Samsung Galaxy Note 4 & Note Edge Review

Samsung's Galaxy Note line went from being a doubtful niche attempt to essentially the most popular line in Samsung's inventory in just four years. Naturally, Samsung's 2014 Note phablets were highly anticipated, and Samsung delivered accordingly. This time around, the direct successor to last year's Note 3, the aptly named Note 4, came accompanied by a very interesting attempt from Samsung to make a popular phone making use of its curved display technology, the Galaxy Note Edge. Very similar to the Note 4, except with a cuved extension of the main display replacing the right side of the device. 
Both phones excel in almost very aspect you can think of, and are definitely very worthy successors to last year's Galaxy Note 3. Those who are adventurous, and are looking for something new and different, will look to the Note Edge, while those who just want a traditional phablet, albeit in this case, the best one in the market, will go for the regular Note 4. 

To begin this review, let's look at how this year's Galaxy Notes fare in terms of pure specs, listed in the table below:

	Galaxy Note 4	Galaxy Note Edge
Body	153.5 x 78.6 x 8.5mm  176g	151.3 x 82.4 x 8.3mm  174g
Display	5.7" Super AMOLED QHD (2560 x 1440, 515ppi)	5.6" Super AMOLED WQXGA (2560 x 1600, 524ppi) with curved edge
Storage & RAM	32/64 GB, 3GB RAM	32/64 GB, 3GB RAM
Networks	GSM, HSDPA, LTE Cat. 6	GSM, HSDPA, LTE Cat. 6
WiFi	dual-band 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac	dual-band 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
Bluetooth	Bluetooth 4.1 LE	Bluetooth 4.1 LE
Camera (Rear)	16MP with OIS, LED flash, face detection and HDR  4K@30fps (2160p) video, 1080p@30fps or 720p@120fps with video stabilization	16MP with OIS, LED flash, face detection and HDR  4K@30fps (2160p) video, 1080p@30fps or 720p@120fps with video stabilization
Camera (Front)	3.7MP with 2K@30fps (1440p) video	3.7MP with 2K@30fps (1440p) video
OS	Android 4.4 KitKat w/ TouchWiz UI	Android 4.4 KitKat w/ TouchWiz UI
Processor	SM-N910S: Snapdragon 805  SM-N910C: Exynos 5433	Snapdragon 805
CPU	SM-N910S: Quad-core 32-bit Krait 450 @ 2.7GHz  SM-N910C: Octa-core 64-bit bit.LITTLE (Quad-core Cortex-A57 @ 1.9GHz + Quad-core Cortex-A53 @ 1.3GHz)	Quad-core 32-bit Krait 450 @ 2.7GHz
GPU	SM-N910S: Adreno 420 @ 600MHz (337.5 GFLOPS)  SM-N910C: Mali-T760MP6 @ 700MHz (204 GFLOPS)	SM-N910S: Adreno 420 @ 600MHz (337.5 GFLOPS)
Battery	Removable Li-Ion 3,200mAh  Video playback: 14 hours	Removable Li-Ion 3,000mAh  Video playback: 12 hours
Features	Heart rate and Sp02 sensor, fingerprint scanner, S Pen	Smart Edge screen, heart rate and Sp02 sensor, fingerprint scanner, S Pen

Design

This is probably the only aspect where the Galaxy Note 4 and the Galaxy Note Edge actually differ significantly. While the Galaxy Note 4 is the regular shape we've come to expect phones to have, with a flat screen on the front, the Galaxy Note Edge makes an interesting use of Samsung's curved screen technology. Instead of having a flat screen covering the front, the Note Edge's panel cascades down the right edge of the phone, replacing the entire right side of the device. While it makes for a very interesting phone, from an aesthetic point of view, what is even better is the added functionality that the curved display offers. The side screen can be used for many things, like quick notifications, controls, and app shortcuts. While it won't exactly revolutionize the smartphone experience, it is a convenient extra to have.

Lefties beware! Since the Note Edge curves down the right side of the phone, it is less convenient for lefties to use. In the future, we might be seeing phones that curve down both sides, but until then, this device is more appropriate for right-handed users. 

In any case, aside from the curved screen, the Galaxy Note Edge and the Note 4 are very similar. Taking a leaf from the Galaxy Alpha's book, the two phablets' sides are made of aluminium (or in the case of the Note Edge, three of the four sides), with the back panel made of plastic, textured to resemble leather. The back cover of the new Notes are still removable, and so is the battery. While I would've liked to see an all-aluminium design, the new Notes feel very good in hand thanks to the metal sides. The front of the devices resembles any recent Samsung device, with the usual physical home button sitting in between Task Switcher and Back capacitive buttons. Underneath the home button there is Samsung's swipe-based fingerprint scanner.

Overall, a very good design for the new Notes. The aluminium sides, especially, are a very welcome addition to the phablets' designs, especially coming from Samsung. And at long last, Samsung has found a very non-disruptive and useful way to implement their curved AMOLED screens on a smartphone.

Display

When it comes to displays, Samsung's flagships are always highly anticipated, as their AMOLED screens are always among the best in the mobile space. Both the Note Edge and the Note 4 feature Super AMOLED screens with a Diamond PenTile pixel matrix. Of course, the main difference here is that one has a flat screen and the other has a curved one.

The Note 4 features a 5.7" display, just like the Note 3, except that this time the resolution is bumped to a stunning 2560 x 1440 resolution, which results in a fine 515ppi. This pixel density is really starting to get close to the limit after which the human eye cannot process any further details, but still, so far there are still advantages to be had with the extra resolution.

The Note Edge features a curved 5.6" display with 2560 x 1600 resolution, which translates into a pixel density of 524ppi. In comparison to the Note 4, the extra 160 pixels form the extra edge display portion. That aside, the Note Edge should be identical to the Note 4's display, offering the same benefits of Samsung's AMOLED technology, like extremely saturated colors and stunning contrast.

Software & Features

Both the Galaxy Note 4 and the Note Edge run on an Android 4.4.4 KitKat build skinned with Samsung's TouchWiz UI. An update to Android 5.0 Lollipop should be coming out soon.

TouchWiz is known for its various software features, some useful, many useless. The same can obviously be said about the new Galaxy Notes' software. Features like Multi Window and Air Gestures continue to be implemented and refined in Samsung's new phablets. Despite how heavy the whole TouchWiz package is, the 3 GB of RAM and powerful processors should keep the new Notes running very smoothly, no matter what you throw at it. 

Of course, these being devices from the Note range, a very important part of the package is the S Pen, Samsung's active stylus, which is better than ever this time around. More than ever, the S Pen lends itself to making the Note experience much more interactive and productive than on any other device.

Processor & Performance

As every flagship device these days, the Galaxy Note 4 and Note Edge are powered by some of the most powerful processors currently available. There is a distinction to be made, however. While the Galaxy Note 4 is available either with a Snapdragon 805 or an Exynos 5433 processor, depending on the region, the Galaxy Note Edge uses only the Snapdragon 805.

The Snapdragon 805, built on a 28nm HPm process (which is starting to get old), consists of a quad-core Krait 450 CPU clocked at up to 2.7GHz. The CPU is 32-bit, so when Lollipop comes to the Snapdragon 805-powered Notes, the new OS's 64-bit support will be of no benefit. Alongside the CPU, there is an Adreno 420 GPU clocked at 600MHz and a dual-channel 64-bit LPDDR3-1600 memory interface, offering ample bandwidth at a peak 25.6GB/s.

