Discussion - Galaxy S27 Ultra price hike could be the worst of all

Read Full Article…
Join the discussion
MsPooks
MsPooks
Arena Master
• 1mo ago

I can't remember how long it's been since I thought "Wow, this processor can't keep up." Does anybody really need a Snapdragon 6? Does anybody really need a Galaxy S27?


Oh yeah...the AI companies do.

Like
3
Quote
stferrari
stferrari
Arena Master
• 1mo ago

I would be happy with an S27 Ultra powered by a reliable, energy efficient and reasonably powerful Exynos. This uneducated marketing driven obsession with faster processors is just plain ridiculous. With the exception of those rare power users/gamers, you just dont need that much processing power.

Like
Quote
pimpin83z
pimpin83z
Arena Legend
• 1mo ago
↵stferrari said:

I would be happy with an S27 Ultra powered by a reliable, energy efficient and reasonably powerful Exynos. This uneducated marketing driven obsession with faster processors is just plain ridiculous. With the exception of those rare power users/gamers, you just dont need that much processing power.

"With the exception of those rare power users/gamers, you just dont need that much processing power."


Based on what? And what survey have you conducted to know that the amount of power users & gamers who use smartphones is "rare"?

Like
1
Quote
pimpin83z
pimpin83z
Arena Legend
• 1mo ago
↵MsPooks said:

I can't remember how long it's been since I thought "Wow, this processor can't keep up." Does anybody really need a Snapdragon 6? Does anybody really need a Galaxy S27?


Oh yeah...the AI companies do.

For me it's always been, "Wow, the processor on my Note XX/S2X Ultra is better than my last one!". Also, the last time I upgraded less than 2 years was when I got the Note 3 in January 2014 & got the Note 4 that November; but even then the upgrades were quite noticeable.


"Oh yeah...the AI companies do."


100% spot on with this.

Like
Quote
AltronLivez51
AltronLivez51
Arena Legend
• 1mo agoedited

These chip makers rasing prices is pire BS.

Qualcomm already charges $250 to each oem for the latest SD chipset. For a product that costs less than $50 to make. So yes they can absorb the price hike, they just wanna take advantage.

Memory chips on the open market are using $3-$10 even for 1TB of storage. So oems selling it at $100-$200 is pure greed.


They arent losing any money. They still selling the same amount of chips. Actually they are selling more of them in some categories. They arent shott, they are just selling them as fast as they can make them.


But you dont see any other products not being made. Samsung, Apple , Google and everyone else is still making just as many phones as they have been. You see any of them discontinuing any products?

They gotta make sure they have what they need for their own products 1st.

When there wasnt any shortage yui see how much memory anf ssd's cost? These distributers had plenty already in stock and then they just raised the price on thrm. Not raring the price on new stock, but the existing stock 1st.


There ia no shortage if you have thousands of units sitting in a warehouse. Why raise the price on those?

It's all BS.. i have no doubt the stuff is being bought up, but Samsung and others can easily ramp up manufacturing. If you cant, then dont take orders for them.


Same thing they did during ccovid.it's just an excuse. We all can make it easy for them, dont buy their crap at the higher price. When it stops selling they will lower it down to encourage sslrd

The problem is consimers are stupid and just keep buying any yet complain about the cost. Unless you absolutely need it. Wait.

I wanted to bump my system ram to 128GB from 64GB. 128GB was already $300+, now its almost $500. No way. Im not even gonna pay $300. My pc is good for a decade with its specs, the price will come down, but we can make it drop faster by not buying.


Like
2
Quote
stferrari
stferrari
Arena Master
• 1mo agoedited
↵pimpin83z said:

"With the exception of those rare power users/gamers, you just dont need that much processing power."


Based on what? And what survey have you conducted to know that the amount of power users & gamers who use smartphones is "rare"?

Well let's see. Given that the vast majority of smartphones sold are not flagship phones and aren't powered by flagship SOCs, and not every flagship phones sold are being used for high computational applications or very high end graphic games, logic favors my comment. Can you prove me wrong or present a counter argument or are you just looking to pick a fight?

Like
1
Quote
pimpin83z
pimpin83z
Arena Legend
• 1mo ago
↵stferrari said:

Well let's see. Given that the vast majority of smartphones sold are not flagship phones and aren't powered by flagship SOCs, and not every flagship phones sold are being used for high computational applications or very high end graphic games, logic favors my comment. Can you prove me wrong or present a counter argument or are you just looking to pick a fight?

"Can you prove me wrong or present a counter argument or are you just looking to pick a fight?"


Defensive much? Just because someone asks you to back your comment to ensure you're not making a statement based on your personal beliefs or experience doesn't mean they're trying to pick a fight. Piggybacking on what I said about comments solely based on personal beliefs...


