Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarRugged Smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s in Review: A Rarity for Outdoor Smartphone Fans
Roughly two years after the Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 was first released the Korean manufacturer has finally graced us with a successor, the XCover 4s. At first glance, it looks almost identical to its predecessor and even kept the 5-inch 1280 x 720 16:9 display. The battery remained user-replaceable - a sight so rare in 2019 that is worth noting.
Samsung puts particular emphasis on three areas where the new XCover 4s improved upon its predecessor: better cameras, faster SoC, and expandable memory. The SoC has been updated to an Exynos 7884B that was first released in early 2018. It has access to 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of onboard flash storage that can be expanded via microSD card. The rear-facing camera features an aperture of f/1.7 and a 16 MP sensor.
In some countries, the XCover 4s is only available as so-called “enterprise edition”. According to Samsung enterprise edition smartphones are prone to receive security updates for four years, remain available for purchase for two years, and come with perpetual operating system version control and remote device management software licenses. The XCover 4s also supports Knox Configure.
Its main competitors are the Poptel P60, Ulefone Armor 6, Cubot King Kong 3, RugGear RG655, CAT S31, and last but not least its own predecessor, the Samsung XCover 4.
Case
Just like its predecessor the XCover 4s is protected against ingress of dust and water. According to its IP68 certification it should withstand even powerful water jets. Keep in mind though that when testing the Xcover 4 we discovered drops of water behind the rear cover. The device is also MIL-STD-810G certified, see here for more details about this military certification used in the US armed forces. The bottom line for end users is that the XCover 4s will withstand submersion in up to 1.5 meters (~5 feet) of clear water for up to 30 minutes, has a high temperature tolerance, and is well protected against UV radiation, acidic liquids, high humidity, and low atmospheric pressure.
Overall, the case is very similar to the 2017 Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. At first glance both phones seem almost identical. The front is protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 3, which is seamlessly merged into the roughly 10 mm thick metal frame. The bezels around the 5-inch IPS display are fairly wide on all sides resulting in a screen-to-body ratio of just 64%. Compare that to similarly priced consumer smartphones like the Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (84%) or UleFone Armor 6 (70%).
Build quality was superb, and the case was very robust and sturdy despite its removable back cover. Thanks to its comparatively narrow overall width it feels very comfortable to hold in hand. The rear-facing single camera protrudes slightly. In addition to said camera we can also find an LED flash at the back. A finger print reader is nowhere to be found.
The XCover’s three physical buttons are sturdy and firm, and offer a well-defined accentuation point and crisp feedback.
Connectivity
In addition to FM radio and a conventional and in this day and age almost vintage 3.5-mm headphone jack the XCover 4s also supports Miracast for wirelessly transmitting screen contents to compatible receivers such as external displays. The USB-C port may look modern from the outside but is only connected to a slow USB 2.0 bus with support for USB-OTG for external storage media or input devices. A status LED or always-on notification feature are not available.
The Galaxy’s internal eMMC storage is limited to just 32 GB, out of which around 22 GB are user accessible after first boot. Unlike its predecessor the current model’s storage can be expanded via microSD without losing dual SIM capabilities. The integrated microSD card reader supports SDHC and SDXC memory cards, which means it can take cards with up to 512 GB. The exFAT file system is supported as well.
Software
Software-wise our device was running Android 9.0 with Samsung’s One UI 1.1 and security patches as of May 2019. In other words: it was somewhat outdated. Starting with the XCover 4s’s general global availability in July of 2019 Samsung will support the device with quarterly software updates for four years. It also supports Samsung’s Knox protecting it from hackers, malware, and other threats and gives business customers access to the Knox Configure features.
Communication and GPS
The XCover’s integrated Wi-Fi modem supports 802.11a/b/g/n in both bands, 2.4 and 5 GHz. Range and reliability were decent, and we were able to record a loss of -36 dB at a distance of around 1 m (~3.3 ft) to our Telekom Speedport W921V router. The XCover 4s’s Wi-Fi modem performed very well compared to other rugged outdoor smartphones when connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router. However, it was unable to keep up with the much faster Ulefone Armor 6.
