This web site uses cookies to improve your experience. By viewing our content, you are accepting the use of cookies. To find out more and change your cookie settings, please view our cookie policy. Close

Galaxy S3 LTE vs iPhone 5 vs HTC One XL in 4G face-off

4G is fast approaching, and the first phones are sale now. We've put the iPhone 5, Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE, HTC One XL and Huawei Ascend P1 LTE through their paces -- but which is worth your money?

4G promises faster connection to the Internet for high-speed Web browsing, music and video streaming, and uploading pictures and updates. The first 4G network is EE, formerly known as Everything Everywhere, created by the merger of Orange and T-Mobile.

As well as the four phones mentioned above, EE will later this year offer the Nokia Lumia 920 and Lumia 820, and a 4G version of the Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Leaving aside the Lumias and the Note 2, we tested each of the four phones currently available on EE's 4G network ahead of the public launch, and we've also compared the fab four on their other merits. Read on to see which is our pick of the 4G flock.

4G performance

As the first 4G phones, the most obvious thing to compare is their performance on 4G. If only it was as simple as that...

We tested the 4G quartet with different tasks that involve connecting to the Web, as well as using the Speedtest.net app for Android and iPhone to measure upload and download speeds. We compared the phones against each other as well as a 3G iPhone 5 on O2 and a 3G iPhone 4S.

In our tests, the fastest phone was the Galaxy S3 LTE, which loaded webpages the quickest. In terms of download speed the S3 and iPhone 5 both performed best, scoring above 40Mbps a number of times. The S3 was more consistent, however, with the iPhone 5's speed more likely to drop drastically.

The Huawei Ascend P1 LTE was next of the four, topping out at 27Mbps and averaging around 15Mbps. The HTC One XL disappointed, peaking at 15Mbps but averaging closer to 10Mbps.

But before the folks at Samsung get too excited, we have to offer a word of warning about 4G tests. These results reflect 4G speeds at that one time, at that one spot, and shouldn't be taken as a definitive demonstration of the speeds you can expect once 4G is open to the public and every Tom, Dick and Harry is watching iPlayer while they're walking down the street.

I should also note that we carried out these tests in central London. We're conscious that the performance of any phone in London is likely to be very different to what the rest of the country can expect, but for the moment our tests have been confined to locations near to EE's office. When we can test outside the capital, we will.

For more on 4G speeds, and why they can't be accurately measured yet, hit play to check out our speed test including the iPhone, S3, One XL and P1 LTE -- and read the results here.

So the jury's still out on 4G performance. But how do the phones measure up against each other in other areas?

Design and build

The iPhone 5's smaller screen is matched by light weight: it's just 112g, nearly 22g lighter than the S3. The iPhone is also a beautifully built piece of engineering, with a gorgeous aluminium casing banded in steel. Unfortunately the black version is prone to scratches round the edge, although the white model is less susceptible.

The S3's clip-on plastic back and blobby camera don't have anything like such a premium feel, and nor does the One XL's featureless rear. But the larger screens give you more room to play with, while the P1 LTE has a subtle chin that helps it sit comfortably in your hand.

Screen

The Samsung Galaxy S3 is the biggest of the four, with a whopping 4.8-inch screen. Or if you prefer something a bit more petite, the iPhone 5 has a 4-inch display. Both screens are absolutely gorgeous -- perfect for watching movies, playing games and browsing the Web, all in crisp, clear detail. Which you prefer is up to you: I personally find the iPhone a bit small, and love the S3's slab-like screen; but others think the S3 is too pocket-stretchingly big.

For some reason the One XL has a much lower resolution 4.7-inch screen than the One X on which it's based: the display is 540x960 pixels, instead of the One X's glorious high-definition 720x1,280-pixel display. The P1 LTE is has the same resolution, but crammed into a more dainty 4.3 inches.

Processor

The One XL and P1 LTE both boast 1.5GHz dual-core processors, which means they're no slouches. But once again the One XL is a step down from the mighty quad-core chip in the original One X, which was crushed by the original S3 in benchmark tests.

But the S3 is in turn beaten by the iPhone 5. The A6 processor in the iPhone 5 dynamically overclocks, which is a fancy way of saying the chip uses less power when you don't need it, and ramps up when you do. We'd need to do proper benchmark tests to see how the S3 LTE specifically shapes up against the iPhone, but early signs point to Apple's chip winning out.

Software

The iPhone runs Apple's iOS 6 software. That means you get to whisper sweet nothings to voice-controlled personal assistant Siri, download apps from the iTunes App Store, and make FaceTime video calls. But you're also saddled with Apple's controversial Maps app, which isn't a patch on Google Maps.

The P1 LTE, One XL and S3 run Google's Android software. For the average user, the iPhone interface is simpler. But Android lets you customise your phone to your heart's content, and there's a much more open choice of apps in the Google Play app store.

Android also offers widgets and the far superior Google Maps app. And the Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE comes with the latest version of Android, Jelly Bean, which means you're ahead of the Android pack if you opt for the Samsung.