Samsung's Exynos 5433 processor, used in some variants of the Note 4, but not on the Note Edge, is a totally different beast. Built on Samsung's cutting-edge 20nm HKMG process node, it consists of a big.LITTLE CPU configuration, with four high-performance Cortex-A57 cores clocked at 1.9GHz, and four low-power, low-performance Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.3GHz. When necessary, both CPU clusters can work together, essentially making it a true octa-core CPU. Backing up this beastly CPU is ARM's Mali-T760 GPU clocked at 700MHz, and to wrap it off (not so well), the system is fed by a 32-bit dual-channel LPDDR3-1650 memory interface capable of delivering up to 13.2GB/s of bandwidth. This is much less than what the Snapdragon 805's memory interface can deliver, and I'm not sure 13.2GB/s can cut it for such a high-resolution display. This could only pose a potential bottleneck issue when running bandwidth-heavy games at the Note 4's native resolution. 

All variants of the Note 4 and Note Edge carry 3 GB of RAM, which should be more than enough space, even with Samsung's heavy TouchWiz features eating up memory.

Battery

Considering the large, high-resolution display and the powerful processors, the Galaxy Note 4 and Note Edge require a large battery to keep them running for long enough. The Galaxy Note 4 has a large 3,220 mAh battery feeding it, which should be enough, despite the power hungry internals. However, probably because of the curved display portion, Samsung had to reduce the Galaxy Note Edge's battery size down to 3,000 mAh. While this is still a large battery, it means that the Galaxy Note Edge will hardly win any battery life tests.

Conclusion

The new Galaxy Note 4 and Note Edge are excellent devices, delivering the goods in pretty much every aspect you can possibly think of. Beautiful screen, attractive design, powerful hardware and, of course, the venerable S Pen all make the new Notes very worthy successors of the flagship Note line.

The Note 4 is not exactly revolutionary compared to last year's Galaxy Note 3, however, every aspect of it is improved in comparison, securing Samsung's advantage in the phablet market. The Galaxy Note Edge, however, is more like Samsung still experimenting ways to implement its curved displays, and is so far Samsung's best attempt at it. Without impairing the usability of the device, Samsung managed to implement its curved screen technology in a way that not only made for an aesthetically pleasing phone, but also added functionality that people might actually use, unlike previous attempts (Galaxy Round, I'm talking to you).

Overall, Samsung's 2014 Note devices are their best phablets ever, and probably the best in the entire phablet market, scoring high marks in every aspect you can think of.

Apple A8 vs Snapdragon 805 vs Exynos 5433 - Smartphone SoC Comparison (2014 Edition)

Smartphones have become just about the most important gadget in a person's life, since it has positioned itself as a sort of a does-everything device (recently, even measuring your heart rate). As such, it needs a powerful processor to keep things going smoothly, even with so many utilities and features baked in. Accordingly, smartphone processor performance has seen exponential growth over the last few years, blazing past even some older laptops at this point. This year of 2014 we have the latest and greatest ultra-mobile processors shipping in devices in time for the holiday season. Among the best competitors we have: Apple, with its A8 processor, found in the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, Qualcomm, with its latest and greatest Snapdragon 805, and Samsung's Octa-core Exynos 5433 SoC. It's no doubt that all three processors are performance monsters, but which of them offers the best performance, and more importantly, which one is the most power efficient?

Firstly, let's see how these processors compare on paper:

	Apple A8	Snapdragon 805	Exynos 5433
Process Node	20nm	28nm HPM	20nm HKMG
CPU	Dual-core 64-bit "Enhanced Cyclone" @ 1.4GHz	Quad-core 32-bit Krait 450 @ 2.7GHz	Octa-core 64-bit big.LITTLE (Quad-core ARM Cortex-A57 @ 1.9GHz + Quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 @ 1.3GHz)
GPU	PowerVR GX6450 @ 450MHz (115.2 GFLOPS)	Adreno 420 @ 600MHz (337.5 GFLOPS)	Mali T760-MP6 @ 700MHz (204 GFLOPS)
Memory Interface	Single-channel 64-bit LPDDR3-1600 (12.8GB/s)	64-bit Dual-channel LPDDR3-1600 (25.6GB/s)	32-bit Dual-channel LPDDR3-1650 (13.2GB/s)

At least on paper, all three processors are extremely powerful and very competitive when it comes to power and efficiency. However, the three SoCs use extremely different approaches to achieve their performance. While Apple prefers to have a smaller CPU core count, whilst making the core itself very large to achieve a high performance with just two cores, Samsung's quantity-over-quality philosophy means that they chose to throw in a very large number of CPU cores (in fact, eight of them). Qualcomm sits between Apple and Samsung, offering four CPU cores with decent per-core performance. In practice, given that most applications do not scale performace very well beyond two cores, I personally prefer Apple's approach, however a more limited selection of apps that can actually utilize a large core count, for instance, games which involve more complex physics calculations, might see Samsung's approach as the fastest option. Either way, the most accurate way of comparing the performance of these processors is using synthetic benchmarks.

Let's start with the GeekBench 3 benchmark, which tests CPU performance:

As you can see, Apple's second generation Cyclone core is just about the fastest core used in any current smartphone. Nvidia's Denver CPU core used in their Tegra K1 SoC outperforms the Cyclone core, but since the Tegra K1 is pretty much a tablet-only platform, I'm not considering it in this comparison. Meanwhile, The also 64-bit Exynos 5433, while behind the A8 by a large margin, is slightly above the Snapdragon 805. I also included data from the Snapdragon 801 chipset to quantify the evolution of the Krait 450 core in the Snapdragon 805 compared to its predecessor, Krait 400. The difference isn't big, actually, which makes for the fact that the Snapdragon 805 has the weakest single-threaded performance of all current high-end SoCs.

With four high-performance CPU cores aided by another four low-power cores (yes, Samsung managed to make both core clusters work at the same time, unlike with their previous big.LITTLE CPUs), it was obvious from the start that Samsung's processor would come out on top in applications that scale to multiple cores. In fact, the Exynos 5433's multi-threaded performance has a significant advantage over the competition. In second place comes the Snapdragon 805, with a much lower yet still very high score. Again, the multi-threaded test shows only a marginal improvement over the Snapdragon 801. And in last place comes Apple's dual-core A8, which, despite employing a very powerful core solution, simply had too few cores to outperform the competition. Still, it's not far behind the Snapdragon 805, and its score is very respectable indeed. 

Now, moving on to what probably is considered the most important area in SoC performance: graphics. To measure these processors' capability for graphics rendering, we turn to the GFXBench 3.0 test.

It's reasonable to say that the three main competitors in the high-end SoC segment are pretty much on par in terms of their GPUs' OpenGL ES 3.0 performance. However, the PowerVR GX6450 in the iPhone 6 Plus takes the lead, followed closely by the Snapdragon 805's Adreno 420, and in last place is the Mali-T760 in the Exynos 5433, but again, losing by a small margin.

For OpenGL ES 2.0 performance we see the performance gap widen, however the same basic trend can be seen: The Apple A8 takes first place, followed closely by the Snapdragon 805 and a bit further behind we have the Exynos 5433. Also note how, unlike what we've seen in the CPU benchmarks, this time the Snapdragon 805 gets a huge boost compared to its predecessor, the Snapdragon 801.

The ALU test focuses on measuring the GPU's raw compute power, and on this front, Qualcomm seems to be sitting very comfortably, since both the Snapdragon 805 and its sucessor the 801 are far ahead of the Apple A8 and the Exynos 5433 GPUs.

The Fill test depends mostly on the GPU's Render Output Units (ROPs) and on the SoC's memory interface. Given that the Snapdragon 805 has a massive memory interface, comparable to the one on Apple's tablet-primed A8X chip, it naturally had a huge advantage in this test. Meanwhile, the Apple A8 is slightly below the last-gen Snapdragon 801, and the Exynos 5433 comes in last place, but by a small margin.

