Notebookcheck

Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone Review

Daniel Schmidt (translated by Andreas Osthoff), 04/06/2018

Galactic evolution. The Galaxy S9 is a great smartphone with powerful specifications and an excellent camera. Samsung unfortunately waives a dual-camera for this smartphone and reduced the RAM, but the price has nevertheless increased. We check if it makes sense to switch.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

The Samsung Galaxy S9 (SM-G960F) is certainly the poster child of the South Korean's manufacturer. Compared to the previous model, however, it is more about refinement than real innovations. A new SoC, faster RAM, and the camera have been redesigned as well. The latter now automatically switches between an f/1.5 and f/2.4 aperture, but unlike the Plus model, there is no dual-camera. This means that the portrait function should not work that well and there is no 2x optical zoom.

The other hardware components remind us a lot of the predecessor. 64 GB UFS 2.1 storage, microSD support, water- and dustproof case, and an Infinity-Edge display. Bluetooth 5.0, fast LTE Cat. 18 and comprehensive sensor equipment complete the package. There is once again a price increase this year, and the smartphone now retails for 849 Euros (~$1045; an increase of 50 Euros/~$60). Some markets only get the 64 GB version, while other regions can also choose the 128 or the 256 GB storage.

The Galaxy S9 aims to defend its throne and has to compete against all the high-end competitors. This includes the Apple iPhone X, the Huawei Mate 10 Pro, the LG V30, the Sony Xperia XZ2, the HTC U11, the Google Pixel 2, the OnePlus 5T, the Honor View 10 as well as the Nokia 8.

Samsung Galaxy S9 (Galaxy Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
, LPDDR4x
Display
5.8 inch 18.5:9, 2960 x 1440 pixel 568 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, 10 multi-touch points, Super AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB free
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: combined headphones and microphone jack (3.5 mm), Card Reader: microSD up to 400 GB (SDHC, SDXC), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Iris scanner, fingerprint, accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer, heart rate, SpO2, MST, Ant+
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM, HSPA, LTE, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 147.7 x 68.7 ( = 0.33 x 5.81 x 2.7 in)
Battery
11.55 Wh, 3000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/1.5-2.4, 26mm, 1/2.5", 1.4 µm, Dual Pixel
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/1.7, 25mm, 1/3.6", 1.22 µm
Additional features
Speakers: two speakers, Keyboard: virtual, USB cable, power adapter, SIM tool, headset, 2 USB adapters, quick-start guide, 24 Months Warranty, IP67, USB Type-C 3.1 (Gen. 1), fanless
Weight
163 g ( = 5.75 oz / 0.36 pounds), Power Supply: 62 g ( = 2.19 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
849 Euro

 

As with the case of the Galaxy S8, both the front and the rear of the Samsung Galaxy S9 are made of Corning Gorilla Glass 5. The manufacturer reworked the colors a bit: Besides the Midnight Black and Coral Blue, you now also get Lilac Purple, which looks really good. The test model is slightly larger than before (not unlike the Galaxy S9+) and is now 8.5 mm (~0.33 in) thick. However, it almost appears small and delicate in the hand compared to the larger sibling, and it is also noticeably lighter.

The build quality is very good. All the gaps are small and even, and twisting attempts are no challenge for the smartphone, even though we can hear some creaking inside the case. There has also been an in-depth drop test (we reported) by an independent institute and it passed except for some minor scratches, which was not the case with the previous model. It is good that Samsung has improved this aspect effectively.

The protection classification is misleading. Samsung advertises IP68, which suggests that the smartphone is both dust and waterproof. However, Samsung limits this in the footnotes and reduces the protection against unlimited submersion in water to a time-limited (30 minutes) submersion up to a depth of 1.5 meters (~5 ft) – which means IP67.

Depending on the model that you get, the card tray at the top edge of the smartphone can either carry one Nano-SIM and a microSD card or two Nano-SIM cards (Duos). The tray itself is unfortunately only made of thin plastic. The battery is integrated and cannot be replaced by the user.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

The Samsung Galaxy S9 offers a very comprehensive sensor equipment, which does not leave anything to be desired. This also includes a heart rate monitor. You also get all the wireless connectivity that you can hope for. Besides Bluetooth 5.0, the smartphone also supports NFC, MST, and Ant+. The former once again supports dual-audio and can drive two speakers simultaneously. aptX for high-resolution audio is also included.

According to the specification sheet the microSD card slot supports memory cards with a capacity of up to 400 GB, which is currently the maximum as of this writing. The SDXC standard includes up to 2 TB, so higher-capacity cards should not be a problem in the future. There is a big performance difference between the internal and the optional storage, so it is not possible to format the microSD card as internal storage or transfer apps, but the latter can be activated in the developer settings.

Samsung has now implemented a modern USB Type-C connector based on the USB standard 3.1 (Gen. 1). It is also OTG capable, so you can connect peripherals or storage drives via an adapter. It is also possible to charge other devices with the Galaxy S9, and the port also supports video output via HDMI and DisplayPort 1.2.

Users only have to do without an FM radio and an infrared transmitter.

Top: Card slot, microphone
Top: Card slot, microphone
Left side: Bixby, volume
Left side: Bixby, volume
Right side: Power
Right side: Power
Bottom: Speaker, microphone, USB, audio
Bottom: Speaker, microphone, USB, audio

Software – Android Oreo without major improvements

Samsung ships both the Galaxy S9 and its larger sibling with the operating system Google Android 8.0 Oreo with its own Samsung-UI 9.0. There are hardly any visual differences compared to Android 7, which is running on the Galaxy Note 8, for example. The security patch level at the time of the review is March 1st 2018 and therefore up to date.

Samsung's own assistant Bixby is once again included. Subjectively, however, there have hardly been any developments since its introduction and is still not available in all languages, but limited to Korean, Chinese, and English.

The new AR emojis are more of a nice gimmick than a really matured feature. Live movements in particular are not perfectly executed and the mouth of the digital head is often shaky and jittery. We like the available stickers in social media apps much better, even though the recognition value is not very high.

Familiar features such as the Edge stripe or the Game Launcher are still included, the same as Samsung's own app store. Some apps from Microsoft and Facebook are preinstalled and cannot be removed completely, but only deactivated. Many Google apps, on the other hand can be deleted. Unfortunately, Samsung does not offer the feature to set up multiple user accounts on the smartphone.

