Why the Moto X is NOT a mid-range device

Medion · Aug 25, 2013

Content removed as I am retired from Phandroid/AF.

Cronis · Aug 26, 2013

how do you address the poor camera quality the Moto X puts out when most of the flagship devices have very high end cameras using various new tech (Nokia 1020 or HTC one) or use very solid higher end MP cameras (sony BIS sensor I think) like the Samsung S4.

On paper the Moto X cam looks decent but when it comes to actual usage its outperformed by last years 8 MP cams from HTC, sony, samsung and Nokia.

While I do agree the Moto X is on an even footing with the S4 and HTC one when it comes to speed/gaming performance (which is mainly due to the 320 having to only push pixels on a 720p screen vs the S4 and one having 1080p screen), it just cant compete when it comes to the cams. If I were in the market for a high end phone I would still go for something like the S4 since it offers removable storage and a removable battery, plus a very nice camera.

Also whose not to say that the quad cores might have a more future proofing effect. mentioning those gamers who went with dual cores a year or two ago when most of the games had not been optimized around a quad setup. Well now we are seeing games that perform fairly poorly on dual cores compared to quads.

As for labeling the Moto X belongs in the Mid high range with other devices like the Sony SP (almost same specs), Samsung S4 mini etc etc

Medion · Aug 27, 2013

Cronis said:
how do you address the poor camera quality the Moto X puts out when most of the flagship devices have very high end cameras using various new tech (Nokia 1020 or HTC one) or use very solid higher end MP cameras (sony BIS sensor I think) like the Samsung S4.

All comparisons have shown that the Moto X's camera is relatively high-end and belongs in the same discussion as the phones you've listed, but is the worst of the group. Someone has to finish last. That's one spec. Overall camera quality seems to be what is expected from a high-end smartphone, but nothing special.

Cronis said:
On paper the Moto X cam looks decent but when it comes to actual usage its outperformed by last years 8 MP cams from HTC, sony, samsung and Nokia.

Aside from the purple-ish tint, outdoor shots showed it no worse than on-par with those camera. However, I suppose it depends on the source. I've seen countless camera comparisons where the S4 beat the HTC One and vice-versa.

Cronis said:
While I do agree the Moto X is on an even footing with the S4 and HTC one when it comes to speed/gaming performance (which is mainly due to the 320 having to only push pixels on a 720p screen vs the S4 and one having 1080p screen),

This is incorrect. Benchmarks conducted off-screen at 1080p (an apples to apples comparison) showed the Moto X with an appreciable lead over the S4 and HTC One. When they went to native resolution (dumping the X down to 720p), it smoked the other phones. The lower resolution doesn't merely help the X keep pace, it demolishes those phones.

Cronis said:
it just cant compete when it comes to the cams.

And those phones can't compete in real world performance. Pick your poison, as each has its advantages.

Cronis said:
If I were in the market for a high end phone I would still go for something like the S4 since it offers removable storage and a removable battery, plus a very nice camera.

Look to my left. I made a similar choice. But that's the thing, we're just two of many people. Even today I'd still take the S4 over the Moto X for my needs. But the X has advantages that may appeal to the needs of others.

Cronis said:
Also whose not to say that the quad cores might have a more future proofing effect. mentioning those gamers who went with dual cores a year or two ago when most of the games had not been optimized around a quad setup. Well now we are seeing games that perform fairly poorly on dual cores compared to quads.

This is a 50/50 issues. Yes, the quad-core is more future proof. But you won't find any mid to high-end rigs running a Q6600 or E8400 today. However, aside from a few games, the E8400 STILL beats the Q6600 in most games

But my point is, by the time that quad-core will be relevant, these current devices will be outdated anyway.

Cronis said:
As for labeling the Moto X belongs in the Mid high range with other devices like the Sony SP (almost same specs), Samsung S4 mini etc etc

No, no it doesn't. The Sony Xperia SP has half the RAM, same SOC, lacks the contextual processors, and isn't quite a smooth as the X due to its overlay. The S4 mini is running an Adreno 305, which has one-quarter the GPU power of the 320. They're the same basic GPU, but the 320 is a quad-core variant, while the 305 is single-core.