Power Consumption and Thermal Efficiency

Since these chips are supposed to run inside smartphones, a lot of attention has to be given for the SoC to fulfill two requirements: consume as little power as possible, especially during idle times, and not heat up too much when under strain. I believe that Apple's A8 chip fares best in this department, because apart from being built on a 20nm process, it's Cyclone CPU has proved to be quite efficient in previous appearances. As for Samsung's Exynos 5433, despite being built on 20nm too, I'm not sure that a processor that can have 8 CPU cores running simultaneously can keep itself cool when under strain without thermal throttling. Although at least, in terms of power consumption, idle power should be very low thanks to the low-power Cortex-A7 cores. Finally, it's a bit hard to determine how power efficient Qualcomm's processors are because the company discloses close to nothing about its CPU and GPU architectures. However, it is a proved solution. Krait + Adreno SoC's from Qualcomm can be found on almost every flagship smartphone from 2014, so while it has the disadvantage of still not having moved to 20nm, experience from the past proves that their SoCs and architectures are sufficiently efficient. 

Conclusion

It's a bit hard to determine exactly which processor is the best. Each one of these fares better than the others in at least one area, but each also has its clear weakness.

The Apple A8, using just two, however powerful, CPU cores, not to mention at relatively low clock speeds, can deliver top-notch single-threaded performance, however its low core count hurts its performance amid the quad- and octa-core competition in multi-threaded applications. Also, the PowerVR GX6450 GPU was a good choice, as at least for general gaming it appears to be the fastest solution available on any smartphone. Power consumption should be also pretty low thanks to the 20nm process used and to Apple's and ImgTech's efficient architectures.

The Snapdragon 805 is really more of an evolution of the 801, without any huge changes. For instance, it's the only 32-bit processor being compared here. However, it still manages to deliver excellent performance, building on the success of the outgoing 801. While it's single-threaded performance is a bit disappointing for a 2.5GHz CPU, it does very well in multi-threaded applications, nearing the Exynos 5433's performance. The Adreno 420 GPU also performs extremely well, losing only to the Apple A8 in GFXBench's general gaming tests and absolutely destroying the competition in terms of memory bandwidth and raw compute power. While a move to 20nm would be appreciated, Qualcomm's processors are known for being power efficient, so no problem here. 

Finally, Samsung's Exynos 5433 is really a mixed bag. It's 20nm HKMG process, together with the low-power Cortex-A7 cores, makes way for excellent power efficiency, at least in terms of idle power, and thanks to its huge core count, its multi-threaded performance is ahead of everyone else. It should be noted that, despite the 20nm process, having 8 cores running at full load might introduce the need for thermal throttling, especially in a smartphone chassis.

However, the Mali-T760 GPU employed is slightly behind the competition in terms of general gaming performance, and raw compute power is quite disappointing...thankfully, raw compute power matters little to the vast majority of users. Still, it's an excellent GPU, just not THE best. 

Overall, these are all excellent processors, each one with their respective advantages and disadvantages. It all comes down to what aspects you think is more important to you, for instance, if you value performance in multi-threaded applications, a Exynos 5433-powered device is ideal for that. For an excellent all-around package, which is also a proven solution for smartphones (plus admirable GPU compute power), pick a Snapdragon 805 device. And if you don't mind as much about multi-threaded performance, but want to have the best gaming performance in any smartphone, you can pick one of Apple's A8-powered iDevices. 

Samsung Releases New Exynos Processors 5422, 5260

Samsung has prepared a series of new Exynos System-on-Chip processors for this year, attending both mid-range and high-end segments. Firstly, there's the Exynos 5 Octa 5422, which is nothing more than a higher-clocked version of the 5420 chip introduced last year (and seen on devices like the Galaxy Note 3, Note 10.1, as well as the Galaxy Tab Pro, Note Pro, and Tab S range of tablets), then there's the first processor in the Exynos 5 Hexa series, the 5260, which, as its name suggests, has a total of six CPU cores. Finally, there's the Exynos 5 Octa 5800, which is basically a 5422 adapted for use in Samsung's Chromebook 2 13.3".

The 5422 is architecturally identical to the Exynos 5420 released last year, only with higher clock speeds. It therefore consists of two CPU clusters working in a big.LITTLE configuration, one being a high-performance cluster consisting of four Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 2.1GHz, and the other being a low-power cluster containing four Cortex-A7s clocked at 1.5GHz (vs 1.9GHz for the A15s and 1.3GHz on the A7s on the Exynos 5420). The GPU is a 6-core Mali-T628 MP6 clocked at 695MHz, which gives it up to about 142 GFLOPS processing power (vs 533MHz and 109 GFLOPS for the 5420). The system is fed by a 32-bit dual-channel LPDDR3-1866 (14.9GB/s bandwidth) memory interface, same as the 5420. The increase in CPU clock speed is hardly enough to yield a noticeable performance increase, but the GPU's higher frequency compared to the Exynos 5420 is definitely a significant jump. Currently the Exynos 5422 is only available in the SM-G900H variant of the Galaxy S5.

Next up is the Exynos 5 Hexa 5260, which is more of a mid-range SoC due to its lower CPU core count and weaker GPU. This processor, much like with the Exynos 5 Octa processors, has two CPU clusters in big.LITTLE configuration. The high-performance cluster consists this time of two Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 1.7GHz, and the low-power cluster is a quad-core Cortex-A7 clocked at 1.3GHz. The GPU is ARM's Mali-T624, probably in a 4-core configuration, but the clock speed is unknown and so is the theoretical compute power. However, it can be noted that the T624 has half as many execution units per core as the T628, so considering that, plus the fact that there are two less cores than inside the T628 MP6 powering the Exynos 5420/5422, you end up with about one third of the processing power at the same clock speed for the T624 MP4 compared to the T628 MP6. Finally, the 5260 SoC is fed by a 32-bit dual-channel LPDDR3-1600 memory interface, offering 12.8GB/s peak bandwidth, which is more than enough for the CPU and GPU. So far, the Exynos 5 Hexa has only made its way to two devices: the Galaxy Note 3 Neo and the Galaxy K Zoom. 

The Exynos 5 Octa 5800 is practically identical to the 5422, except that it has slightly lower clock speeds (2.0GHz vs 2.1GHz for the A15 cluster and 1.3GHz vs 1.5GHz for the A7 cluster) and it's adapted for use in Samsung's Chromebook 2 13.3" (and perhaps other Samsung Chromebooks in the future).

There are also rumors of an upcoming Samsung Exynos chip codenamed 5433, and this chip will allegedly be competitive with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 805 processor, so if that turns out to be true I'd expect a powerful chip like this to debut in one of the most awaited devices of 2014, the Galaxy Note 4. Also, you might have noticed that all of the new processors discussed here have 32-bit CPUs, while the rest of the mobile SoC market it slowly transitioning to 64-bit, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Exynos 5433 ends up being a 64-bit CPU, perhaps a Cortex-A57/53 big.LITTLE combo. 

Samsung Galaxy S5 Revealed

After numerous leaks, the next iteration of the Galaxy S series is finally official. The new Samsung Galaxy S5, announed at this year's MWC event in Barcelona, is a relatively conservative upgrade to the Galaxy S4, and doesn't bring some of the huge improvements that many leaks were suggesting, like a 64-bit CPU and a 2K screen. So instead of bringing something brand new to the market, the Galaxy S5 rather seeks to improve upon its predecessors.

With an IP67 certification, a 5.1" 1080p screen, a 16MP rear camera with 4K video recording, Snapdragon 801 processing power and a new take on fitness features with a heart rate monitor, as well as an on-screen fingerprint scanner, the Galaxy S5 isn't a game-changing smartphone, but it's still probably the best smartphone available. If only Samsung had wrapped up all of these new features with a more premium metal design...

