Anandtech Pixel XL review

[patrick3027]

Disclaimer: this is not going to be an objective summary of Anandtech's article, so go read it here : http://www.anandtech.com/show/10753/the-google-pixel-xl-review

 

Quote

 

The issue here is that the sRGB color mode will provide more accurate colors, but a less accurate greyscale. While you can't tell from the correlated color temperature average alone, if you look at the RGB balance for each greyscale shade in the sRGB mode you'll see that it's shifted toward red, but it also has too much contribution from the green component as well. Even slight skewing toward green has a profound impact on the appearance of greyscale shades, and I find the greyscale reproduction in the sRGB mode is very unpleasant. With the OnePlus 3 side by side it's clear that they're both warmer than the target of D65, but the OnePlus 3 still looks like white, while the green-shifted Pixel XL looks quite ghastly. Having the bulk of your error come from hue and chrominance instead of luminance is not a good way to go, and I'd say that the Pixel XL misses the mark on greyscale accuracy in its sRGB mode.

The NTSC color mode is just a disaster for saturation accuracy, although it's that way by design. Targeting a wide gamut is the wrong way to go on Android because the OS is not color aware, but if a company feels the need to offer a wide gamut mode it should at least be a gamut that is actually used for consumer content instead of an ancient, irrelevant gamut from the days of analog television. What really shocks me is how Google has gone so far backward from the days of the Nexus 5 and Nexus 7 (2013) where its devices were shining examples of how to make a mobile device with a great display. 

 

The Pixel XL certainly has a very good camera, but I would not crown it the best. In good lighting, it equals or surpasses the S7 edge’s image quality, but in low-light situations the S7 edge performs better, capturing sharper detail with less noise even when the Pixel XL uses its HDR+ mode. Overall, the Pixel’s auto exposure and white balance routines perform admirably, and colors appear saturated but natural. I also did not notice any vignetting (darkening in the corners), an optical issue the Nexus 6P suffers from pretty strongly, or chromatic aberration. Our first review unit shows pretty severe softening along the left edge of the frame, but a second unit only shows mild softening in the corners, so this might not be a widespread problem.

 

Like the Nexus 5X and 6P, the Pixel XL performs very poorly in PCMark. The overall score actually comes in below the Nexus 6P despite the Pixel XL being a much faster device on paper. The Web Browsing score is much lower, which is shocking when one considers that improvements to Android's native WebView in Marshmallow put the Nexus 6P at the top of the chart in that test. Video Playback sees a slight reduction, and the Writing score is in line with the Nexus 6P, which performs exceptionally poor in that test. The Photo Editing test, which utilizes some GPU compute, is the only area where performance improves thanks to the Adreno 530 GPU, but it's not near enough to offset the poor performance in the other tests. Devices that use Snapdragon 820 or Kirin 950 outperform the Pixel XL by a large margin, and it actually sits among devices using SoCs from 2015 like the LG G4, the Galaxy S6, and the previously mentioned Nexus 5X and 6P.

 

Ultimately, it's a bit unfortunate that there are still obvious gaps between the performance of Google's best Android device and an equivalently priced iPhone. Tasks like web browsing and working with large groups of text or other data are just simply faster on the iPhone 7 than the Pixel XL.

 

As expected, the performance of the Pixel XL in GFXBench's Manhattan test is in line with existing Snapdragon 820 devices. This year devices have really standardized on a resolution of 2560x1440 and Snapdragon 820, so the Pixel XL's performance in both tests is essentially identical to other phones such as the HTC 10 and the Galaxy S7. It's hard to overlook the fact that the Pixel XL's performance is competitive with smartphones that launched in the first quarter of the year, while the most recent smartphones like the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus are over 30% faster in this test despite being the same price.

 

Launching this late into the year means that performance isn't going to be significantly better than the initial wave of Snapdragon 820 devices that have been available since February or March, which does put the Pixel in a bit of an awkward position as far as price is concerned. You can grab a OnePlus 3 for $399 and it will perform equally as well in GPU-bound applications as the Pixel, or you can spend the same amount as the Pixel on an iPhone and GPU performance is significantly better. Whether or not this matters really depends on the customer, but it's something to consider when considering the balance of performance and features relative to the cost of a device.

 

In our internal WiFi web browsing test the Google Pixel XL comes in just under 8 hours. Considering the thickness, mass, and battery capacity of the Pixel XL, this is not a very impressive result. In comparison, the thinner, smaller, and lighter Galaxy S7 edge with a display of equal size and resolution manages to last for 9.72 hours in this test. Apple's iPhone 7 and 7 Plus do similarly well at 9.22 hours and 9.32 hours, despite the fact that their batteries are significantly smaller than the Pixel XL's. The S7 edge and the Pixel XL have very similar specifications, right down to the CPU configuration and the display. The S7 edge only has a 4% advantage for battery capacity, which isn't nearly enough to explain the gap. It could very well come down to greater power usage by the display, and this appears even more likely when one considers the additional power burden of using the wider NTSC gamut instead of sRGB.

