10-05-2014 05:01 PM
57 123
tools
  1. nessinhaw's Avatar
    I've never understood the specs people. Some of them act like specs are everything. The way I look at it is if the phone works well with no lag or glitches and it has stock android it is a good phone. I don't look at the spec sheet except to find out if the screen is too big (anything bigger than 5in), the size of the battery, and whether or not it has vanilla Android or some crappy skin. I see the Moto X as the best phone I've ever used, and I came to it from my higher specked Galaxy S4

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    exactly! the Moto X wasn't made for specs whores but redefines the way Android can be optimized AND have interesting, innovative resources!

    some pplz go "it's only a dual-core and only HD screen"...but it's still a powerful dual-core and it was already stated they chose HD over FHD for battery and gpu performance!

    i mean...this phone is rly super fast and fluid, i find the amoled screen to be great, it lasts me 1 day of battery and it has cool, different resources...what else could i ask? lol

    sent from my Moto X <3
    Aquila likes this.
    05-09-2014 03:41 AM
  2. gunzkevin's Avatar
    I've never understood the specs people. Some of them act like specs are everything. The way I look at it is if the phone works well with no lag or glitches and it has stock android it is a good phone. I don't look at the spec sheet except to find out if the screen is too big (anything bigger than 5in), the size of the battery, and whether or not it has vanilla Android or some crappy skin. I see the Moto X as the best phone I've ever used, and I came to it from my higher specked Galaxy S4

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good phone, I am just stating how I feel. I like technology and I like having the latest and greatest. Just how I am. That said, I didn't say it was slow, I know they have a well optimized processor for battery and performance. But, the 720p screen kills it for me. I (and pretty much everyone) can see the difference between 1080p and 720p on the same screen size. The quality of 440ppi in a 1080p 5" phone, is still amazing to look at.

    The material of the Moto X isn't the most expensive feeling either. (Yes I know it isn't the most expensive phone), but I like the feel of metal and glass ex. One M8, iPhone 5s, Xperia Z2 rather than plastic ex/ S3, S4, Moto X.

    And I prefer larger phones. The added real estate is great for viewing movies and pictures, and in the case of the note, multitasking. I have larger hands so even the Note 3 can be managed one handed for simple tasks. Everything comes down to taste and preference, and that is why I'm glad manufacturers listen to everyone, and make phones accordingly.

    I also like capacitive buttons rather than on screen buttons as is the google norm. They look much less tacky IMO, and don't take up home screen real-estate.
    I know many disagree strongly, but like I said, everyone has their own opinion, no one is wrong.
    Aquila likes this.
    05-09-2014 05:42 AM
  3. gunzkevin's Avatar
    exactly! the Moto X wasn't made for specs whores but redefines the way Android can be optimized AND have interesting, innovative resources!

    some pplz go "it's only a dual-core and only HD screen"...but it's still a powerful dual-core and it was already stated they chose HD over FHD for battery and gpu performance!

    i mean...this phone is rly super fast and fluid, i find the amoled screen to be great, it lasts me 1 day of battery and it has cool, different resources...what else could i ask? lol

    sent from my Moto X <3
    You are in the market for a laptop.

    Option 1 Has a quad core intel i7 processor with 8gb of DDR3 ram, and a 1080p 17" display, fed by a 4 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

    Option 2 has a dual core intel i3 processor with 2gb of DDR3 ram, and a 720p 17" display, fed by a 2 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

    They both perform similar for day to day tasks and you don't notice the differences, but when viewing HD videos, HD games, pictures, Option 1 is obviously stronger.

    This is basically the scenario of the Moto X vs say the Xperia Z2

    I would choose Option 1 for sure. Does that make me a "specs whores" (whatever that means), or just someone who thinks it would be more future proof, and rather have the extra horsepower under the hood, for when I am playing a 1080p video on my screen while running a virus scan among other things.

    But that's why this world is so great, something for everyone's needs.
    Aquila and jbarborka like this.
    05-09-2014 05:58 AM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    You are in the market for a laptop.