The Exynos SoC’s integrated LTE modem supports LTE Cat. 4 speeds of up to 150 and 50 Mbps downstream and upstream, respectively. LTE frequency support is limited to just 8 bands, which might cause issues when traveling abroad. At least all relevant European 4G frequencies were supported, however support for the North American market did not seem to be very high on Samsung’s priority list. Up to two Micro SIM cards can be inserted and used at the same time, only one of which is used for mobile data.
Other supported wireless communication standards include Bluetooth 5.0 and NFC, which means the XCover 4s supports contactless payment systems such as Google Pay.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=70, last 2 years) | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| Cyrus CS24 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=71, last 2 years) | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Cyrus CS24 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
We test GPS accuracy by taking each device on a quick bike tour around the block during which we compare its tracking capabilities to a professional Garmin Edge 500 satnav unit. After around 9 km (5.6 miles) the difference in recorded track between the two devices was just 30 m (98 ft).
Upon further inspection we were able to determine that the XCover 4s did a great job recording the track, and its deviations were very minor. Thus, the device is well suited as satnav for all intents and purposes.
Supported positioning systems include GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou, and SBAS. GPS lock was obtained very quickly outdoors at an accuracy of 3 m (~10 ft). It took a bit longer and was a bit less accurate indoors but remained comparatively fast and precise nonetheless.
Telephony and Call Quality
The Samsung devices supports modern communication protocols such as VoLTE and VoWIFI. Call quality in Germany’s Vodafone network was very good. While the earphone could have been louder call quality has improved significantly over its own predecessor, the XCover 4. Voices were clear and easily understandable, and we had no issues with dropouts or other disruptions during our test period.
Cameras
The rear-facing shooter remained a single-lens camera, and bokeh effects are thus only supported in software. Samsung does not specify what CMOS sensor is used in the phone, and the only details we know are its resolution of 16 MP and its aperture of f/1.7. Samsung’s Live Focus feature with selective background blur was not very usable in real-life situations.
For a $400 smartphone we found image quality to be comparatively poor yet fairly decent for a rugged outdoor smartphone. Photos were slightly overexposed in bright daylight, and suffered from low dynamic range and details. Quality went downhill very quickly in poor lighting conditions, and photos taken with the rear-facing camera suffered from visible noise and blur rendering individual objects in the photos barely distinguishable or even recognizable.
The front-facing f/2.2 5 MP camera is certainly no professional selfie cam, however it produced acceptable and even good looking photos given the phone’s price point. As always with Samsung cameras selfies looked very natural and rich in contrast. Occasionally photos turned out overexposed but the XCover 4s’s front-facing camera did a very good job in daylight nonetheless.
Both cameras capture video in 1080p at 30 FPS.
We test every camera under normalized conditions in our lab, and the colors captured with the XCover 4s’s main camera differed significantly from the respective reference color, which can be seen in the bottom half of each square. Colors were mostly too pale and too bright regardless of hue.
Our test chart showed text that was slightly out of focus and a visible blur around the edges.
Accessories and Warranty
As before Samsung only includes the necessities in the box: a modular power supply, a USB cable, and a quick-start guide. Model-specific accessories for this device are not available.
Devices sold in Europe come with a 24-month warranty.
Input Devices and Handling
The latest XCover model still lacks support for biometric unlocking and neither includes a finger print reader nor a face-detection feature.
The 5-point capacitive touchscreen was decently accurate up to its very edges, however we did notice a minor lag occasionally. Responsiveness was also subpar. This might be the price you have to pay for being able to use the device with gloves. That said this glove support turned out to be more of an answer-an-incoming-phone-call rather than a type-a-text-message-or-email gimmick.
One specialty is the accentuated XCover button on the left-hand side that can be individually configured for quick-launching apps via single click for a primary and long click for a secondary app.
Display
The Galaxy XCover 4s’s 16:9 4.99-inch IPS display runs at a native resolution of 1280 x 720, resulting in a pixel density of 300 ppi. It turned out to be sufficient enough for everyday use but not particularly crisp.
Display brightness was somewhat of a disappointment. In auto mode with the ambient light sensor enabled we were able to record a maximum brightness of 533 nits. Not bad when compared to its competitors but not high enough given its intended scope of application as rugged outdoor smartphone, particularly considering that Samsung’s AMOLED-based smartphones get much brighter. In the APL50 test with evenly distributed bright and dark areas the device was able to reach 537 nits.