Camera

All four phones have 8-megapixel cameras, which should give a level playing field. We focused on exploring the 4G technology rather than testing the camera on each phone, but if you're interested in phone photography, we have compared the original non-4G Galaxy S3 and One X snappers with the iPhone 5 in our photo face-off.

There, the iPhone's HDR mode and decently flash-lit low-light snaps edged out the other phones. However, if you like taking control of your photos, the S3 offers the most features, especially now it's been updated to the latest version of Android, Jelly Bean, in the LTE version.

Conclusion

Remember this is only the first comparison of the first 4G phalanx -- when the Nokia Lumia 920 and 820 enter the mix in November, things may change. Look out for our full reviews of each phone coming soon for more detail on 4G performance.

In the meantime, the HTC One XL and Huawei Ascend P1 LTE are both excellent phones. But this is tale of two titans: the iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE. Both are fantastic pieces of kit, each with their own strengths. But in this case, there's one clear winner.

The iPhone 5 is a male model, beautifully put together and a slick all-rounder -- but the S3 LTE is an Olympic weightlifter, a powerhouse of a phone with a giant screen, rammed with Jelly Bean features. It's also, from our first tests, the fastest 4G phone so far.

Which 4G phone is your favourite? Tell me your thoughts in the comments or on our Facebook page.

Comments 16

Add your comment

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 3 October, 2012 09:22

Which is your clear winner then? The male model or the Olympic Bodybuilder?

It's a good comparison as male models are generally soulless while Olympic athletes are true legends :-)

Also the article should be comparing the 4G element of each phone, why does it compare everything else too? The S3 is the fastest so it wins, the rest is irrelevant for this article....

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 3 October, 2012 12:09

Interesting diversion yet again from coming out and saying the S3 is the winner! First, let's look at 4g speeds where it's clear the S3 beats the other phones both for speed and consistency. Then say "don't get too excited!" and proceed to criticise the 4g coverage and speeds when network is at capacity - note nothing to do with any phone, but a "review" of 4g itself. And then finally proceed to not look at 4g at all (note, headline "4G faceoff", but that doesn't matter!) and rerun reviews of other features of the phones. bizarre.

Rich Trenholm's avatar

Rich Trenholm 3 October, 2012 13:20

Honestly, some people are never happy. This is titled 4G face-off because it's about the first 4G phones. It's a comparison of the overall qualities of the first 4G phones -- If you want a comparison of just the 4G speeds, check out our speed tests:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/every-4g-phone-speed-tested-on-video-50009363/

And yes, the S3 wins overall. Well deserved, it's a fantastic phone.

ConcatNonsense's avatar

ConcatNonsense 3 October, 2012 13:44

I'd like to know the basis for the decision that the iP5 processor will be better than the S3.

iP5 - Dual Core, 0.80 - 1.20GHz (Averaging 1.02GHz in typical usage)
S3 - Quad Core, 1.40GHz

If the comparative measure is raw power - not a chance.

If it's energy consumption, then yes, without a doubt it will be lower - for obvious reasons.

If we're talking energy efficiency per core; I'd like to query how you got any of those results out of the iPhone.

What I think you are hinting at is the tailored OS-CPU approach which of course will outperform any generalised approach - it's the Java VM vs Compiled Native code argument - and hardly worth mentioning as it should be a given on the platform. However due to the locked down nature of the platform any tests can only be qualitative not quantitative - and that's not useful data, too many external factors can be implied to draw definitive conclusions.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 3 October, 2012 14:43

To have restricted the review only to 4G speeds would miss the point. Most people use a phone for a variety of purposes all of which are important to a buying decision
Amongst these reasons for some people (including some reviewers) are blind loyalty to iphones or blind insistence that android phones are better, if you want this approach then thats your affair (or problem?).
In reality the best phone for you depends on your needs including personal balance of feature useage. A full OBJECTIVE AND HONEST review including all features is what is needed.
To some the final choice of phone may not be based upon a rational review but on fashion or loyalty issues and if that is what they want that is fine by me.
Omissions from this review are price (S3 cheaper to obtain and possibly lower tarrifs on contrac and compatability issues with UK 4G providers (what about S3?)
For me it is the S3 (size (large hands, old eyes), previous android phones, belief in some ofthe reported comparison results, etc. for my daughter the iphone (size(smaller hands), previous iphones, belief in marketing hype (which may reflect actual abilities) and I suspect fashion statement.
Yo pays your money and makes your choice but it is only a choice not blind prejudice if you have the facts.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 6 October, 2012 14:37

rubish review!!!just got htc one xl and its 720p screen NOT qHD!!!!

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 6 October, 2012 14:41

where are u getting these nonsesense from???htc one xl its a 720p screen with the resolution of 720 x 1280 and 312 ppi of screen density!!!

http://www.htc.com/de/smartphones/htc-one-xl/#specs

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 6 October, 2012 14:44

you Rich should be reviewing eggs rather tthan mobile phones.Got no clue about them...
htc one xl is a 720p screen...get the facts right!