"and not every flagship phones sold are being used for high computational applications or very high end graphic games"


Again, what survey have you conducted to come up with this conclusion? Here's how I do it: I actually go outside & touch grass in many different settings (airports, coffee shops, amusement parks, places with waiting rooms, etc.) & do you know what I see people of all different varieties doing? Gaming, doing things that actually do require a good amount of processing power or just random browsing.

There's your counter argument.

Like
Quote
stferrari
stferrari
Arena Master
• 1mo agoedited
↵pimpin83z said:

"Can you prove me wrong or present a counter argument or are you just looking to pick a fight?"


Defensive much? Just because someone asks you to back your comment to ensure you're not making a statement based on your personal beliefs or experience doesn't mean they're trying to pick a fight. Piggybacking on what I said about comments solely based on personal beliefs...


"and not every flagship phones sold are being used for high computational applications or very high end graphic games"


Again, what survey have you conducted to come up with this conclusion? Here's how I do it: I actually go outside & touch grass in many different settings (airports, coffee shops, amusement parks, places with waiting rooms, etc.) & do you know what I see people of all different varieties doing? Gaming, doing things that actually do require a good amount of processing power or just random browsing.

There's your counter argument.

Sorry if you took offense at my reply. My real world experiance is just the opposite as yours so basically neither one of us has run a scientific survey and therefore only are stating our opinions. It would be interesting to see one. Pixel phones for instance are very popular in the US and they have significantly less gaming chops that Snapdragon based phones yet many still game on them. I do all of my gaming on an Tab S10+ which has much less HP than my S25 Ultra with no performance issues at all. I have my S25 Ultra's Snapdragon limited to medium performance (via settings) and is still lightning fast for browsing, streaming Ultra high quality music streams on Android Auto, etc. As a retired computer engineer I look at things a bit different. From a technical standpoint, SOC gaming processing power requirements are proportional to things like refresh rates, screen pixal density, graphics rendering complexity, etc. A game running at 4k on a 27" screen at 240 Hz refresh requires exponentially more power than a 6.9" screen running lower resolution at lower refresh rates. I would love someone like Phonearena do a blind survey of a popular game running on different performance level SOC equipped phones to see if people could see a meaningful playability difference and ideidentify which was which. Until then both of our opinions will remain just that, opinions.

Like
Quote
pimpin83z
pimpin83z
Arena Legend
• 1mo ago
↵stferrari said:

Sorry if you took offense at my reply. My real world experiance is just the opposite as yours so basically neither one of us has run a scientific survey and therefore only are stating our opinions. It would be interesting to see one. Pixel phones for instance are very popular in the US and they have significantly less gaming chops that Snapdragon based phones yet many still game on them. I do all of my gaming on an Tab S10+ which has much less HP than my S25 Ultra with no performance issues at all. I have my S25 Ultra's Snapdragon limited to medium performance (via settings) and is still lightning fast for browsing, streaming Ultra high quality music streams on Android Auto, etc. As a retired computer engineer I look at things a bit different. From a technical standpoint, SOC gaming processing power requirements are proportional to things like refresh rates, screen pixal density, graphics rendering complexity, etc. A game running at 4k on a 27" screen at 240 Hz refresh requires exponentially more power than a 6.9" screen running lower resolution at lower refresh rates. I would love someone like Phonearena do a blind survey of a popular game running on different performance level SOC equipped phones to see if people could see a meaningful playability difference and ideidentify which was which. Until then both of our opinions will remain just that, opinions.

I've noticed in your past comments that you've stated (& please forgive me for misquoting due to it not being in every comment of yours) that you don't take a lot of pictures & aren't really a power user. If that's the case, plus you having a Tab to game on vs your phone & if you don't use the S-Pen, what made you get the Ultra as opposed to the +?

Like
Quote
stferrari
stferrari
Arena Master
• 1mo agoedited
↵pimpin83z said:

I've noticed in your past comments that you've stated (& please forgive me for misquoting due to it not being in every comment of yours) that you don't take a lot of pictures & aren't really a power user. If that's the case, plus you having a Tab to game on vs your phone & if you don't use the S-Pen, what made you get the Ultra as opposed to the +?

Because i have very large hands and the even the Ultra is small in my hand, i love the battery life and love the screens. In other words, I just like that model. Because as a supplement to my SSA I used to work installing and maintaining all of the Samsung TV/audio displays in the Best Buys in 4 states, i still get an employee discount on Samsung products which makes the Ultea line much less expensive for. Also to be honest, as a technical dweeb, i usually always buy the top model of electronic devices. One of my many faults.

Like
1
Quote