Communication and GPS

The Samsung Galaxy S8 covers a wide range of mobile frequencies. However, the Korean manufacturer does not use a global version, but several regional variants. The European model carries the designation SM-G965F and supports 35 bands and the LTE module (Cat. 18) can reach download speeds of up to 1.2 Gbps, so it is currently one of the fastest smartphones. We did not have any problems with the signal quality in a metropolitan area. 

The Wi-Fi module has not changed compared to the previous Galaxy S8. It still supports the IEEE 820.11 standards a/b/g/n/ac with VHT80 MU-MIMO as well as 1024 QAM (10-bit quadrature amplitude modification). The Galaxy S9 should perform similar to its predecessor, but Samsung has done some tuning and improved the reception performance in particular. The transmission performance on the other hand is slightly worse, but the overall performance in combination with our reference router Linksys EA8500 is still very good.

The Galaxy S9 is unfortunately a bit slow when it comes to the automatic switching to a stronger access point, which is important when you have multiple Wi-Fi access points at home or your office. We often had to deactivate and reactivate the Wi-Fi connection manually to connect with the stronger access point. However, this is a common problem amongst smartphones. Only the Huawei Mate 10 Pro is a bit better in the comparison, which changes access points much faster thanks to its Wi-Fi+ technology.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone X
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
939 MBit/s ∼100% +44%
LG V30
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
657 MBit/s ∼70% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼69%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
338 MBit/s ∼36% -48%
Samsung Galaxy S8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
329 MBit/s ∼35% -50%
Google Pixel 2
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
287 MBit/s ∼31% -56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (46 - 939, n=195)
201 MBit/s ∼21% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG V30
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
703 MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼93% +25%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼74%
Apple iPhone X
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
456 MBit/s ∼65% -12%
Google Pixel 2
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
240 MBit/s ∼34% -54%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
225 MBit/s ∼32% -57%
Average of class Smartphone
  (51.2 - 703, n=195)
193 MBit/s ∼27% -63%
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Outdoors
GPS Test: Basement
GPS Test: Basement
GPS Test: GNSS
GPS Test: GNSS

The Galaxy S9 uses the satellite networks GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, QZSS and Galileo for the location, so there is a lot to choose from and a barometer is included as well. The satellite fix is basically instantaneous outdoors, but it takes a bit longer inside of buildings. Unlike the Galaxy S9+, the test model did not establish a satellite connection at the basement window.

We took the Galaxy S9 on a short bicycle tour and compared it with the bicycle navigation device Garmin Edge 500 to see how the smartphone performs. The accuracy is not as good as on the larger sibling. The Galaxy S9 performs well, but the deviation is just average within the comparison group for the complete track.

Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Galaxy S9
Samsung Galaxy S9

Telephone Functions and Voice Quality

The phone app of the Samsung Galaxy S9 has changed slightly compared to the previous model and is now lighter. The tab "Location" has been removed completely and you can only change between the call list, your contacts, and the number pad.

The voice quality of the smartphone is good and does not give any cause for criticism if the provider supports VoLTE. There is noticeably more noise over 3G networks, but the quality is still good in general. The ambient noise suppression on the other hand could have been better, because there are occasional scattered sounds. Using the Galaxy S9 in hands-free mode via speaker also works well. The voice will resound a bit, but it is no problem to put the smartphone on a tablet and use your hands for other stuff. The smartphone also supports Wi-Fi calls.

Our test model of the Galaxy S9 is the Duos version, so the microSD slot can also be used for a second SIM card. However, the Galaxy smartphone does not support Dual-VoLTE.

Cameras – Slimmed-down camera with Samsung sensor

Front camera Samsung Galaxy S9
Front camera

The front camera (Samsung S5K3H1) of the Samsung Galaxy S9 is identical to that of the previous model. It is an 8 MP sensor with an f/1.7 aperture and even features an auto-focus. The camera also offers numerous settings and filters. It is also possible to create front camera pictures with a blurry background via Selfie-Focus function. This works quite well, but competitors such as the Pixel 2 or the iPhone X perform better. The pictures are good in daylight and convince with sharp images and a comparatively high dynamic range. Low-light pictures are also still okay, but there is visible picture noise.

The front camera also supports a number of formats including 18.5:1 (2224x1080 pixels) and QHD (2560x1440 pixels). The frame rate is limited to 30 FPS.

We also had another look at the front camera of the Galaxy S9 under controlled lighting conditions. You can see that the camera quickly hits its limitations in terms of sharpness and presentation of details, because fine details are slightly blurry. However, this can actually be an advantage for selfies.

Unlike the Galaxy S9+ with its dual-camera setup, the smaller S9 only gets a single-cam solution not unlike its predecessor. This main camera (Samsung SLSI_SAK2L3_FIMC_IS) still offers a new feature. Samsung has equipped it with a modular lens, which can switch between an f/1.5 and f/2.4 aperture depending on the lighting conditions. Daylight pictures in particular can benefit from this feature, because bright areas are less prone to overexposure and the results are extremely sharp. The Galaxy S9 convinces with high dynamic range and great presentation of details. However, the S9 does not win the comparison with the Pixel 2. Google's smartphone is slightly better in scene 1 and 3, and the Galaxy S9 has only a small lead in scene 2. The performance of the S9 is also really good in low-light scenarios, but is once again beaten by the Pixel 2. The pictures do not look as artificially bright as it was the case on the Galaxy S8, and the edges are now clearer. Colors also look pretty good.

You can even get slightly better results with the Pro mode. It offers manual settings for the white balance, light sensitivity (ISO 50 - 800), shutter speed (1/24000 - 10s), the focus as well as the aperture. The Pro mode also supports RAW pictures. The Live-View feature has improved slightly, but is still not working reliably with long shutter speeds. An optical image stabilizer (OIS) is also included.

The Galaxy S9 can finally record Ultra HD video at up to 60 frames per second. Colors look rather saturated, but the video quality is really good. Recordings are unfortunately limited to five minutes in this setting, and to ten minutes in UHD at 30 FPS and Full HD at 60 FPS.

