Conclusion & End Remarks

As we’re coming to the end of this partial review – preview for the time being, I just can’t help but to ask myself “why?”. Qualcomm’s recent marketing push for Snapdragon Insiders made somewhat of a sense as a social media push, however the Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders here is actually a hardware and product push. That’s an entirely different category of marketing, where when not executed or not done well, can actually backfire.

So, what is the SSI? In essence, it’s a crippled variant of the ROG Phone 5. Let’s break that down:

Things that don’t change is the display. The 6.78” AMOLED is essentially identical to that of the ROG Phone 5, from the panel up to the front glass of the phone, even up to the point of it still having a bottom front firing speaker indent even though this phone doesn’t actually have front firing speakers on both sides. The display was generally still adequate on the ROG 5, but that was a device at a $999 price point. For the $1499 SSI, it’s a rather lacklustre showing.

Performance of the phone is excellent, especially when it comes system performance, where the phone is likely the fastest Android device on the market. When it comes to GPU performance, having this as a Qualcomm Snapdragon branded phone with the Snapdragon 888 SoC at the core was a risky endeavour – either the phone would blow everything else out of the water, or it would fail to differentiate itself. The SSI ended up with the later scenario, unless you consider 59°C peak skin temperatures as a differentiation.

The single worst aspect of the SSI is its battery life. Although, yes, the phone is 29g lighter than the ROG Phone 5, it essentially comes at a +40% battery life hit, as the very aggressive performance settings and the downgrade from 6000mAh to 4000mAh causes it to fall from being one of the longest lasting devices on the market, to one of the worst battery life characteristics of any recent phone. This alone should be a complete disqualifier for the SSI versus the ROG Phone 5.

Qualcomm is making big promises on the camera department – however due to us not having access to that latest firmware update, this is an aspect of the phone that still remains an open question. Supposedly once this article goes live, DXOMark will publish their evaluation of the SSI with a very high score – if things indeed pan out for the device, then that would at least be a silver lining to an overall unbalanced package.

The $299 value ANC earphones included in the $1499 needed to be outstanding to be able to rationalise the whole cost of the overall package. Unfortunately, adequate ANC and mediocre audio quality was what we got. To add insult to injury, the SSI also drops the 3.5mm headphone jack which provides excellent audio quality on the cheaper ROG Phone 5.

Overall, the Smartphone for Snapdragon Insiders is a project that should not have been greenlit, and should not have gone to market. The very aspects of the ROG Phone 5 which make it an attractive option, such as outstanding battery life, the whole gaming accessory ecosystem, and the 3.5mm headphone jack, are things that are not present on the SSI. While the camera remains to be seen, the phone essentially does nothing better than the ROG Phone 5 – and that’s bad for Qualcomm’s first hardware attempt, as it diminishes the Snapdragon brand, and it’s bad for ASUS, for them ever actually agreeing to design such a device and diluting their smartphone line-up.

My initial reactions, impression, and resulting concerns, unfortunately came true, and it’s simply a device that makes no sense, and has absolutely no place in the market.

 

Audio Quality - 3.5mm vs TWS Argument
Comments Locked

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • shabby - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Lol at the battery life, utter junk
  • Great_Scott - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    It's a worse phone for more money. Which is surprisingly common.
  • tom-fox-29 - Thursday, September 9, 2021 - link

    Right
  • jamesb2147 - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Savage.

    This is why I read AnandTech!
  • Moizy - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    +1
  • warreo - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    +2. I love Andrei's writing. He is not always right, and he can be overly defensive/confrontational, but I respect that he takes a view and makes the effort to be data driven instead of the "always neutral, don't write anything negative" stuff that is the norm everywhere else. At least he advances the discussion even if you disagree with him.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Wednesday, August 18, 2021 - link

    As you say I write based on data or facts, so I'd like to hear what you say I'm not "right" on.
  • melgross - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    It’s a wonder how companies can put a device out like this. Did they even try it out?

    We’ll have to see what the camera software updates bring, but if anyone is actually interested in this, I can only tell them to not buy something on promises of future upgrades. That’s something this site also says. Maybe those updates will result in a seriously improved camera system, but maybe not. I would have preferred at least a preliminary testing suite to see if those updates do what Qualcomm claims. But since that wasn’t done, we won’t know.
  • BedfordTim - Tuesday, August 17, 2021 - link

    I wonder if it was meant to be a low volume subsidised device for them to experiment with, but someone in management failed to understand.
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 16, 2021 - link

    Does "3x optical zoom, 80mm eq." mean an 27-80mm equivalent zoom, or 80-240mm equivalent zoom? The former would start the optical zoom at roughly the same point; but you'd be dropping from 64 to 8MP directly. The latter would start at roughly where the main sensor would be with just taking an 8MP area in the center of the sensor for a "zoom by crop" effect; so both interpretations seem plausible.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now