    Option 1 Has a quad core intel i7 processor with 8gb of DDR3 ram, and a 1080p 17" display, fed by a 4 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

    Option 2 has a dual core intel i3 processor with 2gb of DDR3 ram, and a 720p 17" display, fed by a 2 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

    They both perform similar for day to day tasks and you don't notice the differences, but when viewing HD videos, HD games, pictures, Option 1 is obviously stronger.

    This is basically the scenario of the Moto X vs say the Xperia Z2

    I would choose Option 1 for sure. Does that make me a "specs whores" (whatever that means), or just someone who thinks it would be more future proof, and rather have the extra horsepower under the hood, for when I am playing a 1080p video on my screen while running a virus scan among other things.

    But that's why this world is so great, something for everyone's needs.
    When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

    Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

    It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

    A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

    I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

    TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.
    jdbii and Snake Griffin like this.
    05-09-2014 07:01 AM
  5. BlueGoldAce's Avatar
    When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

    Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

    It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

    A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

    I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

    TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.
    Well put....


    And with that, it is still worth getting.

    Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk
    sharkita likes this.
    05-09-2014 07:06 AM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    To be fair to the Z2 - it's a monster of a device for people that can get it on their service, etc.

    This person has a point: http://forums.androidcentral.com/son...martphone.html
    05-09-2014 07:46 AM
  7. oldDummy's Avatar
    .....I posted this prior. Think it's worth repeating.........
    .
    Is the Moto X still worth getting?-thelander-motox-1-.jpg
    Moto X is Smartphone D
    [Smokes everything out there]

    Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test

    Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    05-09-2014 09:12 AM
  8. gunzkevin's Avatar
    When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

    Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

    It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

    A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

    I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

    TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.
    Well lets not get things out of proportion. The Z2 is not almost 4 times as much money as the Moto X. ~$640 for the Z2, and ~$350 for the X 16gb.
    The Z2 is ~182% the price of the X. (The Z2 is $699.99 CA = ~$640)

    For 82% money, you are getting a glass and metal constructed phone, waterproof to 3 meters for an hour, 1080p 5.2" screen, 20.7mp camera that can shoot video at 4K HD (underwater!!!!), and a near stock android interface. Even ignoring the internals, it sounds like it is worth it to me. But like I have been saying. I am not arguing whether the Moto X is a fast phone, I just said I personally would not buy one. I think it is cheap looking, and specs are important to me.

    Everyone has their preference.
    Aquila likes this.
    05-10-2014 02:24 AM
  9. gunzkevin's Avatar
    .....I posted this prior. Think it's worth repeating.........
    .
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	thelander-motox[1].jpg 
Views:	214 
Size:	41.4 KB 
ID:	117325
    Moto X is Smartphone D
    [Smokes everything out there]

    Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test

    Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    I'll quote that test too.

    "Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless

    Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    Subscribe at FierceWirelessTech"

    Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

    It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.
    05-10-2014 02:26 AM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    Well lets not get things out of proportion. The Z2 is not almost 4 times as much money as the Moto X. ~$640 for the Z2, and ~$350 for the X 16gb.
    The Z2 is ~182% the price of the X. (The Z2 is $699.99 CA = ~$640)

    For 82% money, you are getting a glass and metal constructed phone, waterproof to 3 meters for an hour, 1080p 5.2" screen, 20.7mp camera that can shoot video at 4K HD (underwater!!!!), and a near stock android interface. Even ignoring the internals, it sounds like it is worth it to me. But like I have been saying. I am not arguing whether the Moto X is a fast phone, I just said I personally would not buy one. I think it is cheap looking, and specs are important to me.

    Everyone has their preference.
    Yep, I don't think we agree on the point either of is making, just about the analogy The price I saw was via https://www.google.com/search?q=xper...ia+z2&tbm=shop where they're all right in the $800 range, so that's what I used but it doesn't change too much whether we're talking 180% or 230% - realistically, I don't think we're considering a $50-100 price difference the main point but knowing it can be had for $100 less is even more of a point in favor of the Z2. It's definitely an awesome phone. It's ringing a lot of bells and making a huge effort not to fall down in the same pitfalls some other OEM's catch when they're trying the same game. I'm definitely impressed with it.
    05-10-2014 02:56 AM
  11. RavenSword's Avatar
    Hmm. I might as well wait and see what the new phones like. I should probably save for a bit anyway. Thanks for all the advice guys
    Aquila and oldDummy like this.
    05-10-2014 04:24 AM
  12. oldDummy's Avatar
    I'll quote that test too.