The Super-Slow-Motion mode with 960 frames per second is another new feature, which already premiered in last year's Sony Xperia XZ Premium. Samsung defines a picture square, which will automatically activate the mode as soon as the camera notices a movement in this square. This is a great idea and works well in practice, especially since you can use it up to four times in one video. However, the quality is only acceptable in really good lighting conditions and drops significantly in low-light situations. The results look very unsteady, noisy, and dark. The low resolution (720p) also limits these videos to social media apps. Sony is one step ahead and will feature Full HD for the Xperia XZ2, but without the handy automatic.

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 3
click to load images

The Galaxy S9 also leaves a very good impression under controlled lighting conditions. The detail presentation of the camera is particularly impressive with the f/2.4 aperture, but the f/1.5 also works well. The sharpness loss towards the edges is okay, but visible.

We also check the color accuracy of the camera with the ColorChecker Passport. The actual reference color is displayed in the lower half of each patch. The saturation is, as expected, a bit higher, but not too obtrusive.

Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
Test chart section Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart section Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
ColorChecker Passport: The target color is displayed in the lower half of each patch (f/2.4 aperture)
ColorChecker Passport: The target color is displayed in the lower half of each patch (f/1.5 aperture)

Accessories and Warranty

The box of the Samsung Galaxy S9 includes a black modular power adapter (9.0V, 1.67A; 5.0V, 2.0A), a corresponding USB cable (Type-A to Type-C), two OTG adapters (Type-C to Type-A, and Type-C to micro-USB), a SIM tool, an AKG in-ear headset with tips in different sizes as well as several pamphlets about security, warranty, and a quick-start guide. Some countries also get a silicon case.

There are numerous optional accessories in Samsung's own shop, including several covers, an inductive charging station (75 Euros/~$92) and some other products.

Samsung Offers a two-year warranty for its product, while the included accessories are covered for six and the battery for twelve months.

You can purchase Samsung's Mobile Care Package for an additional price of 119 Euros (~$146). It covers damages such as broken displays, liquid damages, and defective batteries for 24 months. You will have to pay an additional service fee of 10% of the original purchase price for each service.

Input Devices & Handling

The handling of the new Samsung Galaxy S9 has not changed that much. The capacitive touchscreen is protected by Corning Gorilla Glass 5 and recognizes up to ten inputs simultaneously. They are quickly executed without any delays. Samsung still uses its own keyboard layout, which looks very simple, but it sometimes creates more work, especially with the activated spelling correction. However, you can easily replace the layout with one from the Play Store.

The physical buttons of the smartphone are well-built and implemented. Besides the power button, you get the volume rocker and the button for Bixby. The latter also starts an overview with upcoming appointments, weather information, Samsung Health, news, and many more, even when the smartphone is still locked. You can also deactivate the button once Bixby has been set-up, but it is not possible to assign it with other functions.

Fortunately, the fingerprint scanner has been relocated and is now sitting under the camera of the Galaxy S9, so it is easier to access. The detection rate of the sensor is good, but the unlock speed could be a bit faster. However, the alternatives such as facial recognition and iris scanner are even slower and the former is not particularly secure either. Another disadvantage of the iris scanner is that we often had to lift the smartphone to the height of our face for it to unlock the device. This process is much better and quicker with Apple's Face-ID, for example.

Android's control elements are once again located on the display. You can activate the one-hand mode by three taps on the on-screen Home button and it will reduce the whole display area, so it is easier to reach.

Display - Slightly modified Galaxy S8 panel

Subpixel array Galaxy S9
Subpixel array

The display of the Samsung Galaxy S9 measures 5.8 inches (14.73 cm, 85.38 cm²). It is an 18.5:9 aspect ratio with a resolution of up to 2960x1440 pixels, but the default setting was 2220x1080. This saves power, but you should change the setting if you want to enjoy the full quality of the excellent panel.

The luminance of the Infinity Edge display is a bit worse compared to its predecessor and we measured an average of 527 nits on a completely white background with the activated ambient light sensor. We measured up to 730 nits in the center of the screen with an even distribution of dark and bright surfaces (APL50), which is lower than on the Galaxy S8. Samsung even spoke about up to 1000 nits during the announcement. The maximum luminance with the manual control is 327 nits.

The brightness distribution is very even and the panel can show pure black thanks to the OLED technology, so the contrast ratio tends towards infinite in theory. You also get a blue-light filter, which creates comfortable pictures in dark environments in combination with the low minimum brightness. The Galaxy S9 unfortunately still uses pulse-width modulation (PWM) to regulate the luminance, which can be tiring for the eyes and even result in headaches for sensitive users. The low frequency is not favorable, but the amplitude curve is very flat, which can compensate for the frequency to a certain extent. The two features Always-On display and HDR support from the previous model are once again included.

518
cd/m²
528
cd/m²
529
cd/m²
541
cd/m²
529
cd/m²
526
cd/m²
518
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
524
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 541 cd/m² Average: 527 cd/m² Minimum: 1.47 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 529 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.8-29.43 Ø6.4
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.6
Gamma: 2.16
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Samsung Galaxy S8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Google Pixel 2
AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5
Apple iPhone X
Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.8
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
LG V30
OLED, 2880x1440, 6
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
-35%
-9%
11%
-4%
-98%
-64%
Brightness middle
529
566
7%
396
-25%
600
13%
629
19%
432
-18%
472
-11%
Brightness
527
564
7%
404
-23%
606
15%
636
21%
428
-19%
430
-18%
Brightness Distribution
96
94
-2%
91
-5%
94
-2%
94
-2%
87
-9%
87
-9%
Black Level *
0.27
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
2.7
-93%
1.7
-21%
1.2
14%
1.7
-21%
4.18
-199%
3.5
-150%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4
5.4
-35%
4
-0%
3
25%
3.6
10%
8.53
-113%
5.9
-48%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.6
3.1
-94%
1.3
19%
1.6
-0%
2.4
-50%
5.3
-231%
4
-150%
Gamma
2.16 111%
2.15 112%
2.3 104%
2.23 108%
2.15 112%
2.33 103%
2.29 105%
CCT
6358 102%
6335 103%
6483 100%
6707 97%
6337 103%
7487 87%
7048 92%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.87
Contrast
1748

* ... 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 detected 240.4 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 10377 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 588200) Hz was measured.