Actually, my biggest gripe with the Galaxy S5 has to do with its design. On the bright side, Samsung did ditch the glossy plastic used in the Galaxy S4 and S3, in favor of a faux-leather texture., which is still plastic nevertheless However, instead of molding the plastic to look like leather, like in the Note 3, The S5's plastic back has what looks like perforated holes, not unlike what was on the back of the 2012 Nexus 7. While it definitely looks less cheap than the glossy plastic, it's still far from looking premium and attractive. Even a simple, matte-finished plastic back like the one on the Nexus 5 or Moto G is more inviting than the S5's textured plastic design. The Galaxy S5 will be available in four colors at launch: a rather standard black and white, and two unusual colors, blue and gold. 

The front face of the phone remains similar to the Galaxy S4, except that the sides are a bit less rounded, like with the Note 3. The only real difference is that the Menu key has been replaced with a Task Switcher key, the Menu button now being displayed on the UI. 

The Galaxy S5 is significantly larger than the Galaxy S4, despite only a 0.1" increase in screen size. It measures 142mm tall, 72.5mm wide and 8.1mm thick, and weighs 145g. In comparison, the Galaxy S4 measures 136.6 x 70 x 7.9mm and weighs 130g. The main culprit for the S5's larger footprint is probably the IP67 certification, which is why I'd like to see Samsung release a non-waterproof version of the Galaxy S5, which a smaller, lighter body, perhaps (finally) with a metal construction. In any case, the Galaxy S5 isn't too big nor too heavy. In comparison to another ~5" smartphone with an IP certification, the Sony Xperia Z2, the Galaxy S5 is comparatively smaller and much lighter. 

The display is, on paper, almost identical to the one on the Galaxy S4. Screen size has increased only mildly to 5.1", while the resolution was kept at 1080p, resulting in a 432ppi pixel density. While that is lower than the S4's 441ppi (due to the smaller screen), the difference between 441ppi and 432ppi is impossible to notice, even with a microscope. Many rumors pointed to a 2K screen in the Galaxy S5, but I was actually very happy too see Samsung didn't make that move. A 2K screen would require too much power and GPU resources, not to mention that, at this screen size, the difference between 2K and 1080p wouldn't be very noticeable. Maybe in one or two years, when batteries will be larger and GPUs, more powerful, it might make sense to move up to 2K in smartphones, but for now it's a no go, in my opinion. The screen technology employed is AMOLED, of course, and there should be some improvements to the technology regarding brightness output and color reproduction compared to the Galaxy S4.
So the Galaxy S5's screen isn't very different from the S4, but then again the S4's display is as good as smartphones should go for now, and the improvements to the AMOLED technology help make the S5's display at least slightly superior to the S4.

The processor in the Galaxy S5 is a Snapdragon 801, which offers comparatively much more power than the original Galaxy S4's Snapdragon 600 processor. The 801 is, however, very similar to the Snapdragon 800 processor found on the LTE-A variant of the Galaxy S4, which released towards the end of 2013. The Snapdragon 801 boasts of four Krait 400 cores running at up to 2.5GHz, an Adreno 330 GPU with an unprecedented clock speed of 578MHz, and a 64-bit wide LPDDR3 memory interface at 933MHz. The Snapdragon 801 may not be a huge step up from the 800, but that doesn't mean it's not the most powerful SoC to date. Alas, the Snapdragon 800 already went neck to neck with the Apple A7 in some benchmarks, and outperformed it in others, so the Snapdragon 801 will only guarantee that Qualcomm retains the title of the manufacturer with the fastest SoC in existence. To put it shortly, the Galaxy S5 boasts of the best performance available in the mobile world.
The Galaxy S5 packs 2 GB of RAM, just like last year's model. I expected this year's S-flagship to pack 3 GB of RAM like the Note 3, but I assume that Samsung decided 2 GB was enough for the tasks the Galaxy S5 will undertake, and frankly I agree, especially since the S5 runs Android KitKat out of the box. The Galaxy S5's battery also got bigger compared to the S4, but not by much. The difference is only 200mAh, making the Galaxy S5's battery a 2,800mAh unit. Given that the screen size and resolution are very similar to the Galaxy S4's, the overall system power consumption shouldn't increase too much with the S5, so even the mild increase in battery size will probably help increase the battery life of the smartphone.

The Galaxy S5 continues the trend of continuously improving camera quality, packing a 16MP rear shooter. Aperture remains at F/2.2, and the new camera module makes use of ISOCELL technology, which means there's more separation between each pixel and improves on image resolution and increases the dynamic range. One feature which was ported over from the Note 3 is 4K video recording at 30FPS. We still don't have image and video samples for the Galaxy S5, but I'm confident that image quality will be significantly improved over the Galaxy S4. The front-facing camera is a 2 MP unit capable of 1080p video recording. 

Until now I only talked about improvements over the Galaxy S4, but what brand new features does the Galaxy S5 add? Firstly, there's a brand new take on smartphone fitness features with a heart rate monitor, which is located next to the LED flash. Some people will find this feature gimmicky, but I can definitely see it being useful for people who have an active lifestyle (this fits perfectly with the ruggedness of the Galaxy S5).
Also, in response to Apple's Touch ID fingerprint scanner, Samsung has introduced a slightly different kind of fingerprint scanner on the S5. Instead of being on the home button, like on the iPhone 5s, the Galaxy S5's fingerprint scanner is built into the bottom-center portion of the screen, and it's activated by swiping it, rather than holding it. It's not as convenient as Apple's solution, but it's still very good nevertheless.

CES 2014: Samsung Announces Galaxy NotePro and TabPro tablets

In their pursuit for dominance in the tablet market in 2014, Samsung has announced, at its CES 2014 show, four new tablets under the NotePro and TabPro names. The Galaxy NotePro 12.2 takes the spotlight, while the Galaxy TabPro 12.2, 10.1 and 8.4 followed it. As the Pro designation suggests, these are high-end tablets, hence, they'll be on the expensive side. All four Galaxy Pro tablets feature 2560 x 1600 displays and are available in Wi-FI only and LTE versions, and are powered by either the Exynos 5420 processor or the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800.

Galaxy NotePro and TabPro 12.2

This is perhaps the most interesting of these four tablets. The Galaxy NotePro 12.2, basically a larger Note 10.1 (2014), explores a display size that is seldom used in tablets. Some people (me included) think that 12.2" is too large for a tablet, while others may appreciate the extra screen real estate. The NotePro 12.2 has a very high 2560 x 1600 resolution, which leads to a 247ppi pixel density, just shy of the iPad's 264ppi (but then again, 1600p is pretty much the limit for tablets for the time being). The tablet is 8mm thick and weighs 750g for the Wi-Fi version and 753g for the LTE version. It's a very heavy tablet due to its footprint, but I suppose that the weight must be well distributed. The Wi-Fi variant is powered by an Exynos 5420 processor, which consists of four ARM Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 1.9GHz and four Cortex-A7 cores clocked at 1.3GHz in a big.LITTLE configuration, plus a Mali-T628 6-core GPU, while the LTE variant uses a Snapragon 800 processor, which consists of four Krait 400 cores clocked at 2.3GHz, plus an Adreno 330 GPU. The tablet has an 8 MP rear camera with LED flash and a 2 MP front camera. It's powered by a huge 9,500 mAh battery, which should sustain the large, high-res screen and the powerful SoC for long periods of usage. Expect this tablet to be very expensive, maybe even a bit below Surface Pro 2 territory. 

The Galaxy TabPro 12.2 is identical to the NotePro 12.2, though obviously sans the S-Pen stylus. Without the S-Pen, the TabPro 12.2 is actually a bit lighter, weighing 732g. Logically, it'll be slightly cheaper than the NotePro 12.2, though still well above the average tablet price. 

