3 ms·
I didn't own one but the Pixel 3a is pretty disappointing on paper. It has lower specs than the Pixel 2.
by driverdan 6y ago
I didn't own one but the Pixel 3a is pretty disappointing on paper. It has lower specs than the Pixel 2.
- actuator 6y agoYou are not comparing apples to apples. Pixel 2 was a flagship $700 phone while Pixel 3a is a midrange phone half of that price.
- driverdan 6y agoExcept the 3a was released about a year and a half after the 2. That's a lot of time for phone tech. It should have at least matched the 2.
- distances 6y agoI have owned both. I prefer 3a on every aspect except for photo processing speed. I've no idea how it compares on paper but it's better in practice.
- ehsankia 6y agoAnd this is exactly why you should never compare phones "on paper". Spec sheet comparisons stopped being relevant years ago. The phone's experience, performance, battery life and photo quality depend on so much more than just specs. This is why a 350$ Pixel 4a with a single 12MP camera still to date takes better photos than most 1000$ flagships with a 4-camera array on the back. You can also throw 16GB of ram on a phone, it won't make it faster in 99.99% of cases. And I could go on...