Optimized settings for the adaptive display of the Samsung Galaxy S9
Optimized settings

We had a closer look at the color accuracy of the Super AMOLED panel in the Samsung Galaxy S9 with our spectrophotometer and the analysis software CalMAN. Samsung uses an adaptive display setting by default, which automatically changes the profile based on the apps you are running. However, this profile results in a pretty cool picture. You can optimize the settings manually if you prefer a more natural presentation. The screenshot shows the settings for such a natural presentation, which uses the wide DCI-P3 color space.

The other three remaining profiles mainly differ in terms of target color space. All profiles try to manage an accurate white point nowadays. The Cinema mode also uses the DCI-P3 color space, while the Simple mode targets sRGB. We determined the most accurate colors in the Photo mode, which uses Adobe RGB to show more shades of green.

The DeltaE deviations are low in all modes, only the adaptive mode suffers from a color cast (blue) visible to the human eye. There are some small outliers for the colors, but that is not a big problem and it does not affect the results. The biggest deviation in the Photo mode is green (dE 4). Apple's iPhone X is the only competitor in this group with more accurate colors.

Grayscale (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Saturation (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Saturation (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (26.2 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (42 ms).

The Galaxy S9 leaves a very good impression outdoors. You can still see the display content in very bright environments and even under direct sunlight thanks to the high luminance and the great contrast ratio. Only the reflective surface can sometimes be annoying.

The viewing angle stability of the Galaxy smartphone is on par with the previous model. The typical OLED color cast from very flat angles is limited to extreme shifts and is not as pronounced as on the Galaxy S7, for example. The brightness also takes a small hit.

Viewing angles Samsung Galaxy S9
Viewing angles Samsung Galaxy S9

Performance – Smartphone with powerful Exynos-SoC

Quality journalism is paid by advertising. We show the least amount of ads possible. Adblock users see more ads. Please, switch off ad blockers.

Samsung has equipped the Galaxy S9 with its own high-end SoC Exynos 9810. The CPU consists of two clusters: The performance cluster uses four Exynos M3 cores running at up to 2.9 GHz, while the efficiency cluster is powered by four ARM Cortex-A55 cores clocked at up to 1.9 GHz. The SoC is supported by 4 GB LPDDR4x RAM, and the larger sibling S9+ even ships with 6 GB. The integrated graphics adapter is called ARM Mali-G72 MP18.

The CPU shows a significant performance advantage in the benchmarks and is between 31 and 85% faster in Geekbench 4.2. However, the performance gains are much smaller in the older Geekbench versions and they are sometimes even non-existent. The Geekbench RenderScript test even determines a lower performance compared to the Exynos 8895. Subjectively, the system performance is good, but we regularly noticed small stutters.