Normally we would also run this test on LTE, in order to compare battery life between devices when browsing on a cellular connection instead of WiFi. Unfortunately, the Pixel XL presents a problem here. Both Matt and I have noticed that cellular reception on the Pixel XL is not very good. In particular, Matt was unable to achieve our target signal strength of -90dBm or better in the same area where he tests all other LTE devices. The best signal he was able to achieve was -100dBm (outdoors). Because we're dealing with a logarithmic scale, the difference in transmission power is not 10% like you might imagine based on the numbers, it's ten times the power. Unfortunately, we aren't equipped to do laboratory tests on the Pixel XL to directly compare RF performance to other devices, but it does seem that the signal strength is generally not as good as other smartphones.

 

With its Pixel phones, Google is asserting more control over hardware and design, hoping tighter integration leads to better phones that are worth more than the sum of their parts. Unlike Apple, who executes this strategy well, Google fails to realize any benefit from its more hands-on approach with its Pixel phones.

 

Its aluminum and glass hybrid design is unbalanced and top-heavy. The front is boring and unattractive, which could be forgiven if it was not for the overly large and useless bezels. The wasted space below the screen is a direct result of the Pixel’s poor internal layout. On the plus side, the Pixel XL feels solid, has virtually no black border around the display (which is especially nice with the white front), and the color coordinated fingerprint sensor and antenna lines are a nice touch.

 

We did experience some issues with Android 7 and Pixel Launcher, however. Occasionally, the phone would stall, and it even locked up once. Pixel Launcher also has an annoying tendency to be evicted from RAM, resulting in a blank home screen until it can reload. There’s really no excuse for this behavior, and it gives the phone an unpolished feel.

 

I'm not gonna bother saying what I think of the phone, I think my opinion on the phone is clear from the highlighted parts.

 

It's a great time to be a Oneplus owner.

[slanensis]

1 minute ago, patrick3027 said:

*text*

 

I agree. ONEPLUS POWAAAAAAAH!

[PlayStation 2]

$650 don't sound good now does it.

[Mobilevortex]

Project Fi is so nice tho.

[suicidalfranco]

can't wait for the one plus 3t

[Magnetorheological]

And this is why you never buy first generation products of anything. Especially with those kinds of compromises at that ridiculous price.

[Stabbers]

Here's the conclusion for those that don't want to read the walls of text:

 

Quote

In the end, the Pixel XL is a decent enough phone, but it is not the ultimate Android phone that people were likely hoping for. It fails to stand out in a crowded market and cannot claim to be the best in any single category; at best it is a jack of all trades. This is a serious problem for a phone that is positioned as and priced like a flagship phone. It also does not help that it’s missing support for microSD cards and wireless charging (it does support the USB Power Delivery specification for 18W fast charging), features that are available on the Galaxy S7 edge. There’s also no environmental protection against water and dust, which both the S7 edge and iPhone 7 Plus include. Even its exclusive software feature, Google Assistant, should be available on future Android phones. In the end, the Pixel XL is a Nexus phone with another name. It still delivers a pure Android experience and timely software and security updates, but is that enough to justify its flagship price?

 

[silberdrachi]

19 minutes ago, Mobilevortex said:

Project Fi is so nice tho.

Just buy a cheap nexus 5 or 5x off ebay and win

[Misanthrope]

26 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

$650 don't sound good now does it.

Doesn't. I honestly think this is just customers have been trained by Apple (mainly) and Samsung to expect to pay 600 to 700 to feel like you're getting a premium product. Not unlike Luxury cars that rarely have features that are realistically important for consumers (What's the point of being able to accelerate to 200mph when the speed limit it's 65mph) but just sell you the idea of this exclusive, status symbol product.

 

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Doesn't. I honestly think this is just customers have been trained by Apple (mainly) and Samsung to expect to pay 600 to 700 to feel like you're getting a premium product. Not unlike Luxury cars that rarely have features that are realistically important for consumers (What's the point of being able to accelerate to 200mph when the speed limit it's 65mph) but just sell you the idea of this exclusive, status symbol product.

 

The point is that a $70,000~ Porsche Cayman S feels and handles significantly better than some $20,000~ Toyota Camry. (even up to legal speeds) Not to mention there are other benefits too.