Galaxy TabPro 10.1

Much like the Galaxy TabPro 12.2 is a NotePro 12.2 sans S-Pen, the Galaxy TabPro 10.1 is essentially a Note 10.1 (2014) without the stylus. It's actually thinner and lighter than the Note 10.1 (2014), probably due to the exclusion of the S-Pen, measuring 7.3mm thick and weighing 469g for the Wi-Fi only version, and the LTE version weighs 477g, making it one of the few tablets to match the iPad Air in thickness (it's actually a bit thinner) and weight (they weigh EXACTLY the same). Compared to the Note 10.1, the TabPro 10.1 sees a reduction in RAM capacity from 3GB to 2GB. The reason for that reduction? I have no clue. Apart from that, they're practically the same, with a 10.1" 2560 x 1600 display with a 299ppi pixel density, an Exynos 5420 processor for the Wi-Fi version and Snapdragon 800 silicon for the LTE model, 8 MP rear camera with flash and a 2 MP front camera and a 8,220 mAh battery. Given its similarity to the Note 10.1 (2014), I'm assuming the exclusion of the S-Pen means the TabPro 10.1 will be a bit cheaper than its Note counterpart, I'm betting on $499.

Galaxy TabPro 8.4

Finally, there's the iPad mini 2 competitor, the Galaxy TabPro 8.4. It has, as the name suggests, an 8.4" display with 2560 x 1600 resolution, which gives the tablet an industry-leading 359ppi pixel density. Unlike other TabPro and NotePro tablets, both the Wi-Fi and LTE versions of this tablet are equipped with a Snapdragon 800 processor, an unusual decision from Samsung. The TabPro 8.4 also comes with an 8 MP rear camera with flash and a 2 MP front-facing camera. Like the TabPro 10.1, this tablet comes with "only" 2 GB of RAM. It's very thin and light, measuring 7.2mm thick and weighing 331g for Wi-Fi only, and 336g for the LTE version. The power hungry components are fed by a respectable 4,800 mAh battery. Expect the Galaxy TabPro 8.4 to be priced competitively with the iPad mini 2. Some may still prefer the iPad mini, but the TabPro 8.4 is definitely the best mini tablet in the Android space. 

Conclusion

All of the four tablets will come with Android 4.4 KitKat running out of the box. Samsung's  new Magazine UX will also make a debut with these tablets. Expect the TabPros and the NotePro 12.2 to be released in February, while pricing is still not known for certain. But so far we've heard that the NotePro 12.2 Wi-Fi only will be sold for about $800, the TabPro 10.1 will be $499 and the TabPro 8.4 will cost $399. Though not officially confirmed, these prices seem very plausible.

Samsung has started 2014 very well in the tablet space. The NotePro and TabPro tablets offer flagship specs, with the biggest difference between them (in the case of the TabPro line) being the screen size, much like what Apple did this year with the iPad Air and iPad Mini Retina. Expensive as they are, The Galaxy Pro tablets are bound to be the greatest Android tablets this year, if not the greatest tablets in general. 

Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition) vs Microsoft Surface 2: Tablet Comparison

The holiday season is almost upon us, and so the biggest players in the tablet market finally have their latest flagships already available. The Surface 2, from Microsoft, and 
the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, by Samsung, are some of the most interesting tablet 
flagships this holiday season. Both of them have very high-end specs, including high-resolution displays and powerful processors, along with a (perhaps too) high price tag. But which one is worth your money the most?

	Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition)	Microsoft Surface 2
Body	243 x 171 x 7.9mm, 540g (Wi-Fi)/547g (LTE)	275 x 172.5 x 8.9mm, 676g
Display	10.1" TFT LCD 2560 x 1600 (299ppi)	10.6" ClearType 1920 x 1080 (208ppi)
Connectivity	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)	Wi-Fi
Storage	16/32 GB, 3 GB RAM	32/64 GB, 2 GB RAM
Camera (Rear)	8 MP with LED flash, Dual-camera, dual-recording and HDR and 1080p video	5 MP with LED flash and 1080p video
Camera (Front)	2 MP with 1080p video	3.5 MP with 1080p video
OS	Android 4.3 Jelly Bean	Windows 8.1 RT
Processor	Wi-Fi: Exynos 5420 (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.9GHz + Quad-core Cortex-A7 @ 1.3GHz + Mali-T628 GPU)  LTE: Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 MSM8974 (Quad-core Krait @ 2.3GHz + Adreno 330 GPU)	NVIDIA Tegra 4 (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.7GHz + 72-core ULP GeForce)
Battery	Non-removable 8,220 mAh  Up to 10 hours of use	Non-removable ~8,500 mAh (31.5 Wh)  Up to 10 hours of use
Accessories	- S Pen stylus	- Touch Cover 2 ($119)  - Type Cover 2 ($129)  - Power Cover ($199)
Price	$549 (16 GB, Wi-Fi)	$449 (32 GB)

The two tablets, despite both being flagships, compete at different price points, which explains partially why the Surface 2's specs aren't as impressive as the Galaxy Note 10.1's.

Design

These two flagship tablets feature some very nice designs to go with the powerful hardware inside them and their high prices. In terms of materials the Surface 2 has the upper hand, because while the Galaxy Note 10.1 has a plastic back with a special texture that makes it look like leather (aka faux leather), the Surface 2's internals are protected by a durable magnesium alloy the Microsoft calls VaporMg. That gives the Surface 2 a premium look over the Note 10.1, and it's more durable too. The faux leather on the Note 10.1 might be appealing to some, but to others, including me, the leather imitation is not attractive. 

Despite its high-quality materials, the Surface 2 just falls short of its competitors when it comes to its size and weight. It's inevitably larger, since the screen is 1/2" larger than its Android rivals and is 0.9" larger than the iPad's screen, so we can't blame Microsoft for that. Not only that, but it's also thicker than most recent flagship tablets (the Galaxy Note 10.1 measures 7.9mm thick, and the iPad Air is 7.5mm thick) and much heavier, weighing 676g versus the Galaxy Note 10.1's 540g and the iPad Air's 469g. Of course some of that extra weight comes from the larger dimensions due to the larger screen, but that doesn't excuse the Surface 2 for being that heavy. It's still quite comfortable to hold, but the Galaxy Note 10.1 will definitely tire your arms less when holding the tablet for an extended period of time. The Surface 2 also has considerably larger bezels than its rivals. Considering the size of the screen, however, the bezel size is quite appreciable.

Of course, the Surface 2's built-in kickstand distinguishes it from all of its competitors. The new 2-stage kickstand is very useful, and is something you'd only be able to achieve on other tablets with covers like the iPad's Smart Cover, and considering the Surface 2's weight, you might find yourself using the kickstand more than you imagine. Also, one unique feature of the Surface 2 is its keyboard covers, which attach to the amazingly strong magnetic connector on the bottom side of the tablet and can also double as a cover for the screen. There are three options of keyboard covers, starting with the Touch Cover 2, which sells for $119 and this one features capacitive keys, which are now backlit, the Type Cover 2, which sells for $129, is thicker than the Touch Cover 2 with the benefit of having physical keys, which are also backlit. Finally there's the Power Cover, which will be available as of early 2014 for $199, and will be basically a Type Cover 2 with a built-in battery. Along with Microsoft Office RT 2013, the keyboard covers make the Surface 2 just about the most productive ARM tablet on the planet. 

The Galaxy Note 10.1 also has some productivity-oriented tricks up its sleeve with its S Pen digitizer, which comes included with the tablet and offers precise pen input for taking notes and other related tasks. 

Display

Of these two tablets, it's the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition that has the better display. While the display is smaller, measuring 10.1" diagonally, it packs much more pixels than the Surface 2, with a stunning 2560 x 1600 resolution and a top-notch 299ppi pixel density. Samsung's display also has excellent viewing angles and reproduces colors vibrantly and accurately. 