The new GPU is also between 12 and 92% faster in GFXBench, but cannot beat the iPhone in the Offscreen tests. Some Android competitors (not all of them QHD) also manage better Onscreen test results we performed with the maximum resolution. The situation is even a bit worse for the Galaxy S9 in 3DMark; some rivals with the nominally weaker Snapdragon 835 in more challenging benchmarks achieved better results.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
217950 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy S8
171884 Points ∼78% -21%
LG V30
173749 Points ∼79% -20%
OnePlus 5T
172124 Points ∼78% -21%
HTC U11
175032 Points ∼80% -20%
Google Pixel 2
166939 Points ∼76% -23%
Apple iPhone X
197851 Points ∼90% -9%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
177341 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (217950 - 222290, n=2)
220120 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (39089 - 225663, n=292)
70573 Points ∼32% -68%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
243861 Points ∼95%
OnePlus 5T
214815 Points ∼84% -12%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
204457 Points ∼80% -16%
Google Pixel 2
207530 Points ∼81% -15%
Apple iPhone X
256297 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
212278 Points ∼83% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (243861 - 250577, n=2)
247219 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (73697 - 266981, n=66)
118267 Points ∼46% -52%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5291 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5370 Points ∼74% +1%
LG V30
5603 Points ∼78% +6%
OnePlus 5T
6595 Points ∼91% +25%
HTC U11
6828 Points ∼95% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
7046 Points ∼98% +33%
Google Pixel 2
7223 Points ∼100% +37%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6932 Points ∼96% +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5291 - 5319, n=2)
5305 Points ∼73% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2152 - 8078, n=155)
4526 Points ∼63% -14%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5736 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6035 Points ∼71% +5%
LG V30
6854 Points ∼80% +19%
OnePlus 5T
7739 Points ∼91% +35%
HTC U11
8295 Points ∼97% +45%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
8169 Points ∼96% +42%
Google Pixel 2
8550 Points ∼100% +49%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8439 Points ∼99% +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5736 - 5822, n=2)
5779 Points ∼68% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1908 - 9579, n=320)
4645 Points ∼54% -19%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
1099 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1156 Points ∼69% +5%
LG V30
1009 Points ∼60% -8%
OnePlus 5T
1329 Points ∼79% +21%
HTC U11
1221 Points ∼73% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
1264 Points ∼75% +15%
Google Pixel 2
1210 Points ∼72% +10%
Apple iPhone X
1682 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1234 Points ∼73% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1099 - 1109, n=2)
1104 Points ∼66% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 1682, n=395)
675 Points ∼40% -39%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6373 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6096 Points ∼66% -4%
LG V30
5949 Points ∼64% -7%
OnePlus 5T
6100 Points ∼66% -4%
HTC U11
5976 Points ∼65% -6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5936 Points ∼64% -7%
Google Pixel 2
6052 Points ∼65% -5%
Apple iPhone X
9248 Points ∼100% +45%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3657 Points ∼40% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6370 - 6373, n=2)
6372 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 9248, n=395)
1506 Points ∼16% -76%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2669 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3039 Points ∼73% +14%
LG V30
2091 Points ∼50% -22%
OnePlus 5T
3845 Points ∼93% +44%
HTC U11
2085 Points ∼50% -22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3544 Points ∼86% +33%
Google Pixel 2
2942 Points ∼71% +10%
Apple iPhone X
1219 Points ∼29% -54%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4142 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2625 - 2669, n=2)
2647 Points ∼64% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4423, n=395)
1100 Points ∼27% -59%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6234 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5386 Points ∼52% -14%
LG V30
4238 Points ∼41% -32%
OnePlus 5T
5872 Points ∼57% -6%
HTC U11
5570 Points ∼54% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5822 Points ∼57% -7%
Google Pixel 2
5918 Points ∼58% -5%
Apple iPhone X
10281 Points ∼100% +65%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5244 Points ∼51% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6234 - 6413, n=2)
6324 Points ∼62% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 10281, n=395)
2176 Points ∼21% -65%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3285 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3277 Points ∼88% 0%
LG V30
2702 Points ∼72% -18%
OnePlus 5T
3678 Points ∼98% +12%
HTC U11
3034 Points ∼81% -8%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3527 Points ∼94% +7%
Google Pixel 2
3360 Points ∼90% +2%
Apple iPhone X
3737 Points ∼100% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3147 Points ∼84% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3285 - 3302, n=2)
3294 Points ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 3925, n=398)
1120 Points ∼30% -66%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6219 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy S8
8490 Points ∼99% +37%
LG V30
8016 Points ∼94% +29%
OnePlus 5T
8000 Points ∼93% +29%
HTC U11
8281 Points ∼97% +33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
7750 Points ∼90% +25%
Google Pixel 2
7462 Points ∼87% +20%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8572 Points ∼100% +38%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6202 - 6219, n=2)
6211 Points ∼72% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (912 - 14362, n=97)
4107 Points ∼48% -34%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
8786 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6711 Points ∼65% -24%
LG V30
6078 Points ∼59% -31%
OnePlus 5T
6670 Points ∼65% -24%
HTC U11
6443 Points ∼63% -27%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
6649 Points ∼65% -24%
Google Pixel 2
6256 Points ∼61% -29%
Apple iPhone X
10255 Points ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6792 Points ∼66% -23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (8786 - 8963, n=2)
8875 Points ∼87% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 10558, n=139)
4178 Points ∼41% -52%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3688 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1997 Points ∼47% -46%
LG V30
1900 Points ∼45% -48%
OnePlus 5T
1962 Points ∼46% -47%
HTC U11
1906 Points ∼45% -48%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
1943 Points ∼46% -47%
Google Pixel 2
1924 Points ∼45% -48%
Apple iPhone X
4265 Points ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1898 Points ∼45% -49%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3688 - 3776, n=2)
3732 Points ∼88% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4265, n=140)
1269 Points ∼30% -66%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2486 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2494 Points ∼81% 0%
LG V30
2931 Points ∼95% +18%
OnePlus 5T
3068 Points ∼100% +23%
HTC U11
2841 Points ∼92% +14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
2956 Points ∼96% +19%
Google Pixel 2
3078 Points ∼100% +24%
Apple iPhone X
2361 Points ∼77% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2871 Points ∼93% +15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2469 - 2486, n=2)
2478 Points ∼81% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1469 - 3669, n=247)
1541 Points ∼50% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3553 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3472 Points ∼86% -2%
LG V30
3903 Points ∼97% +10%
OnePlus 5T
4016 Points ∼100% +13%
HTC U11
3883 Points ∼96% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
4034 Points ∼100% +14%
Google Pixel 2
3974 Points ∼99% +12%
Apple iPhone X
3463 Points ∼86% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2844 Points ∼71% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3553 - 3582, n=2)
3568 Points ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (53 - 5181, n=247)
1084 Points ∼27% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3244 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3194 Points ∼85% -2%
LG V30
3635 Points ∼97% +12%
OnePlus 5T
3758 Points ∼100% +16%
HTC U11
3590 Points ∼96% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3732 Points ∼99% +15%
Google Pixel 2
3733 Points ∼99% +15%
Apple iPhone X
3138 Points ∼84% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2850 Points ∼76% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3244 - 3256, n=2)
3250 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 4732, n=255)
1031 Points ∼27% -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2600 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2440 Points ∼79% -6%
LG V30
2808 Points ∼91% +8%
OnePlus 5T
3031 Points ∼98% +17%
HTC U11
2832 Points ∼92% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
2547 Points ∼83% -2%
Google Pixel 2
3080 Points ∼100% +18%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2896 Points ∼94% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2496 - 2600, n=2)
2548 Points ∼83% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1456 - 3642, n=276)
1429 Points ∼46% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
4569 Points ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4923 Points ∼82% +8%
LG V30
5895 Points ∼98% +29%
OnePlus 5T
5791 Points ∼96% +27%
HTC U11
5877 Points ∼97% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5599 Points ∼93% +23%
Google Pixel 2
6040 Points ∼100% +32%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3353 Points ∼56% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (4569 - 4637, n=2)
4603 Points ∼76% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 8122, n=276)
1440 Points ∼24% -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3911 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4015 Points ∼81% +3%
LG V30
4738 Points ∼95% +21%
OnePlus 5T
4816 Points ∼97% +23%
HTC U11
4744 Points ∼95% +21%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
4422 Points ∼89% +13%
Google Pixel 2
4977 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3239 Points ∼65% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3895 - 3911, n=2)
3903 Points ∼78% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (71 - 6378, n=284)
1227 Points ∼25% -69%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
26851 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
21543 Points ∼80% -20%
LG V30
14601 Points ∼54% -46%
OnePlus 5T
21348 Points ∼80% -20%
HTC U11
20140 Points ∼75% -25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
21337 Points ∼79% -21%
Google Pixel 2