[Mobilevortex]

6 minutes ago, silberdrachi said:

Just buy a cheap nexus 5 or 5x off ebay and win

5X is what's in my hands right now as I'm typing. The article was quite informative to the point of beong borderline exhaustive. Tbh I think most of the nit picky issues the reviewer pointed out I likely will not notice. My Pixel XL is supposed to arrive Friday so I will find out soon enough.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

The point is that a $70,000 Porsche Cayman S feels and handles significantly better than some Toyota Camry. (even up to legal speeds)

That'd be important for a very tiny minority of people with access to an amateur race track. Otherwise you can handle yourself magically on the same straight fucking stretch of road every goddamn day at 5mph during rush hour which is the overwhelming majority of people, even people able to afford a performance car.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

That'd be important for a very tiny minority of people with access to an amateur race track. Otherwise you can handle yourself magically on the same straight fucking stretch of road every goddamn day at 5mph during rush hour which is the overwhelming majority of people, even people able to afford a performance car.

It's not just if you go to a track. Even in every day driving it is very noticeable, of course, it's not necessary, but it's definitely noticeable. You don't NEED a Porsche, just like you don't NEED a flagship phone, or like you don't NEED a smartphone at all. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

It's not just if you go to a track. Even in every day driving it is very noticeable, of course, it's not necessary, but it's definitely noticeable. 

Let's go back to phones: The user experience on a 300 bucks phone is similar. It might not be quite as snappy or detailed but fairly close for half the price. Does the average consumers cares about a fancy new camera technology and 4k video recording on their phone when the extend of their use case is taking drunken selfies on a close to pitch fucking dark club?

 

Or is it perhaps, important for other club goers to notice your iphone 7 as a strong social signal of your potential economical status? It's basically the same as designer clothes as far as I can tell for most of the people who buy this phones. We as tech enthusiasts often forget that normal people don't care about specs.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Let's go back to phones: The user experience on a 300 bucks phone is similar. It might not be quite as snappy or detailed but fairly close for half the price. Does the average consumers cares about a fancy new camera technology and 4k video recording on their phone when the extend of their use case is taking drunken selfies on a close to pitch fucking dark club?

 

Or is it perhaps, important for other club goers to notice your iphone 7 as a strong social signal of your potential economical status? It's basically the same as designer clothes as far as I can tell for most of the people who buy this phones. We as tech enthusiasts often forget that normal people don't care about specs.

Yes, flagship phones are unnecessary for most, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent to the lesser phones. Also, I was just pointing out that your car analogy was wrong. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, flagship phones are unnecessary for most, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent to the lesser phones. Also, I was just pointing out that your car analogy was wrong. 

I noticed that's why I abandoned it. But since we can agree on the "for most" part which was my point I think we can carry on, cheers.

[Techicolors]

compared to my 6p that i have for basically a year, the google pixel XL looks very average with a high price point. think i'll wait it out for the next Pixel phones or the onplus 3T, though the Pixel's camera is tempting 

[Mobilevortex]

One last thought regarding the comparison to the OnePlus three. It's a 5.5 inch display at 1080p. That in and of itself negates the price difference in my not so humble opinion. It's a great phone for the price, no doubts there. But it's apples and oranges if we are trying to compare it to the Pixel XL.

[79wjd]

Just now, Mobilevortex said:

One last thought regarding the comparison to the OnePlus three. It's a 5.5 inch display at 1080p. That in and of itself negates the price difference in my not so humble opinion. It's a great phone for the price, no doubts there. But it's apples and oranges if we are trying to compare it to the Pixel XL.

Unless your nose is touching the screen, 1080p @ 5.5" is more than enough. 

[Mobilevortex]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Unless your nose is touching the screen, 1080p @ 5.5" is more than enough. 

Your nose does almost touch the screen while using a VR headset. And my desktop monitors are 1440p and I don't like going backwards in resolution.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Mobilevortex said:

Your nose does almost touch the screen while using a VR headset. And my desktop monitors are 1440p and I don't like going backwards in resolution.

You're desktop monitor also has roughly 90 PPI, which will look SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the 400PPI of a 1080p screen @ 5.5". Pixel density and viewing distances are FAR more important than just resolution alone. Even a 720p 5.5" phone would look crisper than your 27" 1440p monitor.

 

And...how many people actually use their phones for VR? 0.25%?

[Mobilevortex]

I'm confused.

And apologies for my poor quote execution, not so great with forums on a phone.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Mobilevortex said:

I'm confused.

What specifically are you confused about? 

[Mobilevortex]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

What specifically are you confused about? 

~109 ppi with 27" 1440p

~92 ppi with 24" 1080p

 

This part here, this information conflicts with the information you've presented.

[79wjd]

Just now, Mobilevortex said:

~109 ppi with 27" 1440p

~92 ppi with 24" 1080p

 

This part here, this information conflicts with the information you've presented.

No it doesn't (although my guesstimation of the 1440p PPI was a bit off). PPI is the number of pixels per (square) inch. So 1080p on a 24" monitor would have 90~ pixels per inch, while 1080p on a 5.5" display would have 400~ pixels per inch.