, This phone is cheaper than a fake protective case for the Note 3. Its worth the price

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 07:26

9. superwan (Posts: 1; Member since: 10 Sep 2013)

Most high end phones have 32GB RAM, but his little beast has 128GB of RAM. Worth the money. Extend it with 32GB SD card and you got 160GB. Not even Iphones can match that storage capacity.

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 08:22 5

13. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 4321; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)

You just went ahead of John in the insanity metre.
Do you even know what RAM is?? I\'m seriously starting to doubt some of the people here.

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 09:19

14. aditya.k (Posts: 496; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)

OMFG! This is so much fun! XD

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 11:16 1

17. Kishin (Posts: 706; Member since: 30 May 2013)

Hey thats the lowest Ram i ever seen
This phone is not even close to reach 1GB RAM you need 1000MB to reach 1GB Ram

But the storage capacity is the only thing i actury like about it

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 06:58

6. Just.Saying (Posts: 132; Member since: 04 Apr 2013)

i'm so getting this for my 9 year old niece. it's perfect for her. Easy to use and cheap. You can't seriously compare this phone to the fladships of today. Its aimed at a different target market.

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 07:43

10. boosook (Posts: 1442; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)

9 year old kids are not dumb, nowadays... for the same price or just some bucks more you can get an android phone and your kid will be able to install at least some games!

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 08:04 6

12. HASHTAG (unregistered)

Are you trying to punish your niece? ;)

posted on 11 Sep 2013, 08:33

21. anglosaxonengland (Posts: 57; Member since: 11 Sep 2013)

Problem is; With all the scroll and type lag on that 412MHz CPU the phone is practically useless.

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 07:05

8. SonyPS4 (Posts: 346; Member since: 21 May 2013)

First time in years i saw Samsung phone that is not galaxy series

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 08:04

11. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 3718; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)

128GB of RAM amazing. What 128 GB!!!

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 09:21

15. aditya.k (Posts: 496; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)

It should have been 416 GHz processor with 128 GB RAM. Must be able to run all the games available, even for PC! :P

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 09:28

16. likemorethan1 (Posts: 48; Member since: 22 Aug 2013)

the lowest score i\'ve ever seen

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 11:18 1

18. Kishin (Posts: 706; Member since: 30 May 2013)

They made a mistake its 128MB of RAM not GB

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 11:41 1

19. DukeX (Posts: 327; Member since: 28 Aug 2013)

Phonearena just put up this review to try and trick people into thinking they aren\'t completely samsung lovers. They know damn well users on this site won\'t buy a phone like this.

posted on 10 Sep 2013, 14:30

20. ThePython (Posts: 901; Member since: 08 May 2013)

Lol John... Just... Lol.

posted on 08 Jan 2014, 18:33

22. Jkennedy (Posts: 9; Member since: 29 Dec 2013)

Regardless of whether or not there was a typo regarding the RAM, it takes a special kind of ignorance to think something like this could have 64 times the amount of ANYTHING as the company's flagship.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

PhoneArena rating:
Display3.0 inches, 240 x 320 pixels (133 ppi) TFT
Camera2 megapixels
Single core, 416 MHz, STE U6805-Core processor
0.1 GB RAM
Size4.43 x 2.35 x 0.56 inches
(113 x 60 x 14 mm)
4.19 oz  (119 g)
Battery1000 mAh, 5 hours talk time

Latest stories