My benchmark scores aligned with my real-world assessment. The A17 ranked slightly higher than Motorola’s $200 Moto G in single-core performance, but much lower in multi-core performance, indicating that the Motorola device generally has it beat when you’re juggling multiple apps. That makes sense, because I do not recall having as frustrating an experience with the Moto G when I tested it a month ago. Don’t get me wrong, that phone is also very slow and annoying to use, but I wasn’t this flabbergasted.
The Good Bits
I haven’t had any issues with the 6.7-inch AMOLED display—it gets bright enough in sunny conditions, and it’s sharp enough. The single mono speaker is serviceable, though it’s easy to block when holding the phone in landscape orientation. There’s a microSD card slot to expand on the 128 GB of storage, the phone is IP54-rated to withstand rain, contactless payments have worked OK, and the fingerprint sensor is reliable. GPS has been fine, though Google Maps can sometimes glitch out, especially if you try to do something else while navigating.
I’ve dropped the A17 a few times (less than 2-foot drops), and it has held up surprisingly well, so it gets an A+ for durability. If it matters to you, there is no headphone jack here (Motorola retains it on the Moto G). It’s also great to see that this phone will receive six years of software updates, far better than anything Motorola offers at this price. There’s a good amount of bloatware you’ll want to remove, but the software experience is otherwise similar to other Samsung phones. If you’re a fan of One UI, you’ll feel at home here.
Samsung has stuffed a 5,000-mAh cell here, but battery life is rather unremarkable. It lasts a full day with average to heavy use, but if you use the phone sparingly, then it’ll easily stay alive through a second day. There’s no wireless charging, unsurprising for a budget phone, but 25-watt wired charging means it’s not terribly slow to recharge.
Read the full article here