Unlike its predecessor the XCover 4s does not use PWM for brightness regulation.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 525 cd/m²
Contrast: 1010:1 (Black: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 7.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
96.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.53
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5.00 | RugGear RG655 IPS, 1440x720, 5.50 | Cubot King Kong 3 IPS, 1440x720, 5.50 | Ulefone Armor 6 IPS LCD, 2246x1080, 6.20 | Poptel P60 LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 5.70 | CAT S31 IPS, 1280x720, 4.70 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -9% | 6% | 32% | 14% | 32% | -12% | |
| Brightness middle | 525 | 593 13% | 365 -30% | 418 -20% | 401 -24% | 784 49% | 445 -15% |
| Brightness | 513 | 579 13% | 379 -26% | 413 -19% | 387 -25% | 750 46% | 437 -15% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 88 -2% | 82 -9% | 91 1% | 92 2% | 92 2% | 88 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.52 | 0.46 12% | 0.14 73% | 0.2 62% | 0.14 73% | 0.45 13% | 0.67 -29% |
| Contrast | 1010 | 1289 28% | 2607 158% | 2090 107% | 2864 184% | 1742 72% | 664 -34% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6 | 8.9 -48% | 8.03 -34% | 4.5 25% | 7.5 -25% | 4.28 29% | 6.5 -8% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.9 | 19.5 -79% | 16.34 -50% | 6.8 38% | 16.1 -48% | 8.75 20% | 10.6 3% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.8 | 8.5 -9% | 10.3 -32% | 3.3 58% | 9.6 -23% | 6.1 22% | 7.2 8% |
| Gamma | 2.53 87% | 2.89 76% | 2.197 100% | 2.24 98% | 1.99 111% | 2.49 88% | 2.53 87% |
| CCT | 8605 76% | 7488 87% | 9941 65% | 7205 90% | 8242 79% | 7175 91% | 8274 79% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18878 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
In our lab we were able to determine a comparatively high black level of 0.52 nits. Accordingly, its contrast ratio was rather poor. The same result was recorded in the APL50 test with evenly distributed dark and bright areas.
Using a spectrophotometer and the CalMAN software we test each display for color accuracy. Deviations of 6 (colors) and 7.8 (grayscale) are decent for the XCover 4s’s product class. That said the differences to the ideal of less than 3 were quite significant, and the display’s color temperature of 8,605K was too high resulting in a slight blue tint.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 33.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 88 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 60 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.2 ms). | ||
Outdoor usability was fairly decent overall, and the display remained well readable even on bright days. However, the low contrast ratio rendered the display practically unusable in direct sunlight.
Colors shifted slightly at acute angles but showed no deviations at more common viewing angles. Brightness decreased as well but not too much.
Performance
Samsung’s Exynos 7884B offers two Cortex A73 cores running at up to 1.56 GHz and six energy-efficient Cortex A53 cores running at up to 1.35 GHz. The SoC is manufactured in the older 14-nm FinFET process. The GPU is an ARM Mali-G71 MP2.
Combined with 3 GB of LPDDR4 RAM the SoC performed admirably overall. Animations were not always buttery smooth, and we noticed occasional lags when using the system. Multi tasking can get frustratingly slow, and the comparatively low amount of RAM results in demanding applications such as games being unloaded from memory practically immediately when they are closed.
The XCover 4s did fairly well in our benchmarks, and it performed about as fast as the UleFone Armor 6 with its Mediatek Helio P60. Despite being among the fastest devices in our test group the device’s performance is comparatively poor when taking regular non-rugged smartphones into account as well. For example, a $300 smartphone such as the Xiaomi Mi 9 SE or Pocophone F1 will run circles around the XCover 4s. Thanks to its low-resolution display our review unit performed pretty well in the on-screen graphics tests.
| Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (1168 - 1216, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (783 - 8424, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (3590 - 4082, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 21505, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (2832 - 3569, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2053 - 14785, n=64, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (6316 - 6902, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9875 - 19297, n=4, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (5136 - 5309, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=28, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (31 - 41, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (20 - 25, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=187, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (20 - 27, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=188, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (10 - 13, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=189, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (14 - 19, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=189, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (6.5 - 8.1, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=189, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 | |
| Poptel P60 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (89089 - 102121, n=3) | |
Browsing the web with Google’s Chrome browser was decently fast. Complex and demanding websites took a while to load but eventually managed to do so without any errors. Scrolling is often not particularly smooth. Overall, browsing performance was similar to CPU performance.