The Moto X is on par with the HTC One and Galaxy S4. It beats them both in performance by a little, but loses out in the camera. Potential buyers will have to weigh that, but it is no more mid-range than those two devices. Again, the biggest mistake that Moto made was launching 4 months after comparable flagships. Moto missed out on their audience and will now have to compete with this Fall's flagships, such as the G2, Note 3, iPhone 5s, etc. These flagships will knock the Moto X (and S4 and HTC One) into comparable mid-range territory.

GandalfTehGray · Sep 3, 2013

No screen off animation :0
That will have to be fixed via root.

chanchan05 · Sep 3, 2013

I don't know where you get the part where the Moto X demolishes the other phones in terms of GPU performance. Tests have shown it to have just equal performance with the GPU on the S4. Anyway, I don't really put much stock on individual CPU only and GPU only tests. Because no matter how good the CPU or the GPU is, its limited by the other chip. The best GPU can only be taken so far as a mediocre CPU, and vice versa. The Moto X is practically middle of the pack in absolute performance in these tests:

Motorola Moto X review: Talk to me - GSMArena.com

However, Moto isn't after winning the specs race, as well, it's not that relevant anymore. At least depending on what you do to your phone. It's about the user experience in making the phone user friendly. It's not a geek's dream phone, but in some ways it's a better choice for other people over say, an S4 or an HTC One, as long as everything is kept stock.

Medion · Sep 4, 2013

chanchan05 said:
I don't know where you get the part where the Moto X demolishes the other phones in terms of GPU performance. Tests have shown it to have just equal performance with the GPU on the S4.

This is the only part of your post where we disagree, so this is all that I'll address. First, I stated:

Benchmarks conducted off-screen at 1080p (an apples to apples comparison) showed the Moto X with an appreciable lead over the S4 and HTC One. When they went to native resolution (dumping the X down to 720p), it smoked the other phones. The lower resolution doesn't merely help the X keep pace, it demolishes those phones.

In the link that you posted, only the off-screen tests were conducted, as well as a bunch of composite (worthless) scores. Here's a more in depth review.

AnandTech | Moto X Review

3DMark: Moto X with a healthy lead
Moto X - 63.7
Galaxy S4 - 53.4 (55.4 on GPe)
HTC One - 52.8 (54.2 on GPe)

3DMark Graphics: Moto X with a healthy lead
Moto X - 13,875
Galaxy S4 - 11,481
HTC One - 11,285

And then, for the direct comparison that I referred to:

Performance preview: The Moto X sports a great GPU, respectable CPU | Ars Technica

Egypt HD (off-screen, 1080p): Appreciable lead over the Nexus 4, marginal lead over the S4
Moto X - 43.0
Galaxy S4 - 41.0
Nexus 4 - 33.0

Egypt HD (on-screen, native resolution): 32% lead over the S4, mainly due to the difference in resolution, but that is as I stated.
Moto X - 54.0
Galaxy S4 - 41.0
Nexus 4 - 42.0

Conclusion: I stated that the Moto X has an appreciable lead over current flagships off-screen, and a substantial lead at native resolution. At the worst, my "appreciable" lead can be reduced to "marginal," but there is a lead. But there is no mistaking that once native res comes into play, the Moto X demolishes the competition.

chanchan05 · Sep 4, 2013

The Moto X may have a better GPU, but I'd think Epic Citadel as a better gauge than any of those other off screen tests. It basically is a world simulation on the device, pushing the CPU and GPU capabilities at the same time, hence a better real world indicator. And in that light, Moto X isn't that much better than the competition. The GPU is held back by the CPU.