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 9 October, 2012 01:06

What I want to know is how is the S3 for connecting to your WiFi router, becoming the internet gateway on your home network and thus replacing my current BT landline based unlimited broadband (not infinity) with a CHEAPER and FASTER service per month ... which I can also then pick up and take out with me and my laptop when I'm on the move. This is the revolution I have been waiting for. Is it here or is it still theoretical for my 20Gb a DAY average usage?

ConcatNonsense's avatar

ConcatNonsense 9 October, 2012 19:29

Entirely theoretically at that bandwidth usage. I'm assuming you mean GB and not Gb.

T-Mobile seem to hold the best contract for internet packages where they slow your traffic rather than charging you extra in packages. Even then you're talking 3GB/month before you're down to 25% speed.

Cellular networks are not designed for that level of transmission as the cellular area of influence (cell) is so large

To assume a wireless transmission can result in faster speeds than a solid sfibre optic connection is absurd. What do you think connects the cellular towers?

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 9 October, 2012 22:38

To Concat Nonsense
I don't have fibre optic bandwidth, as I made clear above when I was talking about 4G replacing my landline. Even infinity isn't fibre-optic, it is just copper to a box closer than the usual exchange as your bandwidth on a landline is mostly a function of distance between you and the exchange where you then transfer onto fibre optic. When I talk about Gb I am talking about size of files downloaded. The point being some 4G packages are offering UNLIMITED whereas previously about the best package you could buy was 15Gb per month and after that you start paying by how much you use. So at 20Gb a day I would use my download allowance in less than a day and by the end of the month would have an additional bill of hundreds of pounds. Obviously no good. Some 4G packages look to be offering a better speed than most copper landlines (theoretically) and unlimited data ... this is what I have been waiting for, though I suspect that providers will start to throttle bandwidth for someone downloading as much as I do. This was my question, or more to the point, Would an S3 be able to pass that amount of data to my computers working as the internet gateway on an internal network.
PS When I write Gb I mean gigabytes, what is the difference between GB and Gb??

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 10 October, 2012 22:52

Anonymous you talk some tech talk but yet don't know the difference between GB and Gb?!

GB - GIGABYTE
Gb - GIGABIT

BTW - All this rubbish between my phone is better than your phone and my connection is better than your connection - YAWN!!!

ConcatNonsense's avatar

ConcatNonsense 11 October, 2012 13:34

This is all entirely feasible IF you only have ten people per cell. A cell however will serve hundreds of people at once, so until the craze of Micro-Cells takes over it is entirely unlikely you'll achieve those speeds.

Even then you'll only receive that level of coverage in cities, a country Cell is far too large to carry any feasible bandwidth - the power usage would be astronomical.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 16 October, 2012 23:54

OK, so in fact I was talking about GB when using Gb. Apologies for any confusion caused. Not knowing the difference shows my age and disinclination to bother keeping up with the tech side of things. When I first studied data communications we spent a lot of time on PROVING that 19,200 bits per second was the absolute maximum throughput on copper phone lines designed for voice and a single GB of affordable storage on a home computer, let alone a phone, was entirely theoretical. I am disinclined to keep up because I find it all pretty boring which is why I posted here in the first place ... ie. to ask someone who IS current in the latest technologies if my needs (wants) as a user can be met.

So to be clear - my question was : Will 4G and a phone such as an S3 acting as an internet gateway be able to replace my current BT copper landline with which I am able to comfortably download 20 GB of data a day while performing other normal functions such as web browsing at the same time without significant delays?
I might add that the speed of download isn't very important except that it has to be high enough to achieve the transfer of 20 GB of data every 24 hours.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 16 October, 2012 23:59

PS to the above ... I am NOT looking to store the data on the phone, my wording there was not clear. Data would be transferred to other storage devices on the internal network for which the 4G capable phone would be providing the internet gateway.
PPS. Yes, I am in a major UK city, Sheffield, which should be getting 4G coverage by Xmas this year if EE's schedule is to be believed.

anonymous's avatar

anonymous 6 January, 2013 22:42

Very pleased with Apple maps so far on iPhone 5. Excellent timely voice turn by turn directions. No doubt Apple will fix problems others have encountered. Excellent streaming of 1080p movies with Apple TV. Video Download over fast WiFi connection tested at 94 Mbps. Superior processor/networking performance. Small, easily fits in pocket. Glass screen is very durable and easy to keep clean.

Post your comment

Make your comment count. Log in or register to skip the 'Are you human?' question and get an avatar

Your email will not be displayed with your comment

Copy the letters and numbers to prove that you're human. You won't have to do this if you log in or register

Your comment must comply with the Terms of Use

Best mobile deals

Apple iPhone 5 (16GB) »

Apple iPhone 5 (16GB)

Phone FREE

£31.00 per month

1000 mins

Unlimited texts

Unlimited data

T-Mobile 24 month contract

Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE »

Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE

Phone £49.99

£26.00 per month

500 mins

Unlimited texts

Unlimited data

T-Mobile 24 month contract

HTC One XL »

HTC One XL

Phone £59.99

£31.00 per month

Unlimited mins

Unlimited texts

500MB data

EE 24 month contract

About CBS Interactive

Copyright © 2013 CBS Interactive Limited. All rights reserved.