News Pixel 8a review—The best deal in smartphones

News

Команда форума
Редактор
Регистрация
17 Февраль 2018
Сообщения
38 940
Лучшие ответы
0
Реакции
0
Баллы
2 093
Offline
#1


  • The Pixel 8a and its speedy 120 Hz display. [credit: Ron Amadeo ]

SPECS AT A GLANCE: Pixel 8a

SCREEN

6.1-inch, 120 Hz, 2400×1080 OLED

OS

Android 14

CPU

Google Tensor G3
One 3.0 GHz Cortex-X3 core
Four 2.45 GHz Cortex-A715 cores
Four 2.15 GHz Cortex-A510 Cores

GPU

ARM Mali-G715

RAM

8GB

Storage

128GB, UFS 3.1

Battery

4492 mAh

NETWORKING

Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth 5.3, GPS, NFC

PORTS

USB Type-C 3.1 Gen 1 with 18 W USB-PD 3.0 charging

CAMERA

64MP main camera, 13 MP Ultrawide, 13 MP front camera

SIZE

152.1 x 72.7 x 8.9 mm

WEIGHT

188 g

STARTING PRICE

$499.99

OTHER PERKS

IP67 dust and water resistance, eSIM, in-screen fingerprint reader, 5 W wireless charging



Somehow, Google's midrange phone just keeps getting better. The Pixel 8a improves on many things over the Pixel 7a—it has a better display, a longer support cycle, and the usual yearly CPU upgrades, all at the same $499 price as last year. Who could complain? The Pixel A series was already the best bargain in smartphones, and there's now very little difference between it and a flagship-class device.

Year over year, the 6.1-inch, 2400×1080 display is being upgraded from 90 Hz to 120 Hz, giving you essentially the same experience you'd get on the "flagship" Pixels. The SoC is the same processor you'd get in the Pixel 9, a Google Tensor G3. That's a 4 nm chip with one Arm Cortex X3, four Cortex A715 cores, four Cortex A510 cores, and a Mali G715 GPU.

Previously, the 120Hz display was the primary thing A-series owners were missing out on compared to the more expensive Pixels, so its addition is a huge deal. Any comparison between the "midrange" Pixel 8a and the "flagship" 6.2-inch Pixel 8 will now just be splitting hairs. The flagship gets an extra 0.1 inches of display, 2 percent more battery, and Wi-Fi 6E instead of Wi-Fi 7. The cameras are technically newer, but since they all run the same image-stacking software, the images look very similar. Are those things worth an extra $200? No, they are not.


Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments
 
Сверху Снизу