Cronis · Sep 4, 2013

meh for all you know that could be benchmark overclocking like samsung does. To me these benchmarks are kind of suspect at best and completely useless at worst.

non of the reviews iv seen have pointed to teh Moto X cam as anything but marginaly decent. Many have even said it was a poor performer and based off my own observations after using the phone for a week its downright bad compared to the Iphone 5, Samsung S3/S4, HTC one or even some of the 3 year old nokia phones my friends have.

Also as for the Sony SP lacking contextual processors... its not like it actually needs em since its not running the always on stuff that the Moto X has. Not only that but when its cam is setup properly the SP blows the Moto X cam out of the water (less noise, more accurate colors and arguably better low life performance), all for about $200 less.

either way the Moto X is a hojpoj of high and mid range specs. On contract with $100 deals getting thrown out there so often for the HTC one and S4 I see little to no reason to go for the Moto X unless your really into its always on features.

arana · Nov 28, 2013

Cronis said:
meh for all you know that could be benchmark overclocking like samsung does.

I dont know what makes it so hard to understand that it performs similar in benchmarks.

so if both use benchmark overclocking then the results are equally valid as if none of them were using it, stil beats them.

and once its taken to native resolution and REAL LIFE tests then it beats them (marginal or not beat is beat)

this is not the only review that has shown the motoX has only subpar camera, but in all other respect it performs as its price suggests it should, in the high end market. the others you mentioned (ie s4 mini) shouldnt even be brogth to discussion they are real midrange and not even on top of that category

Medion · Nov 28, 2013

chanchan05 said:
The Moto X may have a better GPU, but I'd think Epic Citadel as a better gauge than any of those other off screen tests. It basically is a world simulation on the device, pushing the CPU and GPU capabilities at the same time, hence a better real world indicator. And in that light, Moto X isn't that much better than the competition. The GPU is held back by the CPU.

See the bold part. "Isn't much better." My whole contention from post #1 was that The Moto X is in the same class as the Galaxy S4 and HTC One. The opposing viewpoint is that the Moto X is "mid-range" compared to those two. So please, explain how a "mid-range" phone can be "not much better" than a high-end phone.

Those who are arguing against me have only further proven my point, which is that the Moto X is clearly in the same class as the S4 and the One, despite what the spec sheet says. Thanks for the confirmation, and thanks for the bumps

chanchan05 · Nov 29, 2013

I never contradicted you on saying it's not a mid-range device. I only asked as to how you came to the conclusion that it defeats the others in GPU performance. I already mentioned that for certain individuals it may be an even better choice than the S4 or One. Basically, the design of the MotoX was to take advantage of Project Butter hardware acceleration, putting a lot more load on the GPU and relieving the CPU. And you get a more power efficient device with comparable performance.

My only gripe against Moto is that if they launched a version of the MotoX running say a Snap600 or 800, they could have wiped the S4 and One on the floor, but they didn't.

WA_Bob · Nov 29, 2013

chanchan05 said:
My only gripe against Moto is that if they launched a version of the MotoX running say a Snap600 or 800, they could have wiped the S4 and One on the floor, but they didn't.

I have to agree with that, but the other way they could have compensated is not in hardware, but marketing. By all rights, the Moto X should have started at least $100 below what was initially asked for it. I don't think it's a bad phone at all given it's current specs, but without the upper level processor I believe it was overpriced to start with. Prices are coming down to more reasonable levels now, but it just wasn't worth $250 for one when you could pay less for a HTC One or S4 for less at the time.

Hopefully, the successor to the X is priced better and then I'll be tempted to pick one up.

Why the Moto X is NOT a mid-range device

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Android Expert

Android Expert

The Doctor

Android Expert

The Doctor

Android Enthusiast

Newbie

Android Expert

The Doctor

Android Expert

BEST TECH IN 2023

Smartphones

Best Android Phones

Upcoming

Best iPhones

Upcoming

Tablets

Best Tablets

Upcoming

Laptops

Best Laptops

Upcoming

Televisions

Best TVs

Upcoming

Game Consoles

Best Game Consoles

Upcoming

Wearables

Best Wearables

Upcoming

Smart Home

Smart Home Tech

Upcoming

Similar threads