20482 Points ∼76% -24%
Apple iPhone X
25633 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22629 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (26226 - 26851, n=2)
26539 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (7733 - 36494, n=430)
12015 Points ∼45% -55%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
48433 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy S8
36347 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30
55271 Points ∼49% +14%
OnePlus 5T
58097 Points ∼52% +20%
HTC U11
55725 Points ∼50% +15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
57134 Points ∼51% +18%
Google Pixel 2
55247 Points ∼49% +14%
Apple iPhone X
112489 Points ∼100% +132%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
34008 Points ∼30% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (46610 - 48433, n=2)
47522 Points ∼42% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (10997 - 113380, n=430)
15316 Points ∼14% -68%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
41093 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8
31532 Points ∼49% -23%
LG V30
34139 Points ∼53% -17%
OnePlus 5T
42022 Points ∼65% +2%
HTC U11
40014 Points ∼62% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
41618 Points ∼65% +1%
Google Pixel 2
40116 Points ∼63% -2%
Apple iPhone X
64169 Points ∼100% +56%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
30590 Points ∼48% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (39745 - 41093, n=2)
40419 Points ∼63% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (10054 - 64405, n=431)
13229 Points ∼21% -68%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
144 fps ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8
121 fps ∼68% -16%
LG V30
113 fps ∼64% -22%
OnePlus 5T
113 fps ∼64% -22%
HTC U11
91 fps ∼51% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
102 fps ∼57% -29%
Google Pixel 2
112 fps ∼63% -22%
Apple iPhone X
177.4 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
112 fps ∼63% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (144 - 147, n=2)
146 fps ∼82% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (5.1 - 177, n=456)
26.9 fps ∼15% -81%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
60 fps ∼100% 0%
LG V30
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼100% 0%
HTC U11
58 fps ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 2
59 fps ∼98% -2%
Apple iPhone X
59.4 fps ∼99% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (60 - 60, n=2)
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (9.7 - 120, n=459)
23.3 fps ∼39% -61%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
73 fps ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy S8
62 fps ∼70% -15%
LG V30
59 fps ∼67% -19%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼68% -18%
HTC U11
51 fps ∼58% -30%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
49 fps ∼56% -33%
Google Pixel 2
52 fps ∼59% -29%
Apple iPhone X
88.2 fps ∼100% +21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
54 fps ∼61% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (73 - 74, n=2)
73.5 fps ∼83% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1.6 - 88.2, n=381)
14.4 fps ∼16% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
45 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy S8
41 fps ∼70% -9%
LG V30
35 fps ∼60% -22%
OnePlus 5T
53 fps ∼91% +18%
HTC U11
29 fps ∼50% -36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
45 fps ∼77% 0%
Google Pixel 2
54 fps ∼92% +20%
Apple iPhone X
58.5 fps ∼100% +30%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
56 fps ∼96% +24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 45, n=2)
45 fps ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.4 - 115, n=383)
14.4 fps ∼25% -68%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
46 fps ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S8
24 fps ∼49% -48%
LG V30
40 fps ∼82% -13%
OnePlus 5T
41 fps ∼84% -11%
HTC U11
33 fps ∼67% -28%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
34 fps ∼70% -26%
Google Pixel 2
31 fps ∼63% -33%
Apple iPhone X
48.9 fps ∼100% +6%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
37 fps ∼76% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (46 - 47, n=2)
46.5 fps ∼95% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 60, n=247)
12.9 fps ∼26% -72%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
24 fps ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy S8
23 fps ∼52% -4%
LG V30
19 fps ∼43% -21%
OnePlus 5T
37 fps ∼84% +54%
HTC U11
15 fps ∼34% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
34 fps ∼77% +42%
Google Pixel 2
40 fps ∼91% +67%
Apple iPhone X
44.1 fps ∼100% +84%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
38 fps ∼86% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (24 - 24, n=2)
24 fps ∼54% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 110, n=249)
12.7 fps ∼29% -47%
GFXBench 4.0
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
28 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
25 fps ∼89% -11%
LG V30
24 fps ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 5T
25 fps ∼89% -11%
HTC U11
24 fps ∼86% -14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
24 fps ∼86% -14%
Google Pixel 2
24 fps ∼86% -14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21 fps ∼75% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (28 - 28, n=2)
28 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4 - 35, n=179)
8.95 fps ∼32% -68%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
14 fps ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy S8
13 fps ∼52% -7%
LG V30
13 fps ∼52% -7%
OnePlus 5T
23 fps ∼92% +64%
HTC U11
13 fps ∼52% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
23 fps ∼92% +64%
Google Pixel 2
25 fps ∼100% +79%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22 fps ∼88% +57%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14 - 14, n=2)
14 fps ∼56% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 50, n=182)
8 fps ∼32% -43%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
34.04 fps ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy S8
30.64 fps ∼80% -10%
HTC U11
36.58 fps ∼95% +7%
Google Pixel 2
38.4 fps ∼100% +13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21.49 fps ∼56% -37%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (34 - 35.8, n=2)
34.9 fps ∼91% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1.06 - 38.7, n=72)
12.1 fps ∼32% -64%
Basemark X 1.1
High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
42183 Points ∼100%
HTC U11
38752 Points ∼92%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
25922 Points ∼61%
Average of class Smartphone (983 - 42335, n=101)
11606 Points ∼28%
Medium Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
43852 Points ∼98%
HTC U11
44696 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
39033 Points ∼87%
Average of class Smartphone (3159 - 44696, n=116)
16447 Points ∼37%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
1436 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1276 Points ∼75% -11%
HTC U11
812 Points ∼48% -43%
Google Pixel 2
836 Points ∼49% -42%
Apple iPhone X
1702 Points ∼100% +19%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
788 Points ∼46% -45%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=2)
1459 Points ∼86% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (36.3 - 1702, n=58)
577 Points ∼34% -60%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
59.8 fps ∼100%
HTC U11
60 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
59.7 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (23.8 - 61.6, n=121)
42.6 fps ∼71%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG V30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 5T Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
HTC U11 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Google Pixel 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone X Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Web browsing is an enjoyable and fast experience on the Galaxy S9 and its preloaded Samsung browser (version 7.0). The benchmarks, however, only determine average scores, and the Samsung smartphone is worse than its predecessor in WebXPRT 2015.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1)
224 Points ∼100% +231%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 26077, n=311)
118 Points ∼53% +74%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
69.51 Points ∼31% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (67.7 - 69.6, n=2)
68.7 Points ∼31% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼30%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
66.477 Points ∼30% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
65.846 Points ∼29% -3%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
64.791 Points ∼29% -4%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
56.63 Points ∼25% -16%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
52.9 Points ∼24% -22%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)
35255 Points ∼100% +131%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14760 - 15233, n=2)
14997 Points ∼43% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
12941 Points ∼37% -15%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
12509 Points ∼35% -18%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
11781 Points ∼33% -23%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
11380 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
10506 Points ∼30% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
10406 Points ∼30% -32%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
10122 Points ∼29% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 35255, n=448)
4993 Points ∼14% -67%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (718 - 59466, n=467)
11891 ms * ∼100% -472%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
3630 ms * ∼31% -75%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
3590.6 ms * ∼30% -73%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
3414.7 ms * ∼29% -64%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
3096 ms * ∼26% -49%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
2760.3 ms * ∼23% -33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
2712.9 ms * ∼23% -31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 2078, n=2)
2069 ms * ∼17% -0%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
1886.6 ms * ∼16% +9%
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)
718 ms * ∼6% +65%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0)
354 Points ∼100% +117%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
194 Points ∼55% +19%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
190 Points ∼54% +17%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
181 Points ∼51% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 164, n=2)
164 Points ∼46% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼46%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
162 Points ∼46% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
158 Points ∼45% -3%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
138 Points ∼39% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=222)
95.5 Points ∼27% -41%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
57 Points ∼16% -65%