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 282, n=165, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (21.5 - 23.4, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.3 - 375, n=154, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (20.7 - 22.2, n=3) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (28 - 292, n=145, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (45 - 48, n=3) | |
| RugGear RG655 (Chrome 75) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=194, last 2 years) | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (6921 - 7470, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 (Chrome 73) | |
| Poptel P60 (Chrome 71) | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58) | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| CAT S31 | |
| Poptel P60 (Chrome 71) | |
| RugGear RG655 | |
| Cubot King Kong 3 (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (5546 - 5917, n=3) | |
| Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10797, n=168, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
The internal flash storage’s performance is average for its class but not particularly fast by and large. When tested with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card (up to 270 MB/s read, up to 150 MB/s write) the microSD card reader failed to perform better than its competitors.
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | RugGear RG655 | Cubot King Kong 3 | Ulefone Armor 6 | Poptel P60 | CAT S31 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -7% | -1% | 39% | 33% | -23% | -21% | 9% | 825% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 298.6 | 233.3 -22% | 241 -19% | 290.8 -3% | 288.2 -3% | 71.1 -76% | 181.6 -39% | 242 ? -19% | 1180 ? 295% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 85.4 | 121.3 42% | 134.3 57% | 188.4 121% | 188.8 121% | 62.1 -27% | 73.6 -14% | 100 ? 17% | 741 ? 768% |
| Random Read 4KB | 59.6 | 15.99 -73% | 17.21 -71% | 81.3 36% | 69.7 17% | 14.28 -76% | 21.8 -63% | 42.9 ? -28% | 207 ? 247% |
| Random Write 4KB | 10.38 | 11.68 13% | 11.21 8% | 19.87 91% | 15.18 46% | 14.81 43% | 11.9 15% | 21.8 ? 110% | 217 ? 1991% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 79.6 ? | 82.4 ? 4% | 81.2 2% | 75.6 ? -5% | 80 ? 1% | 81.8 3% | 69 ? -13% | 71.8 ? -10% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 64.3 ? | 61.7 ? -4% | 74.3 16% | 60.1 ? -7% | 72.8 ? 13% | 59.5 -7% | 55.7 ? -13% | 52.9 ? -18% |
Gaming
The Mali-G71 is an entry-level GPU based on the Bifrost architecture with only 2 of 32 possible GPU cores enabled. It supports OpenGL ES 3.2, Vulkan 1.0, OpenCL 2.0, and RenderScript.
Given the display’s native resolution of 720p the GPU was fast enough for current games. Using the GameBench app we were able to record 28 FPS in Asphalt 9 in high details and 29 FPS in the demanding shooter game PUBG Mobile. That said frame drops while the game was loading where quite common. Touchscreen and sensors worked as expected.
PUBG Compare
Asphalt 9 Legends
Emissions
Temperature
The case remained comfortably cool regardless of load, and the maximum temperature recorded was just 33 °C (91.4 °F) at the front.
We run GFXBench’s battery test in order to determine whether or not the SoC throttles under load in order to keep temperatures in check. This test runs the demanding Manhattan OpenGL ES 3.1 benchmark 30x in a loop.
The results were very consistent and only fluctuated by 1%. We can thus safely say that the SoC does not throttle under load.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.6 °C / 91 F.
Speakers
The single speaker is located on the side of the device and can reach up to 86 dB(A). Its location at the top right is strange, however it is practically impossible to cover it accidentally during everyday use.
As with many smartphones, the soundscape produced by the mono speaker was slightly distorted and unbalanced, with overemphasized mids at the cost of highs and lows. As can be seen on the pink noise chart bass was practically non-existent.
For improved audio quality you can connect external speakers or headphones either via the 3.5-mm audio jack or Bluetooth 5.0. Maximum volume and audio quality were decent.