The Surface 2 packs a slightly larger 10.6" screen with a resolution of 1920 x 1080, resulting in a pixel density of 208ppi. Microsoft uses its so-called ClearType technology in the Surface 2, which means that the touch panel and the glass are laminated to the display, reducing reflections and thus making the tablet's screen more comfortable to use in direct light or outdoors. The display also has wide viewing angles, and like the Note 10.1 also reproduces accurate and saturated colors, although the Note 10.1 is still slightly more vivid. The difference in the two displays' pixel densities is quite easily noticeable when viewing text. The Note 10.1 is just completely devoid of any pixellation, while the Surface 2, while still very crisp, does show some pixellation in text if you look closely. 

The two displays have slightly different aspect ratios. While the Note 10.1 is 16:10, the Surface 2 is even wider with a 16:9 aspect ratio. So while the Note 10.1 is noticeably less wide, both screen share the same benefits and problems, for instance, they're excellent for watching videos, but while the Note 10.1 would show a very small amount of letterboxing, the Surface 2 should be devoid of any letterboxing. Both are also quite awkward to use in portrait mode, but the Note 10.1 is arguably a bit less awkward to use in portrait. In any case, both displays are excellent, but the Note 10.1 certainly outclasses the Surface 2 in every way, even if by a little. 

Processor

As flagship tablets, both of them are equipped with the latest and greatest silicon. The Surface 2 has a Tegra 4 processor, while the Galaxy Note 10.1 goes with a Snapdragon 800 beast for the LTE variant or Samsung's own Exynos 5420 processor for the Wi-Fi only version.

The Tegra 4 is NVIDIA's latest system-on-chip, and utilizes the 4-PLUS-1 architecture originally introduced in the Tegra 3, what that means is that there is one main CPU cluster, which is composed of four Cortex-A15 cores clocked at up to 1.9GHz with one core active (and 1.7GHz with more than one core active) and one additional shadow A15 core targeted for low frequency (up to ~825MHz) and low power consumption. When the CPU workload is very light, for example, when the device is idling, all processing transfers to the shadow core and the quad-core A15 cluster is power-gated, so that the shadow core can process these light tasks while consuming very low power, enhancing battery life. Performance-wise, the Cortex-A15 is one of the best performing mobile CPUs in existence, so CPU performance on the Surface 2 should be on par with the industry's greatest. 

The GPU in the Tegra 4 is a bit more disappointing. The shader architecture is the only one in the current mobile industry that is discrete rather than unified, and mind you, that's the architecture that most similarly resembles the Geforce 6000 series (which is very old indeed). Basically this means that, instead of each shader in the GPU being able to process pixel or vertex instructions based on the workload, there are separate pixel and vertex shader units. With a total of 72 shader cores (48 shader, 24 vertex) with a pretty high clock speed of 672MHz, the Tegra 4 actually packs a lot of processing power, despite its old architecture. As benchmarks will show, Tegra 4's GPU performance is somewhat behind the Snapdragon 800 and the Exynos 5420 processors used in the Galaxy Note 10.1, but considering that the Surface 2's GPU needs to push roughly half the amount of pixels compared to the Note 10.1, they're actually well-balanced performance-wise.

The Galaxy Note 10.1's Wi-Fi version is packed with an Exynos 5420 processor, more commonly known as Exynos 5 Octa. This processor uses ARM's big.LITTLE CPU architecture which, similarly to NVIDIA's 4-PLUS-1, has one high-performance CPU cluster and a second power-saving CPU cluster. The main cluster is very similar to the Tegra 4, containing four Cortex-A15 cores with a clock speed of 1.9GHz. Unlike the Tegra 4 though, which uses only one core in the power-saving cluster, Samsung went rather overkill and crammed in four low-power Cortex-A7 cores running at up to 1.3GHz. I'm not sure rather the Quad-core A7 @ 1.3GHz is more or less efficient in saving power than a single A15 @ 825MHz, but both solutions should have a similar effect on power consumption. In benchmarks, however, the Exynos 5420 is certainly very close to the Tegra 4, since their high-performing CPU clusters are practically identical. 

On the GPU side, the Exynos 5420 packs ARM's Mali-T628 GPU, which benchmarks prove to be a very powerful GPU and adequate for the Galaxy Note 10.1's high-resolution duties. Unlike the Tegra 4, the Mali-T628 is as modern as mobile GPUs go, as the shader architecture is unified and the GPU boasts full support of OpenGL ES 3.0.

The LTE Galaxy Note 10.1 is equipped with the industry leading Snapdragon 800 processor. This CPU in the Snapdragon 800 is a Quad-core configuration of Qualcomm's own Krait 400 CPU core, running at a max clock speed of 2.3GHz. The CPU is power-efficient enough so that an extra low-power CPU cluster isn't necessary here. In fact, one interesting ability of the Krait 400 core is that each core can run at a different clock speed depending on the workload put on each core, unlike the Cortex-A15, which has the same clock speed on all active cores. What's the advantage of that? For example, if the current workload requires two cores active, using one at full power but only processing light tasks on the second core, a Cortex-A15 CPU would put both cores on their highest clock speed, say, 1.9GHz, even though the second core is processing a light task and doesn't need the full 1.9GHz, while a Krait core, with the same workload, would put the first core on full power, in this case, 2.3GHz, and the second core at a lower clock speed adequate for its current task, say, 1.0GHz. This unique feature really helps increase power efficiency, and renders extra low-power CPU cores unnecessary. In terms of performance, its high clock speed and its strong core architecture make the Snapdragon 800 one of the fastest CPUs around, if not the fastest. 

The GPU in the Snapdragon 800 is the company's own Adreno 330. Since Qualcomm never discloses information about its GPU architectures, I'm left with very little to say about it, however, we do know that, like the Mali-T628, it has a modern architecture, with a unified shader architecture and full OpenGL ES 3.0 support. In general, the Adreno 330 does perform a bit better than the Mali-T628, but its performance is still pretty close to the Mali-T628. 

Now, with all that technical babble about architectures out of the way, let's get to actually testing these processors' performance in benchmarks, starting with Geekbench 3, which measures CPU and memory performance.

Note: The Galaxy Note 10.1's LTE edition isn't commercially available, so I had to take Snapdragon 800 benchmark results from the Note III, which runs the same software as the Note 10.1 and should therefore have almost identical results to the actual S800-powered Note 10.1. However, the difference in resolution (1080p vs 1600p) between the Note III and the Note 10.1 means I can't include onscreen GPU benchmark results for the Snapdragon 800.

Note (2): Unfortunately Geekbench 3 isn't available for Windows RT, so I can't include results for the Surface 2, so I took the performance results from an Android tablet whose processor most closely resembles the Surface 2's, the ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T, which is powered by a slightly higher-clocked Tegra 4.

The main current SoC flagships all have surprisingly similar CPU performance. The Tegra 4, Snapdragon 800 and Exynos 5420 offer very similar single-threaded performance, despite the architectural differences between the Krait 400 core and the Cortex-A15. The only clearly distinguished competitor here is the 64-bit Apple A7, but this is out of the scope of this comparison. When it comes to heavily-threaded tasks the Tegra 4 and the Exynos 5420 are practically identical (seeing as their CPUs ARE identical), along with the Apple A7, while the Snapdragon 800 takes the lead, though not by a big margin.

Evidently, the Galaxy Note 10.1's and the Surface 2's respective processors perform very similarly when it comes to CPU performance, so now let's check out some performance scores regarding the GPU performance with the popular cross-platform application, GFXBench. The two following tests are Offscreen test. That means that the GPU renders at a non-native, fixed 1080p resolution, so that differences between the devices' resolutions don't impact their performance.