* ... smaller is better

The Samsung Galaxy S9 is shipped with 64 GB UFS 2.1 storage, and you can still use about 50 GB after the initial setup. The maximum transfer rates of the storage are really good, but the competition can be much faster when it comes to the read and write performance of smaller data blocks, especially the HTC U11 and the Mate 10 Pro.

We tested the performance of the microSD slot with our reference card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501. The transfer rates are decent, but not even close to the full performance potential of the card.

Samsung Galaxy S9Samsung Galaxy S8LG V30HTC U11Xiaomi Mi Mix 2Huawei Mate 10 ProAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-14%
-29%
27%
-8%
151%
1%
-54%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
53.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-20%
47.2
-30%
46.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-31%
47.5 (17.1 - 67.2, n=17)
-29%
41.7 (8.29 - 87.1, n=226)
-38%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-19%
62.8
-21%
68.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
64 (18 - 80.6, n=17)
-19%
60 (13.5 - 96.5, n=226)
-24%
Random Write 4KB
23.07
15.25
-34%
10.21
-56%
79.97
247%
15.75
-32%
164.45
613%
38.5 (8.77 - 152, n=22)
67%
12.8 (0.14 - 164, n=500)
-45%
Random Read 4KB
131
127.17
-3%
78.17
-40%
91.45
-30%
148.54
13%
132.27
1%
137 (78.2 - 173, n=22)
5%
33 (1.59 - 173, n=500)
-75%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.94
193.23
-7%
193.22
-7%
206.41
0%
208.62
1%
208.72
1%
194 (133 - 214, n=22)
-6%
67.2 (2.99 - 215, n=500)
-68%
Sequential Read 256KB
815.43
792.86
-3%
669.48
-18%
717.33
-12%
703.99
-14%
732.46
-10%
725 (529 - 819, n=22)
-11%
203 (12.1 - 832, n=500)
-75%

Games

The Samsung Galaxy S9 is equipped with one of the fastest SoCs, a high-resolution display as well as dual-speakers. This should be a great combination for gaming, but the Koreans cannot always use the full potential of the smartphones. Instead, there are frame rate limits, which is noticeable in the games “Asphalt 8” and “Dead trigger 2”. All the other games we tested with GameBench delivered great results and high (and steady) frame rates.

The sensors and the touchscreen also work well and execute inputs quickly and reliably.

Battle Bay
Battle Bay
Asphalt 8
Asphalt 8
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Dead Trigger 2
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Battle Bay
 SettingsValue
 full resolution60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
World of Tanks Blitz
 SettingsValue
 high, 0xAA, 0xAF60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Arena of Valor
 SettingsValue
 high HD59 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Shadow Fight 3
 SettingsValue
 high59 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!

Emissions – Galaxy S9 with short battery runtimes

Temperature

Galaxy S9: GFXBench Battery Test T-Rex (OpenGL ES 2.0)
T-Rex
The Galaxy S9 can overheat under load.
Overheating
Galaxy S9: GFXBench Battery Test Manhattan (OpenGL ES 3.1)
Manhattan

The Galaxy S9 hardly warms up at all while idling. The surface temperatures only warm up noticeably under sustained workloads and the device gets lukewarm.

We test the temperature development of the Exynos SoC with the GFXBench Battery Tests, which repeat the corresponding benchmark thirty times and log both the frame rates as well as the battery capacity. The Galaxy smartphone shows a similar behavior to the S9+ in the T-Rex test and can maintain its performance for quite a while before the performance drops significantly. The situation is different in the more demanding Manhattan test, where the performance of the S9 is much better. However, the smartphone can overheat in these situations, which is why we deduct points in this section.

Max. Load
 33.4 °C35.4 °C35.3 °C 
 33.2 °C34.6 °C33.4 °C 
 33 °C33.3 °C32.8 °C 
Maximum: 35.4 °C
Average: 33.8 °C
31.8 °C36.2 °C35.5 °C
31.2 °C33.6 °C33.3 °C
31.3 °C32.2 °C32.1 °C
Maximum: 36.2 °C
Average: 33 °C
Power Supply (max.)  25.5 °C | Room Temperature 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

Speakers

Pink Noise diagram speaker Samsung Galaxy S9
Pink Noise diagram

As with the Galaxy S9+, the Samsung's premium Galaxy S9 is equipped with two speakers for the first time. They are not just better from a subjective point of view, but can also convince in the measurements. Mids and highs are linear, but they are unfortunately a bit too far apart from each other, so the sound is not really balanced. The performance is still decent within the comparison group.

The Galaxy S9 fortunately still offers a stereo jack, which enables noise-free playback. The provided headphones are identical to those of the previous model and sound decent as long as the volume is not too high. You can make use of aptX for Bluetooth when you prefer wireless headphones.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2028.6272524.9243124.624.54026.4255030.830.86323.625.88020.222.910019.927.812517.638.616019.150.620019.150.325017.454.131516.959.540016.862.250015.165.963016.56980015.670.710001573.3125015.572.1160015.372.4200015.773.5250015.574.5315015.575.8400015.476.2500015.874.663001678.2800015.873.21000016.169.91250016.165.51600017.359.3SPL27.986N166.7median 16Samsung Galaxy S9median 69.9Delta0.68.335.242.832.938.837.236.131.73839.642.128.335.127.334.126.932.826.734.72441.320.949.920.954.719.558.218.562.817.566.317.567.515.766.815.871.116.675.215.878.915.480.815.581.71675.815.879.51675.416.375.816.37816.276.516.472.316.457.428.689.41.175.8median 16.4Google Pixel 2median 71.12.19.831.635.825.440.125.335.532.931.933.631.631.638.928.433.82727.220.828.62236.421.342.620.851.521.258.619.465.719.571.417.770.717.968.317.870.717.370.317.462.516.760.817.258.318.265.317.967.817.672.417.770.617.871.517.97318.164.518.249.33081.41.351.2median 17.9HTC U11median 65.31.310.6hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy S9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Google Pixel 2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HTC U11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Runtime

Power Consumption

Our consumption measurements of the Galaxy S9 impressively show Samsung's dominance in this section. The Galaxy smartphone manages really good values, but they were determined with the maximum brightness setting without the ambient light sensor. The device can consume much more power when it is active and the consumption is increased by 0.61W. The low values under load can only be explained by the good power management of the SoC, because we measured up to 10.32W when we started the Galaxy S9.

