How does the Pixel 3 compare?

[atypicaluser]

I'm sitting here with my Pixel 3 and it's really hard for me to understand how these 7xx chipsets compare to my device's speed and performance. I'd like to believe it's the same or equal but I feel like I need to buy one to get a better opinion. I realize that Pixel 3 to 4a is a step back in many ways so I'm just thinking about processor performance. Anyone else made this change?

 

[kbz1960]

Just interested in the comments

 

[vzwuser76]

I'm sitting here with my Pixel 3 and it's really hard for me to understand how these 7xx chipsets compare to my device's speed and performance. I'd like to believe it's the same or equal but I feel like I need to buy one to get a better opinion. I realize that Pixel 3 to 4a is a step back in many ways so I'm just thinking about processor performance. Anyone else made this change?

I did. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between the two, other than when taking pictures it takes a second or two for the image to process, but that's due more to the 4a not having the visual core chip than the processor.

Battery life is much better than on my P3. The last 2 nights it only lost 2% over a 6 hours period when I was sleeping. And I have to work to kill the battery in a day. If I did the same on my P3 I'd have to charge it 2-3 times in a day.

I kinda miss active edge and the visual core chip, and the security of an IP rating is good, but I can live without them. I don't regret buying it.

 

[anthonium]

I'm sitting here with my Pixel 3 and it's really hard for me to understand how these 7xx chipsets compare to my device's speed and performance. I'd like to believe it's the same or equal but I feel like I need to buy one to get a better opinion. I realize that Pixel 3 to 4a is a step back in many ways so I'm just thinking about processor performance. Anyone else made this change?

I can relate to this question. I had a Pixel 3 (not XL) for about 9 months and though I LOVED the form factor the poor battery just became too much of an issue for me. I did not want to get the XL version because the notch really irked me. In the end I switched to the Pixel 3A XL.

To this day I do not notice any significant difference in performance between the 3 and 3A XL but I also don't use my phone for extensive tasks like gaming. Yes the picture processing may take just like 2 seconds longer but that's not a huge issue for me.

I believe you would not hate your experience switching to the 4A. I'm tempted to get it myself but frankly I love the performance of the 3A XL I own. Perhaps I'll upgrade once the 5A comes out but the A line of Pixel phones as well as other current mid range phones have proven to me I no longer need a flagship smartphone which consequently is also more budget friendly.

 

[neil74]

I have the P3 and my 4a arrived yesterday. I think the P3 feels nicer in the hand and having wireless charging is nice but that extra screen real estate whilst not much does make a difference and also IMO make it feel like a more modern device.

 

[vzwuser76]

I have the P3 and my 4a arrived yesterday. I think the P3 feels nicer in the hand and having wireless charging is nice but that extra screen real estate whilst not much does make a difference IMO also IMO make it feel like a more modern device.

While I agree the glass feels more premium, the problem is it is also more fragile. If you drop both the 3 & the 4a, the 3's glass back is more likely to break. So while it might not feel as nice in the hand naked (not an issue for me as I have ally phones in cases) it's more durable and I don't have to worry as much if I do drop it. That's worth more to me IMO.

 

[jazman_777]

Glass feels so premium. Every time I picked up my glass-backed phone I thought, "somewhere in there, beneath this case, is a premium feeling phone" LoL

 

[vzwuser76]

Glass feels so premium. Every time I picked up my glass-backed phone I thought, "somewhere in there, beneath this case, is a premium feeling phone" LoL

There's a difference between premium and durable. Glass costs more to produce, generally looks better than most of the plastics used today for phones, and has more weight to it making it feel as if the construction had more thought put into it. But, as I said, I would prefer a plastic back phone, as there's less chance of damage from a drop or other impact. Glass doesn't bend or flex, which is why it's more likely to be damaged, because it's too brittle.

It's not much different in the glass used in displays. If you make it hard enough that it won't scratch easily, it'll be more likely to be damaged in a drop. Inversely, if you make it better at handling drops, it will scratch easier. IIRC, Gorilla Glass had that issue awhile back. One year, instead of the newer version being harder, they tried making it a bit softer to handle impacts, but then it scratched more easily, so the next year they made it harder.

I also prefer plastic to metal. While metal definitely has a more premium feel, no matter what OEMs say, I think it impedes wireless transmission. I live in a house with steel siding, and it drops the signal around 20dBm. Even with windows in the phone's casing, it's proximity to the antennas can affect the signal strength. And as we saw with the iPhone's Antenna gate, a person's skin can act as a conductor between the casing and the antennas when they're set externally in the phone's body.

I wish phone OEMs would use polycarbonate like the older Nokia Lumia phones. They had a nice strong casing, and looked good to boot. They were a bit slippery, but they were durable. The thin soft touch plastic that most oems use today doesn't feel much more durable than my old Droid Incredible or Galaxy S3. But, at least it's more durable in terms of drops or impacts than glass.

 

[anon(50597)]

There's a difference between premium and durable. Glass costs more to produce, generally looks better than most of the plastics used today for phones, and has more weight to it making it feel as if the construction had more thought put into it. But, as I said, I would prefer a plastic back phone, as there's less chance of damage from a drop or other impact. Glass doesn't bend or flex, which is why it's more likely to be damaged, because it's too brittle.

It's not much different in the glass used in displays. If you make it hard enough that it won't scratch easily, it'll be more likely to be damaged in a drop. Inversely, if you make it better at handling drops, it will scratch easier. IIRC, Gorilla Glass had that issue awhile back. One year, instead of the newer version being harder, they tried making it a bit softer to handle impacts, but then it scratched more easily, so the next year they made it harder.

I also prefer plastic to metal. While metal definitely has a more premium feel, no matter what OEMs say, I think it impedes wireless transmission. I live in a house with steel siding, and it drops the signal around 20dBm. Even with windows in the phone's casing, it's proximity to the antennas can affect the signal strength. And as we saw with the iPhone's Antenna gate, a person's skin can act as a conductor between the casing and the antennas when they're set externally in the phone's body.

I wish phone OEMs would use polycarbonate like the older Nokia Lumia phones. They had a nice strong casing, and looked good to boot. They were a bit slippery, but they were durable. The thin soft touch plastic that most oems use today doesn't feel much more durable than my old Droid Incredible or Galaxy S3. But, at least it's more durable in terms of drops or impacts than glass.

I agree. I dislike glassback phones because they feel fragile (breakable) and unnecessarily heavy.