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 43% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Ulefone Armor 6 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.4% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (16.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 62% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Battery Life
Power Consumption
At just 2,800 mAh the battery is comparatively small for a rugged outdoor smartphone, and charging it with the included 15 W power supply takes around 2 hours. Power consumption was modest.
| Off / Standby |   0.01 / 0.08 Watt |
| Idle |  0.65 / 1.62 / 1.66 Watt |
| Load |
3.03 / 4.34 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | RugGear RG655 4200 mAh | Cubot King Kong 3 6000 mAh | Ulefone Armor 6 5000 mAh | Poptel P60 5000 mAh | CAT S31 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 2800 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 7884B | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -7% | -46% | -34% | -16% | -16% | -14% | -8% | -27% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.81 -25% | 0.9 -38% | 0.9 -38% | 0.81 -25% | 0.73 -12% | 0.56 14% | 0.67 ? -3% | 0.884 ? -36% |
| Idle Average * | 1.62 | 1.85 -14% | 1.9 -17% | 2.04 -26% | 2.14 -32% | 2.21 -36% | 1.57 3% | 1.617 ? -0% | 1.485 ? 8% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.66 | 1.87 -13% | 2.4 -45% | 2.09 -26% | 2.16 -30% | 2.25 -36% | 1.68 -1% | 1.777 ? -7% | 1.699 ? -2% |
| Load Average * | 3.03 | 2.58 15% | 5.2 -72% | 3.4 -12% | 3.02 -0% | 2.99 1% | 4.6 -52% | 3.73 ? -23% | 4.27 ? -41% |
| Load Maximum * | 4.34 | 4.23 3% | 6.8 -57% | 7.31 -68% | 4.01 8% | 4.12 5% | 5.92 -36% | 4.67 ? -8% | 7.08 ? -63% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
Despite its small battery the XCover manages to achieve a decent battery life. It lasted more than 10 hours in our Wi-Fi test, which should be enough even for heavy users to get through the day. Under load, the device lasted a good 3.5 hours. However, battery life is a bit of a downer compared to its own predecessor and even more so its competitors.
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 2800 mAh | RugGear RG655 4200 mAh | Cubot King Kong 3 6000 mAh | Ulefone Armor 6 5000 mAh | Poptel P60 5000 mAh | CAT S31 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 10% | 62% | 105% | 41% | 96% | 74% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1199 | 1388 16% | |||||
| H.264 | 598 | 681 14% | 1019 70% | ||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 619 | 668 8% | 945 53% | 1267 105% | 874 41% | 1214 96% | 1074 74% |
| Load | 200 | 205 3% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
The new XCover is a metaphorical slap in the face of all outdoor smartphone enthusiasts. This might sound harsh, but it is the most accurate description of our impressions. Despite a promise of long-time support with (security) updates we would have expected much more after two years of research and development. True, the XCover 4s offers some features important to outdoor smartphone enthusiasts, such as user-replaceable battery, hardware buttons, and a robust case. However, on the other hand it requires too many compromises that ultimately cost it its endorsement, especially considering Samsung’s MSRP.
The device’s 2017 design remained practically unchanged, and the bezels are too wide for a modern smartphone, even of the rugged outdoor variety. In addition, we expect the issues with water ingress we encountered with the Galaxy XCover 4 to still be present given the practically unchanged case. Battery life is below average for an outdoor smartphone, and we can’t help but wonder why Samsung failed to increase battery capacity over the last two years. The same question must be raised regarding internal storage. 32 GB of slow eMMC storage are poor for 2019 regardless of what the competition has to offer.
Samsung is King of the Hill in the OLED universe yet chose an average low-contrast and dim IPS panel with poor viewing angles for the XCover 4s. System performance was fairly poor mainly due to the comparatively slow Exynos SoC combined with Samsung’s own One UI. A more powerful SOC, such as the Samsung Exynos 7885, and more RAM would have done wonders in this case. We also cannot understand why Samsung did not include any biometric identification features on a 2019 outdoor smartphone and why the number of supported LTE bands is so limited. After all the device is clearly aimed at the business market.
New wine in old bottles. The Galaxy XCover 4s is not bad but we would have expected more after two years.
If you are in the market for an outdoor smartphone and are looking for an alternative to Samsung’s XCover 4s we suggest taking a closer look at the Ulefone Armor 6.
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
-
10/16/2019 v7
Marcus Herbrich
More articles related to this device
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Galaxy XCover Series)Related Articles
Pricecompare