We were not able to determine a self-consumption of the modular power adapter (9.0V, 1.67A; 5.0V, 2.0A). The Always-On display does not consume a whole lot of power, but still increases the standby consumption by 0.23W.

As with the S9+, a full recharge takes quite a while . Little more than four hours is way too long for a device with Quick-Charge support. Samsung will probably improve this via an update. Once again, wireless charging is supported.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.04 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.65 / 0.81 / 0.92 Watt
Load midlight 4.76 / 5.16 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8
3000 mAh
HTC U11
3000 mAh
Google Pixel 2
2700 mAh
Apple iPhone X
2716 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3771 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-14%
-62%
-40%
-85%
-64%
-4%
-48%
Idle Minimum *
0.65
0.78
-20%
0.73
-12%
0.99
-52%
1.03
-58%
0.69
-6%
0.665 (0.65 - 0.68, n=2)
-2%
0.85 (0.2 - 3.4, n=528)
-31%
Idle Average *
0.81
1.1
-36%
1.96
-142%
1.35
-67%
2.4
-196%
2.03
-151%
0.88 (0.81 - 0.95, n=2)
-9%
1.684 (0.6 - 6.2, n=527)
-108%
Idle Maximum *
0.92
1.16
-26%
1.98
-115%
1.37
-49%
2.6
-183%
2.1
-128%
1.005 (0.92 - 1.09, n=2)
-9%
1.916 (0.74 - 6.6, n=528)
-108%
Load Average *
4.76
4.15
13%
4.82
-1%
3.25
32%
2.96
38%
3.18
33%
4.67 (4.58 - 4.76, n=2)
2%
3.96 (0.8 - 10.8, n=522)
17%
Load Maximum *
5.16
5.12
1%
7.15
-39%
8.56
-66%
6.6
-28%
8.73
-69%
5.16 (5.16 - 5.16, n=2)
-0%
5.56 (1.2 - 14.2, n=522)
-8%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime – Galaxy S9 surprisingly poor

The power consumption of the Samsung Galaxy was surprisingly good, but that does not result in corresponding battery runtimes. The 3000 mAh battery discharges much quicker compared to the previous model and is beaten in all scenarios, and the Samsung smartphone is actually the worst device in this comparison.

The stamina in the WLAN test in particular, with  an adjusted luminance of 150 nits is not convincing. While the Galaxy S8 still lasted almost twelve hours in this scenario, we only determine less than eight hours for the S9. A mediocre result that makes it hard to last a full day with one battery charge.

The other energy-saving modes are also available once again, but Samsung should definitely provide an update for the runtime.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
19h 42min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
7h 54min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
10h 9min
Load (maximum brightness)
2h 44min
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8
3000 mAh
LG V30
3300 mAh
HTC U11
3000 mAh
Google Pixel 2
2700 mAh
Apple iPhone X
2716 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3771 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
45%
56%
9%
9%
11%
27%
79%
Reader / Idle
1182
1667
41%
1914
62%
1250
6%
1457
23%
1292
9%
1744
48%
H.264
609
771
27%
822
35%
498
-18%
564
-7%
634
4%
929
53%
WiFi v1.3
474
719
52%
774
63%
560
18%
575
21%
564
19%
600
27%
818
73%
Load
164
264
61%
267
63%
212
29%
161
-2%
180
10%
398
143%

Pros

+ appealing design
+ great display
+ fast SoC
+ LTE Cat. 18
+ protected against water and dust
+ expandable storage
+ Dual-SIM SKU available (Duos)
+ good sensor equipment
+ USB 3.1 with DP, HDMI, and OTG
+ great camera
+ wireless charging
+ Ultra HD videos at 60 FPS

Cons

- can overheat under load
- videos at 60 FPS with a limited runtime
- no Dual-VoLTE
- long charging time
- warranty excludes damages caused by liquids

Verdict

In review: Samsung Galaxy S9.
In review: Samsung Galaxy S9.

We prefer the Samsung Galaxy S9 over its larger sibling S9+. It is not as bulky and the dual-camera is not worth the additional price. The Korean manufacturer once again delivers a really great smartphone, but it is more of a facelift of last year's Galaxy S8 and there are still some bugs, and some of them are not insignificant. The runtime in particular is too short, especially compared to the old S8. This is most annoying for users who pre-ordered the Samsung smartphone and paid the full price, because they now have to hope the manufacturer will fix this via an update as quickly as possible.

Samsung has to rollout updates to fix the short battery runtime, because the Galaxy S9 has the potential to be a great smartphone. 

The Korean manufacturer still delivers a great product. A fast processor, great display, better location for the fingerprint scanner, expandable storage, good stereo speakers, protection against dust and water, and an optional Dual-SIM model are some of the advantages. However, some features that were blown up in the announcement, such as AR Emoji and the super-slow-motion function of the camera are more of a gimmick than really sophisticated features with an additional value.

You can stay relaxed if you already own a Galaxy S8, because we do not think there is a compelling reason for an upgrade.

Samsung Galaxy S9 - 03/30/2018 v6
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
92%
Keyboard
69 / 75 → 92%
Pointing Device
97%
Connectivity
66 / 60 → 100%
Weight
91%
Battery
91%
Display
92%
Games Performance
66 / 63 → 100%
Application Performance
66 / 70 → 94%
Temperature
87%
Noise
100%
Audio
75 / 91 → 82%
Camera
94%
Average
83%
91%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone Review
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-04- 6 (Update: 2018-04- 7)
Andreas Osthoff
Andreas Osthoff - Senior Editor Business
I grew up with computers and modern consumer electronics. I am interested in the technology since I had my first computer, a Commodore C64, and started building my own PCs after that. My focus here at Notebookcheck is the business segment including mobile workstations, but I also like to test new mobile devices. It is always a great experience to review and compare new products. My free time is filled with a lot of sports, in the summer mainly on my bike.