In this test the Apple A7 takes the lead, followed closely by the Snapdragon 800. The Exynos 5420-toting Note 10.1 falls a bit behind, and the Tegra 4 in the Surface 2 receives a mediocre score compared to its competitors. Thankfully, the Surface 2 has less pixels to push than the Note 10.1, which will give it a performance advantage in the onscreen tests. 

In this test the Snapdragon 800 and the Exynos 5420 take the lead, with the A7 hot on its heels and the Tegra 4, again, yielding a rather mediocre score. 

Since the Note 10.1 has to push about a couple million pixels more than the Surface 2, it was the Tegra 4 that was faster in the Onscreen T-Rex HD test, but not by as much of a huge margin as two million less pixels would otherwise imply. In fact, I expect the Snapdragon 800-powered Note 10.1 will be able to match or even outperform the Surface 2 in this test, despite having twice the resolution. 

For the Egypt HD Onscreen test, not even the Surface 2's lower resolution helped it outperform the Note 10.1. Even with double the resolution, the Note 10.1 managed a much higher score than the Surface 2. In comparing the Surface 2's GPU performance to other Tegra 4 devices, I realized that the Surface 2 is in fact one of the worst performing Tegra 4 devices. That is probably because Microsoft chose one of the slower Tegra 4 SKUs for the Surface 2, and the CPU clock speed reduction from 1.9GHz to 1.7GHz might have come along with a GPU clock speed reduction from the full 672MHz, perhaps to 600MHz like on the 1.8GHz Tegra 4 in the Tegra Note tablet. At any rate, it's clear that the GPU performance in the Surface 2 isn't as good as the Galaxy Note 10.1

Power Consumption

From these two devices being compared, it's probably the Galaxy Note 10.1 that draws the most power. The first and most obvious cause is that it has much higher resolution screen to power. Also, while the SoC should be very power efficient due to its 28nm process (the Exynos 5420 is built on a 28nm High-K Metal Gate process, while the Snapdragon 800 uses a 28nm HPM process), but given the heavy duties that the GPU will be in charge of due to the high pixel count, it could become quite a power hog, especially when playing games. But the battery is very decently sized, which leads to Samsung's 10 hours of usage claim. 

The Surface 2 has, obviously, much less pixels to power, so the power consumption of the display is significantly lower. The Tegra 4 processor is also built on a 28nm process, so it won't get too hot or consume too much power when processing heavy tasks, like gaming. And while I can't compare the Surface 2's and the Galaxy Note 10.1's battery sizes directly, since Microsoft gives the battery size in watt-hours, and Samsung uses mAh, I can only compare them by estimating the Surface 2's capacity in mAh. Assuming that it's a 3.7V battery, the Surface 2 has around an 8,500 mAh capacity, which is actually slightly larger than the Samsung's 8,220 mAh battery. Then again, the battery voltage in the Surface 2 could easily not be 3.7V, which would lead to a different value altogether, but the safest bet (and that in itself isn't very safe) is 3.7V. Well, the extra thickness of the Surface 2 had to offer some advantage aside from the kickstand. Anyways, despite the lower display resolution and the (maybe) larger battery, Microsoft claims the same 10 hours of usage for the Surface 2, but in practice I'd expect the Surface 2 to outlast the Galaxy Note 10.1, even if only by a little. 

Pricing and Conclusion

Of course, the Surface 2's slightly weaker specs compared to the Galaxy Note 10.1 is justified by their different prices. The entry-level 32 GB Surface 2 sells for $449, while the 16 GB Wi-Fi only Galaxy Note 10.1 has a hefty $549 price tag. That's a $100 dollar difference for the same user-available storage capacity (as the Surface 2's OS leaves it only with about 17.5 GB of free disk space). The 64 GB Surface 2 (that has about 47 GB of free space initially) matches the 16 GB Note 10.1 at $549, while the 32 GB Note 10.1 will cost you $599. So clearly these tablets are competing at different price points. 

The Surface 2 is hands down the best tablet for productivity. With its handy two-stage kickstand and the new backlit Touch and Type covers, which act as much as keyboards as screen covers, as well as the Windows 8.1 RT operating system and the inclusion of Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student make it by far the most productive tablet available. However, the relatively new Windows Store has many important apps available, but is still missing some key apps, like Instagram, and has nowhere near the amount of apps that the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store offer.

The Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition is the polar opposite of the Surface 2. With a higher-resolution display and a very useful S-Pen stylus, as well as the vast app and media ecosystem offered by the Android OS and its associated app store, the Note 10.1 is up there with the iPad Air as one of the best tablets available for entertainment.

So it really comes down to whether you want a tablet that is geared towards productivity, i.e. a laptop replacement, or a tablet that offers the best for entertainment purposes. The difference in pricing is also a factor, as many will probably find the Galaxy Note 10.1 too expensive.

Apple iPad Air vs Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014 Edition): Tablet Comparison

The holiday season is almost upon us, and so the biggest players in the tablet market finally have their latest flagships already available. The iPad Air, from Apple, and the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition, by Samsung, are some of the most interesting tablet flagships this holiday season. Both of them have very high-end specs, including high-resolution displays and very powerful processors, along with a (perhaps too) high price tag. But which one is worth your money the most?

	Apple iPad Air	Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
Body	240 x 169.5 x 7.5mm, 469g (Wi-Fi)/478g (LTE)	243 x 171 x 7.9mm, 540g (Wi-Fi)/547g (LTE)
Display	9.7" IPS LCD 2048 x 1536 (264ppi)	10.1" TFT LCD 2560 x 1600 (299ppi)
Storage	16/32/64 GB, 1 GB RAM	16/32 GB, 3 GB RAM
Connectivity	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)	Wi-Fi, GSM (2G), HSDPA (3G), LTE (4G)
Camera (Rear)	5 MP with 1080p@30fps video, F/2.4 aperture, HDR, face detection	8 MP with LED flash, face detection and 1080p@60fps video
Camera (Front)	1.2 MP with 720p@30fps video and face detection	2 MP with 1080p@30fps video
OS	iOS 7	Android 4.3 Jelly Bean
Processor	Apple A7 (Dual-core Cyclone @ 1.4GHz + PowerVR G6430 @ 450MHz)	-Wi-Fi: Exynos 5420 (Quad-core Cortex-A15 @ 1.9GHz + Quad-core Cortex-A7 @ 1.3GHz + Mali-T628) -LTE: Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 MSM8974 (Quad-core Krait 400 @ 2.3GHz + Adreno 330 @ 450MHz)
Battery	Non-removable Li-Po 8,820 mAh Video playback time: 10hrs	Non-removable Li-Po 8,220 mAh Video playback time: 10hrs
Starting  Price	$499 (16GB, Wi-Fi)	$549 (16GB, Wi-Fi)
Accessories	--	S Pen

Design

Both Samsung and Apple have produced good designs for their flagship tablets, but it'll come down to the usual plastic vs aluminium debate, or in this case faux leather vs aluminium. While the iPad Air maintains its all-aluminium design, this time inspired on the iPad mini rather than the previous iPad, Samsung has done the same as it did with the Note III, replacing glossy plastic with a back casing that is still plastic, but is now disguised as leather. I'm not sure I appreciate the faux leather design at all. Personally, not only do I prefer the iPad's aluminium construction, but I think the faux leather looks so old-fashioned that even the glossy plastic they used previously may look better. That's just my opinion though, and ultimately it'll come down to personal taste. At least the faux leather gives the Galaxy Note 10.1 more grip than the iPad Air. The Galaxy Note 10.1 is available in black and white (bezel color included), and the iPad Air is similarly available in "Space" gray and silver. 