    "Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless


    Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

    It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.
    .
    Michael Thelander, Signals Research's founder and CEO, said use of different bands did not cause differences in the devices' performance, given that Band 13 and Band 17 are fairly close together on the spectrum chart. "I'm confident that if we had tested a Moto X phone that supported Band 17 in Band 17 that the results would be largely the same," told FierceWirelessTech.


    .
    Careful about believing any post nowadays.
    I agree. However:
    It is what it is.
    The graph speaks for itself.

    .Is the Moto X still worth getting?-thelander-motox-1-.jpg
    05-10-2014 05:25 AM
  13. Ry's Avatar
    I'll quote that test too.

    "Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless

    Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
    Subscribe at FierceWirelessTech"

    Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

    It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.
    Agreed.

    Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)
    05-10-2014 10:46 AM
  14. macnuss's Avatar
    Is It still worth buying.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    ProParkour likes this.
    08-19-2014 12:10 PM
  15. ScottMGS's Avatar
    Yes.
    08-19-2014 01:26 PM
  16. Ry's Avatar
    8/19 I'd still buy one.
    08-19-2014 04:28 PM
  17. efstuck's Avatar
    Yes I think so, but might as well wait for the X+1 reveal so you don't get buyers remorse
    08-20-2014 06:54 PM
  18. Snake Griffin's Avatar
    Still worth buying. Specs be damned it performs great.

    EDIT: Also someone was trashing the build quality of the Moto X and putting it in the same league as galaxy S3/4. That could not be further from the truth, the build quality of the X doesn't even compare to the garbage that is the Galaxy S3 or S4. The X feels very solid and I actually quite like the matte black polymer on mine. The phone itself doesn't creak or rattle and just has that nice dense feeling that the iPhone 4 had - this is despite the fact that I've dropped mine multiple times without a case. Sure it may not be HTC One or Z2 build quality but for the money it's not that far behind, just doesn't use a glass or metal back.
    benhaube and ScottMGS like this.
    08-21-2014 11:14 AM
  19. ScottMGS's Avatar
    Still worth buying. Specs be damned it performs great.
    Exactly.
    08-21-2014 11:42 AM
  20. Dubbayoo's Avatar
    I just replaced my 16GB with a 32GB.
    08-21-2014 12:21 PM
  21. jmcp4372's Avatar
    I was due for an upgrade from Sprint, and with that discount, I walked out of Best Buy with a brand new Moto X for only $20 out of pocket. Probably be my buy of the decade.
    08-21-2014 12:27 PM
  22. macnuss's Avatar
    Well I better buy one then it will cost me 233,- pounds around 400,- us
    09-21-2014 06:24 AM
  23. macnuss's Avatar
    Well now i got one and its awesome

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-30-2014 01:05 PM
  24. ryjb's Avatar
    I just picked up a brand new Moto x 2013 for $200 at this price off contract I'll stick with it. I'd love a new 2014 model but $500 isn't in the cards right now.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-30-2014 04:17 PM
  25. Paul Ellis1's Avatar
    What phone did you switch from? Shame the 32/64gb want available over here, woulda loved one of those

    Posted via Android Central App
    09-30-2014 04:43 PM
57 123

Similar Threads

  1. Does Moto X support OTG?
    By Rajeev Kumar5 in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. I'd get one if more apps supported in multi screen
    By dss2000 in forum Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 12.2
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 12:32 AM
  3. Question about Telus Nexus 5 (is it unlocked?)
    By Michael_CS in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-10-2014, 10:02 PM
  4. How Does Getting An "Advantage" Replacement Work?
    By joshwithachance in forum HTC One M8
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 10:47 PM
  5. Timer notification is wimpy
    By 1812dave in forum Samsung Gear 2 & Gear 2 Neo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 10:27 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD