Notebookcheck

Rugged Smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s in Review: A Rarity for Outdoor Smartphone Fans

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Finn D. Boerne), 08/06/2019

Blast from the past. After two years of research and development Samsung has finally released a successor to its Galaxy XCover outdoor smartphone. The XCover 4s not only comes with a robust case protected against dust and water ingress, but it also offers one special feature that almost no other outdoor cell phone can.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

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 P60Ulefone Armor 6Cubot King Kong 3RugGear RG655CAT S31, and last but not least its own predecessor, the Samsung XCover 4.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Galaxy XCover Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
5 inch 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel 294 PPI, capacitive multi-touch touchscreen, IPS (PLS), glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 22 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm headphone jack, Card Reader: microSD up to 256 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: accelerometer, proximity sensor, compass, USB-C, OTG, MIracast
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (MHz): 850/900/1,800/1,900; UMTS (MHz): 850/900/1,900/2,100; LTE (MHz): 700/800/850/900/1,800/ 2,100/2,300/2,600, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 146.2 x 73.3 ( = 0.38 x 5.76 x 2.89 in)
Battery
10.78 Wh, 2800 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix f/1.7, Camera2 API: Limited
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: virtual, battery, charger, data cable, quick start guide, One UI, 24 Months Warranty, Head SAR: 0.905 W/Kg, body SAR: 1.307 W/Kg, LTE Cat.4 (150/50 Mbps), DRM Widevine: L1,, fanless, ruggedized, waterproof
Weight
172 g ( = 6.07 oz / 0.38 pounds), Power Supply: 37 g ( = 1.31 oz / 0.08 pounds)
Price
259 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Case

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s removable battery cover
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s removable battery cover

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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

Size Comparison

167 mm / 6.57 inch 78 mm / 3.07 inch 13.8 mm / 0.543 inch 248 g0.547 lbs166 mm / 6.54 inch 83 mm / 3.27 inch 13.2 mm / 0.52 inch 268 g0.591 lbs162.5 mm / 6.4 inch 78.3 mm / 3.08 inch 13.3 mm / 0.524 inch 280 g0.617 lbs152.5 mm / 6 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 12.5 mm / 0.4921 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs146 mm / 5.75 inch 74.4 mm / 2.93 inch 12.6 mm / 0.4961 inch 200 g0.4409 lbs146.2 mm / 5.76 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs146.2 mm / 5.76 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs

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.

Right-hand side
Right-hand side
Bottom
Bottom
Top
Top
Left-hand side
Left-hand side

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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Test Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

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 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Ulefone Armor 6
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P60, 128 GB eMMC Flash
344 (min: 219, max: 350) MBit/s ∼100% +26%
RugGear RG655
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
299 (min: 186, max: 330) MBit/s ∼87% +9%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 (min: 197, max: 295) MBit/s ∼80%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=451)
229 MBit/s ∼67% -16%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
63 (min: 56, max: 62) MBit/s ∼18% -77%
Cyrus CS24
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737T, 16 GB eMMC Flash
60 (min: 55, max: 60) MBit/s ∼17% -78%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.2 MBit/s ∼14% -82%
CAT S31
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 16 GB eMMC Flash
41.6 MBit/s ∼12% -85%
Poptel P60
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 128 GB eMMC Flash
40.4 (min: 10, max: 55) MBit/s ∼12% -85%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Ulefone Armor 6
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P60, 128 GB eMMC Flash
311 (min: 292, max: 329) MBit/s ∼100% +18%
RugGear RG655
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 (min: 254, max: 286) MBit/s ∼88% +4%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
263 (min: 227, max: 296) MBit/s ∼85%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=451)
217 MBit/s ∼70% -17%
Poptel P60
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 128 GB eMMC Flash
67.6 (min: 17, max: 90) MBit/s ∼22% -74%
Cyrus CS24
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737T, 16 GB eMMC Flash
54.2 (min: 52, max: 57) MBit/s ∼17% -79%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763T, 64 GB eMMC Flash
50.2 (min: 35, max: 54) MBit/s ∼16% -81%
CAT S31
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 16 GB eMMC Flash
39.3 MBit/s ∼13% -85%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
37.9 MBit/s ∼12% -86%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø273 (197-295)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø263 (227-296)
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors
GPS Test outdoors
GPS Test outdoors

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.

GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
GPS Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s

Telephony and Call Quality

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

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

Sample photo 5 MP front-facing camera
Sample photo 5 MP front-facing camera

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.

16 MP main camera
16 MP main camera
native 2x digital zoom
native 2x digital zoom
Live focus
Live focus
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3Scene 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

Accessories and Warranty

15 W power supply
15 W power supply

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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s

Display

Subpixel array
Subpixel array


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.

486
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
486
cd/m²
525
cd/m²
526
cd/m²
481
cd/m²
522
cd/m²
526
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 533 cd/m² Average: 513.1 cd/m² Minimum: 4.67 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 525 cd/m²
Contrast: 1010:1 (Black: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 7.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
96.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.53
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5
RugGear RG655
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Cubot King Kong 3
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Ulefone Armor 6
IPS LCD, 2246x1080, 6.2
Poptel P60
LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 5.7
CAT S31
IPS, 1280x720, 4.7
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
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 DeltaE2000 *
6
8.9
-48%
8.03
-34%
4.5
25%
7.5
-25%
4.28
29%
6.5
-8%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.9
19.5
-79%
16.34
-50%
6.8
38%
16.1
-48%
8.75
20%
10.6
3%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9276 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) 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.

CalMan color accuracy (sRGB)
CalMan color accuracy (sRGB)
CalMAN color space (sRGB)
CalMAN color space (sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (sRGB)
CalMAN grayscale (sRGB)
CalMan saturation (sRGB)
CalMan saturation (sRGB)

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.9 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 55 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.5 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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

Colors shifted slightly at acute angles but showed no deviations at more common viewing angles. Brightness decreased as well but not too much.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s viewing angles
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s viewing angles

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 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3569 Points ∼76%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
2965 Points ∼63% -17%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3041 Points ∼65% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (2832 - 3569, n=3)
3224 Points ∼69% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=325)
4691 Points ∼100% +31%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4082 Points ∼86%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3300 Points ∼70% -19%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3948 Points ∼84% -3%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3732 Points ∼79% -9%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
1135 Points ∼24% -72%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
1855 Points ∼39% -55%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (3590 - 4082, n=3)
3795 Points ∼80% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=384)
4726 Points ∼100% +16%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1216 Points ∼85%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
789 Points ∼55% -35%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
878 Points ∼62% -28%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
789 Points ∼55% -35%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
437 Points ∼31% -64%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
629 Points ∼44% -48%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1168 - 1216, n=3)
1199 Points ∼84% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=384)
1426 Points ∼100% +17%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5309 Points ∼76%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4942 Points ∼71% -7%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
4960 Points ∼71% -7%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6950 Points ∼100% +31%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
4778 Points ∼69% -10%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
2300 Points ∼33% -57%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
3446 Points ∼50% -35%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (5136 - 5309, n=3)
5250 Points ∼76% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=388)
5333 Points ∼77% 0%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6316 Points ∼66%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6679 Points ∼70% +6%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
6379 Points ∼67% +1%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9513 Points ∼100% +51%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
6036 Points ∼63% -4%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
3080 Points ∼32% -51%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
4508 Points ∼47% -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (6316 - 6902, n=3)
6680 Points ∼70% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14946, n=556)
5785 Points ∼61% -8%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
2105 Points ∼79%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (2018 - 2105, n=3)
2058 Points ∼77% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=68)
2676 Points ∼100% +27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
477 Points ∼18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (477 - 498, n=3)
485 Points ∼18% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=68)
2721 Points ∼100% +470%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
576 Points ∼23%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (576 - 598, n=3)
584 Points ∼24% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=68)
2478 Points ∼100% +330%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1554 Points ∼58%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
996 Points ∼37% -36%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1895 Points ∼71% +22%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2675 Points ∼100% +72%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1455 Points ∼54% -6%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
944 Points ∼35% -39%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1554 - 1628, n=3)
1599 Points ∼60% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4683, n=396)
1981 Points ∼74% +27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
498 Points ∼28%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
431 Points ∼24% -13%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
415 Points ∼23% -17%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
881 Points ∼49% +77%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
382 Points ∼21% -23%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
87 Points ∼5% -83%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (439 - 498, n=3)
459 Points ∼26% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=396)
1787 Points ∼100% +259%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
588 Points ∼35%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
493 Points ∼30% -16%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
502 Points ∼30% -15%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1037 Points ∼63% +76%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
457 Points ∼28% -22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
109 Points ∼7% -81%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (524 - 588, n=3)
546 Points ∼33% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=397)
1658 Points ∼100% +182%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1768 Points ∼64%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
993 Points ∼36% -44%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1882 Points ∼68% +6%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2765 Points ∼100% +56%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1476 Points ∼53% -17%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
1002 Points ∼36% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1624 - 1768, n=3)
1674 Points ∼61% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=424)
1893 Points ∼68% +7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
826 Points ∼35%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
698 Points ∼29% -15%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
643 Points ∼27% -22%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1441 Points ∼60% +74%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
599 Points ∼25% -27%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
162 Points ∼7% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (646 - 826, n=3)
710 Points ∼30% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=424)
2386 Points ∼100% +189%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
937 Points ∼47%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
747 Points ∼37% -20%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
753 Points ∼38% -20%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1581 Points ∼79% +69%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
690 Points ∼34% -26%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
187 Points ∼9% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (746 - 937, n=3)
814 Points ∼41% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=424)
2004 Points ∼100% +114%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1747 Points ∼71%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
955 Points ∼39% -45%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1768 Points ∼71% +1%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2478 Points ∼100% +42%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1374 Points ∼55% -21%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
560 Points ∼23% -68%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
952 Points ∼38% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1630 - 1747, n=3)
1686 Points ∼68% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4519, n=476)
1888 Points ∼76% +8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
555 Points ∼38%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
361 Points ∼24% -35%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
395 Points ∼27% -29%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
628 Points ∼42% +13%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
386 Points ∼26% -30%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
85 Points ∼6% -85%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (443 - 555, n=3)
481 Points ∼33% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=476)
1478 Points ∼100% +166%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
654 Points ∼46%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
419 Points ∼29% -36%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
477 Points ∼34% -27%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
733 Points ∼52% +12%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
439 Points ∼31% -33%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
107 Points ∼8% -84%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (526 - 654, n=3)
570 Points ∼40% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=477)
1423 Points ∼100% +118%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1756 Points ∼70%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
951 Points ∼38% -46%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1754 Points ∼70% 0%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2511 Points ∼100% +43%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1365 Points ∼54% -22%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
955 Points ∼38% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1646 - 1756, n=3)
1692 Points ∼67% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4540, n=516)
1754 Points ∼70% 0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
766 Points ∼40%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
577 Points ∼30% -25%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
616 Points ∼32% -20%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
861 Points ∼44% +12%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
587 Points ∼30% -23%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
157 Points ∼8% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (582 - 766, n=3)
662 Points ∼34% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=515)
1936 Points ∼100% +153%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
876 Points ∼52%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
632 Points ∼38% -28%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
720 Points ∼43% -18%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1008 Points ∼60% +15%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
654 Points ∼39% -25%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
193 Points ∼12% -78%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (681 - 876, n=3)
765 Points ∼46% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8165, n=518)
1674 Points ∼100% +91%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13610 Points ∼61%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
13221 Points ∼60% -3%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
12566 Points ∼57% -8%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
22137 Points ∼100% +63%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
10234 Points ∼46% -25%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
6396 Points ∼29% -53%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
11459 Points ∼52% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (11287 - 13610, n=3)
12324 Points ∼56% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=676)
14217 Points ∼64% +4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13711 Points ∼62%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10070 Points ∼45% -27%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
11234 Points ∼51% -18%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18998 Points ∼86% +39%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1152 Points ∼5% -92%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
5042 Points ∼23% -63%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
3985 Points ∼18% -71%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (11335 - 13711, n=3)
12158 Points ∼55% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=674)
22183 Points ∼100% +62%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13688 Points ∼70%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10633 Points ∼54% -22%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
11505 Points ∼59% -16%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19616 Points ∼100% +43%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
10956 Points ∼56% -20%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
5291 Points ∼27% -61%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
4661 Points ∼24% -66%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (11324 - 13688, n=3)
12192 Points ∼62% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=674)
17924 Points ∼91% +31%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
25 fps ∼66%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
17 fps ∼45% -32%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
23 fps ∼60% -8%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
34 fps ∼89% +36%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
21 fps ∼55% -16%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
5.6 fps ∼15% -78%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
6.8 fps ∼18% -73%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (20 - 25, n=3)
21.7 fps ∼57% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=694)
38.1 fps ∼100% +52%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
41 fps ∼100%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
24 fps ∼59% -41%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
36 fps ∼88% -12%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
32 fps ∼78% -22%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
22 fps ∼54% -46%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
9.8 fps ∼24% -76%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
11 fps ∼27% -73%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (31 - 41, n=3)
34.3 fps ∼84% -16%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=703)
28.1 fps ∼69% -31%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13 fps ∼59%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
9.1 fps ∼42% -30%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
11 fps ∼50% -15%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18 fps ∼82% +38%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
10 fps ∼46% -23%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
1.9 fps ∼9% -85%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
2.6 fps ∼12% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (10 - 13, n=3)
11.3 fps ∼52% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=600)
21.9 fps ∼100% +68%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
27 fps ∼100%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
15 fps ∼56% -44%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
22 fps ∼81% -19%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
17 fps ∼63% -37%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
10 fps ∼37% -63%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
4.3 fps ∼16% -84%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
5.4 fps ∼20% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (20 - 27, n=3)
22.3 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=609)
19.4 fps ∼72% -28%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8.1 fps ∼45%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5.9 fps ∼33% -27%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
7.2 fps ∼40% -11%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
12 fps ∼67% +48%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
6.6 fps ∼37% -19%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
1.6 fps ∼9% -80%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (6.5 - 8.1, n=3)
7.03 fps ∼39% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=466)
17.9 fps ∼100% +121%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
19 fps ∼100%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10 fps ∼53% -47%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
16 fps ∼84% -16%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
11 fps ∼58% -42%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
6.3 fps ∼33% -67%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
3.9 fps ∼21% -79%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (14 - 19, n=3)
15.7 fps ∼83% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=468)
16.7 fps ∼88% -12%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.4 fps ∼64%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.2 fps ∼42% -34%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3.9 fps ∼39% -39%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2.6 fps ∼26% -59%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1.4 fps ∼14% -78%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (4.8 - 6.4, n=3)
5.33 fps ∼53% -17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=189)
9.99 fps ∼100% +56%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.8 fps ∼26%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.3 fps ∼19% -28%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1.5 fps ∼21% -17%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4.3 fps ∼62% +139%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
2.2 fps ∼32% +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1.4 - 1.8, n=3)
1.533 fps ∼22% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=188)
6.98 fps ∼100% +288%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
10 fps ∼68%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6.7 fps ∼46% -33%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
6.9 fps ∼47% -31%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6.9 fps ∼47% -31%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3.7 fps ∼25% -63%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (7.8 - 10, n=3)
8.57 fps ∼58% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=193)
14.7 fps ∼100% +47%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5 fps ∼30%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3.6 fps ∼22% -28%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
4.1 fps ∼25% -18%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.6 fps ∼46% +52%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3.8 fps ∼23% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (4 - 5, n=3)
4.33 fps ∼26% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=193)
16.4 fps ∼100% +228%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.3 fps ∼35%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2.8 fps ∼23% -35%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
4.1 fps ∼34% -5%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7 fps ∼57% +63%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3.8 fps ∼31% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (4.1 - 4.3, n=3)
4.2 fps ∼34% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=391)
12.2 fps ∼100% +184%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12 fps ∼100%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.9 fps ∼41% -59%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
8.5 fps ∼71% -29%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7 fps ∼58% -42%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
3.8 fps ∼32% -68%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (8.6 - 12, n=3)
9.77 fps ∼81% -19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=395)
10.9 fps ∼91% -9%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
102121 Points ∼71%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
74180 Points ∼52% -27%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
91026 Points ∼64% -11%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
131861 Points ∼92% +29%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
83745 Points ∼59% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (89089 - 102121, n=3)
95558 Points ∼67% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=295)
143117 Points ∼100% +40%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
977 Points ∼87%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
733 Points ∼65% -25%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
753 Points ∼67% -23%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1128 Points ∼100% +15%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
10 Points ∼1% -99%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
661 Points ∼59% -32%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (977 - 1113, n=3)
1065 Points ∼94% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=635)
760 Points ∼67% -22%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1113 Points ∼54%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
744 Points ∼36% -33%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
952 Points ∼46% -14%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1486 Points ∼72% +34%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
866 Points ∼42% -22%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
256 Points ∼12% -77%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
253 Points ∼12% -77%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (879 - 1113, n=3)
962 Points ∼46% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=635)
2070 Points ∼100% +86%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1985 Points ∼87%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1065 Points ∼47% -46%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1252 Points ∼55% -37%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2276 Points ∼100% +15%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
1136 Points ∼50% -43%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
328 Points ∼14% -83%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
1066 Points ∼47% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1985 - 2008, n=3)
1995 Points ∼88% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=635)
1530 Points ∼67% -23%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3507 Points ∼74%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2434 Points ∼51% -31%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
2952 Points ∼62% -16%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4736 Points ∼100% +35%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
2465 Points ∼52% -30%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
899 Points ∼19% -74%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
1396 Points ∼29% -60%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (3164 - 3507, n=3)
3348 Points ∼71% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=635)
2994 Points ∼63% -15%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1658 Points ∼80%
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1090 Points ∼53% -34%
Cubot King Kong 3
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763T, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1276 Points ∼62% -23%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2062 Points ∼100% +24%
Poptel P60
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 6144
384 Points ∼19% -77%
CAT S31
Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Adreno 304, 2048
1 Points ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, Mali-T720, 2048
706 Points ∼34% -57%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B
  (1576 - 1658, n=3)
1614 Points ∼78% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=635)
1501 Points ∼73% -9%

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 (9.13 - 133, n=107)
35.7 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
22.457 Points ∼63%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (21.5 - 23.4, n=3)
22.4 Points ∼63% 0%
Cubot King Kong 3
15.994 Points ∼45% -29%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=95)
39.9 runs/min ∼100% +80%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
22.15 runs/min ∼56%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (20.7 - 22.2, n=3)
21.5 runs/min ∼54% -3%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=165)
67 Points ∼100% +40%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
48 Points ∼72%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (45 - 48, n=3)
47 Points ∼70% -2%
RugGear RG655 (Chrome 75)
30 Points ∼45% -37%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71)
8287 Points ∼100% +17%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (6921 - 7470, n=3)
7152 Points ∼86% +1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
7065 Points ∼85%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=693)
6801 Points ∼82% -4%
Cubot King Kong 3 (Chrome 73)
4896 Points ∼59% -31%
Poptel P60 (Chrome 71)
3998 Points ∼48% -43%
RugGear RG655
3312 Points ∼40% -53%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
3133 Points ∼38% -56%
CAT S31
2010 Points ∼24% -72%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
CAT S31
17827.9 ms * ∼100% -206%
Poptel P60 (Chrome 71)
13076.9 ms * ∼73% -124%
RugGear RG655
12363.9 ms * ∼69% -112%
Cubot King Kong 3 (Chrome 73)
11353 ms * ∼64% -95%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Chrome 58)
11130 ms * ∼62% -91%
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=718)
10523 ms * ∼59% -81%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
5826.7 ms * ∼33%
Average Samsung Exynos 7884B (5546 - 5917, n=3)
5763 ms * ∼32% +1%
Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71)
4416.2 ms * ∼25% +24%

* ... 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 4sRugGear RG655Cubot King Kong 3Ulefone Armor 6Poptel P60CAT S31Samsung Galaxy XCover 4Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-7%
-1%
39%
33%
-23%
-21%
-1%
11%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
64.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
74.31
16%
60.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-6%
72.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
59.5
-7%
55.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
50.4 (3.4 - 87.1, n=142)
-22%
49.2 (1.7 - 87.1, n=429)
-23%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
82.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
81.15
2%
75.59 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-5%
80.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
81.8
3%
68.97 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
69.1 (8.2 - 96.5, n=142)
-13%
67.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=429)
-15%
Random Write 4KB
10.38
11.68
13%
11.21
8%
19.87
91%
15.18
46%
14.81
43%
11.9
15%
18.2 (0.75 - 77.3, n=185)
75%
22.4 (0.14 - 250, n=753)
116%
Random Read 4KB
59.56
15.99
-73%
17.21
-71%
81.33
37%
69.7
17%
14.28
-76%
21.8
-63%
39 (3.59 - 117, n=185)
-35%
47.8 (1.59 - 196, n=753)
-20%
Sequential Write 256KB
85.4
121.31
42%
134.32
57%
188.45
121%
188.76
121%
62.13
-27%
73.6
-14%
93.9 (14.8 - 189, n=185)
10%
98.1 (2.99 - 590, n=753)
15%
Sequential Read 256KB
298.6
233.33
-22%
241.01
-19%
290.76
-3%
288.22
-3%
71.06
-76%
181.6
-39%
236 (25.8 - 452, n=185)
-21%
275 (12.1 - 1504, n=753)
-8%

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 Mobile
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
Asphalt 9 Legends
PUBG Compare
010203040Tooltip
; Balanced: Ø29.7 (25-31)
; HD: Ø29.4 (17-31)
Asphalt 9 Legends
010203040Tooltip
; High Quality: Ø28.4 (3-31)
; Standard / low: Ø29.6 (27-31)

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.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Max. Load
 30.5 °C
87 F
30.2 °C
86 F
29.3 °C
85 F
 
 32.5 °C
91 F
30.9 °C
88 F
30.9 °C
88 F
 
 33 °C
91 F
31.2 °C
88 F
30.9 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 33 °C = 91 F
Average: 31 °C = 88 F
26.8 °C
80 F
29.7 °C
85 F
30 °C
86 F
27.1 °C
81 F
30.3 °C
87 F
29.3 °C
85 F
27.8 °C
82 F
30.2 °C
86 F
30.4 °C
87 F
Maximum: 30.4 °C = 87 F
Average: 29.1 °C = 84 F
Power Supply (max.)  24.7 °C = 76 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Smartphone Review

Speakers

Pink Noise
Pink Noise

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.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.734.12537.130.23128.128.54027.626.95037.536.16322.931.78023.828.510021.325.512519.128.116018.444.920017.941.825017.746.931517.953.340014.658.550015.960.963015.265.480016.269.110001471.212501570.8160014.771.1200014.471.2250014.673315014.277.4400014.777.6500014.674.5630014.975.4800015.1771000015.172.21250014.8611600015.152.5SPL27.285.9N0.963.4median 15.1median 69.1Delta1.410.24038.928.132.924.627.523.42135.733.726.127.825.932.5254321.128.41737.216.140.413.546.516.253.714.954.714.759.314.263.914.364.913.366.114.166.513.971.413.679.914.479.914.278.814.776.114.174.814.380.114.578.214.868.115.358.915.452.226.488.30.867.5median 14.5median 64.90.812.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy XCover 4sUlefone Armor 6
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
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
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.08 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.65 / 1.62 / 1.66 Watt
Load midlight 3.03 / 4.34 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
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 (0.65 - 0.7, n=3)
-3%
0.883 (0.2 - 3.4, n=784)
-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 (1.6 - 1.63, n=3)
-0%
1.74 (0.6 - 6.2, n=783)
-7%
Idle Maximum *
1.66
1.87
-13%
2.4
-45%
2.09
-26%
2.16
-30%
2.25
-36%
1.68
-1%
1.777 (1.66 - 2, n=3)
-7%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=784)
-22%
Load Average *
3.03
2.58
15%
5.2
-72%
3.4
-12%
3.02
-0%
2.99
1%
4.6
-52%
3.73 (2.77 - 5.4, n=3)
-23%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=778)
-34%
Load Maximum *
4.34
4.23
3%
6.8
-57%
7.31
-68%
4.01
8%
4.12
5%
5.92
-36%
4.67 (3.66 - 6, n=3)
-8%
5.93 (1.2 - 14.2, n=778)
-37%

* ... 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.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
19h 59min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 19min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
9h 58min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 20min
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

+ replaceable battery
+ well protected
+ handy
+ updates for a long time
+ Knox support
+ 3.5-mm headphone jack
+ NFC

Cons

- slow SoC
- low on memory (RAM, ROM)
- poor LTE support
- 2017 design
- battery life too short and display brightness too low for an outdoor cell phone

Verdict

In Review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.
In Review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

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

Chassis
77%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
84%
Connectivity
39 / 70 → 55%
Weight
90%
Battery
86%
Display
80%
Games Performance
7 / 64 → 11%
Application Performance
50 / 86 → 58%
Temperature
94%
Noise
100%
Audio
62 / 90 → 69%
Camera
57%
Average
69%
74%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Rugged Smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s in Review: A Rarity for Outdoor Smartphone Fans
Marcus Herbrich, 2019-08- 6 (Update: 2019-08-13)