Both the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air are remarkably thin and light. They are in fact one of the thinnest and lightest tablets available, but the iPad Air is definitely the winner in this department. It's technically thinner than the Note 10.1 (7.5mm vs 7.9mm), but the difference is so small it's practically unnoticeable to the user. While their thickness is one the same level, the iPad Air is significantly lighter than the Note 10.1 (469g vs 540g). In this case the difference in weight is definitely noticeable. The Note 10.1 is still lighter than most other tablets, though. 

Display

The display is possibly the area where these two tablets fare the best. Both are large, crisp, bright, and colorful. The iPad Air, much like two of its predecessors, has a 9.7" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio and a resolution of 2048 x 1536, which gives the screen 264ppi pixel density. The Note 10.1 has, like the name implies, a 10.1" display with a 16:10 aspect ratio that packs 2560 x 1600 pixels and has a pixel density of 299ppi.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the displays is the aspect ratio. The almost-square 4:3 display in the iPad Air makes it better to use in portrait mode, and is more suited for reading and web browsing, while the wide 16:10 display in the Note 10.1 makes it better suited for usage in landscape mode, and frankly makes portrait mode use a bit awkward, but is generally better for watching videos. 

You may think that the difference between 264ppi and 299ppi is huge, but honestly, it's hard to notice the Galaxy Note 10.1 being any crisper than the iPad Air, especially at the usual viewing distance. The difference is there, however, and any eagle-eyed person would probably notice a slight difference in sharpness. 

Leaving the numbers and quantitative data aside, both the Note 10.1's and the iPad Air's displays are sufficiently bright. Viewing angles are good, as is expected of any half-decent tablet these days, and colors are accurate and satisfyingly saturated in both tablets. 

Performance

Both of these tablets have the most powerful processors available to handle their ultra high-resolution duties. On the iPad Air we have the same A7 SoC found in the iPhone 5s and the Retina iPad mini, and on the Galaxy Note 10.1 we have either the Snapdragon 800 or a rare Exynos 5 Octa (5420) SoC for the LTE and Wi-FI models, respectively. All of these SoCs are built on 28nm process node to keep power consumption lower. 

The A7's CPU technology has gained quite a bit of popularity since its launch back in September. That's because its the first CPU to utilize the ARMv8 ISA, which happens to be a 64-bit architecture, hence also making it the first 64-bit mobile SoC. Apart from the new ISA, Apple made its new Cyclone CPU core the widest mobile CPU ever seen. With all that power packed into a single core, Apple needed no more than two of those cores with a relatively low 1.4GHz clock speed to match its competitors' performance. As benchmarks show, the dual-core Cyclone CPU @ 1.4GHz is perfectly capable of competing with the latest quad-core beasts, and since it packs much more power on a single core, the A7 really stands out from its competitors in single-threaded CPU benchmarks.

The CPU in the Exynos 5420 SoC in the Wi-Fi Galaxy Note 10.1 is one of the few CPUs to ultilize ARM's big.LITTLE technology. Based on the ARMv7 32-bit ISA, the Exynos 5420 contains two CPU clusters, one high-performance cluster to handle demanding tasks, and a low-power cluster for handling lighter tasks while reducing power consumption.The high-performance cluster contains four Cortex-A15 cores clocked at 1.9GHz, while the low-power cluster has four Cortex-A7 cores @ 1.3GHz. 

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 variant of the Galaxy Note 10.1 (the LTE version) has, like Apple, a custom CPU core dubbed Krait 400, based on the ARMv7 32-bit ISA. The Snapdragon 800 has four Krait 400 cores with an insane 2.3GHz clock speed. 

Like I said before, since the A7's Cyclone CPU has a 64-bit architecture and is wider than all of its competitors, it manages a much higher score in single-threaded CPU benchmarks. However, in multi-threaded applications the A7 has the disadvantage of having fewer cores compared to its competitors, however it can still definitely keep up with its quad-core competition. The multi-threaded test puts the A7 very close to the Exynos 5420, but both processors lag behind the Snapdragon 800.

With the CPU out of the way, let's focus on the GPU of the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air. The A7 SoC follows Apple's tradition of licensing GPUs only from ImgTech, and so we have a PowerVR G6430 graphics processor in the A7. On the Wi-Fi Note 10.1's Exynos 5420 processor there's an ARM Mali-T628 GPU, and the LTE Note 10.1 has an Adreno 330 GPU. All of these GPUs are among the most powerful mobile GPUs available, so we turn to GFXBench to tell us which of these GPUs is the most powerful.

Note: Unfortunately there are no benchmark scores yet available for the Snapdragon 800-based Note 10.1, so I'm taking data from the closest match I could find, the Galaxy Note III with Snapdragon 800. However, I'll omit the Note III scores from the Onscreen tests due to the difference in resolution between the Note III and the Note 10.1.

The T-Rex HD Offscreen test shows the PowerVR G6430 in the iPad Air remarkably close to the Adreno 330, however the Mali-T628 GPU in the Wi-Fi Note 10.1 lags behind them both, but at least outperforms the NVIDIA Tegra 4 SoC in the ASUS Transformer Pad.

The lighter Egypt HD Offscreen test shows the iPad Air's GPU falling behing both the Wi-Fi Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Snapdragon 800-powered Galaxy Note III and puts the Snapdragon 800 at the top of the chart.

Note that since these two tests are rendered at a fixed, non-native resolution, the difference between the resolution of the Note 10.1 and the iPad Air don't affect the scores here. 

The Onscreen tests illustrate how the 1 million more pixels that these two Android flagships have to push versus the iPad Air bog down their performance. The T-Rex HD test shows that the iPad Air managed a much higher score compared to the Exynos-based Galaxy Note 10.1 and the Tegra 4 ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T. 

Since the Egypt HD test is much lighter than T-Rex HD the margin between the iPad Air and its competitors becomes narrower. However, it's still clear that the iPad Air, due to its significantly lower resolution, can push more frames than its 1600p Android competitors. 

Until the Snapdragon 800-based LTE Galaxy Note 10.1 gets released there's no data to indicate how it compares to the iPad Air in the Onscreen tests, although if I were to guess, I'd say that, even though the Adreno 330 is slightly more powerful than the PowerVR G6430 in the Apple A7, its performance advantage still won't be able to offset the resolution difference between it and the iPad Air.

Usually, the Onscreen tests would mimic most accurately real world gaming performance, given that Android and iOS games tend to run at the device's native screen resolution, but since the iPad 3 developers have been going another way: For specific ultra high-res devices, in order to avoid performance issues, the game runs at a lower-than-native resolution and then upscales to the device's screen resolution.  For example, a developer might program a game to run at 1920 x 1200 and then scale to 2560 x 1600 on the Galaxy Note 10.1 to keep framerates high. Given how the Galaxy Note 10.1's higher resolution obviously puts it behind its iPad competitor, it might be necessary for this sort of optimization to be made to keep a decent framerate in very demanding 3D games.

Conclusion

The Galaxy Note 10.1 and the iPad Air are in fact similar in many ways. They both have thin, light designs (although the plastic vs metal war continues with these flagships), displays with a very high resolution, large batteries and some of the best-performing SoCs available. 

In hardware terms, the iPad Air and the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition are indeed very similar, so it'll probably come down to software to determine which one is best for you. With the Note 10.1, we have Android 4.3 (and soon enough 4.4) with Samsung's TouchWiz UI added on top, and the iPad Air obviously runs iOS 7. 

The addition of the S Pen digitizer might make you choose the Note 10.1 over the iPad Air, but that'll be only if you really value the advantages that a stylus brings.

Selling for the usual $499 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, the iPad Air is an expensive tablet, although not as expensive as the Galaxy Note 10.1, which sells for $549 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version. $549 is asking for a lot, so unless the S Pen is really useful for you or you really prefer the Android ecosystem, the iPad Air offers more bang for your buck than the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition.