HTC 10 evo vs. Samsung Galaxy S9: A Detailed Comparison of Two Aging Flagships
| Phones Images | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user in 2024, the Samsung Galaxy S9 is the superior choice. Its significantly better display, more powerful chipset (particularly the Snapdragon variant), and inclusion of wireless charging outweigh the HTC 10 evo’s longer endurance rating. While the 10 evo offers respectable battery life, the S9’s overall refinement and performance are more valuable.
| PHONES | ||
|---|---|---|
| Phone Names | HTC 10 evo | Samsung Galaxy S9 |
| Network | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - SIM 1 & SIM 2 (dual-SIM model only) |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 - Global, USA |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 66 - Global |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 300/50 Mbps | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (6CA) Cat18 1200/200 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / CDMA / HSPA / EVDO / LTE |
| - | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 66, 71 - USA | |
| Launch | ||
|---|---|---|
| Announced | 2016, November. Released 2016, November | 2018, February 25. Released 2018, March 09 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body | ||
|---|---|---|
| Build | - | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5), glass back (Gorilla Glass 5), aluminum frame |
| Dimensions | 153.6 x 77.3 x 8.1 mm (6.05 x 3.04 x 0.32 in) | 147.7 x 68.7 x 8.5 mm (5.81 x 2.70 x 0.33 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 174 g (6.14 oz) | 163 g (5.75 oz) |
| IP57 dust/water resistant (up to 1m. and 30 mins) | IP68 dust/water resistant (up to 1.5m for 30 min) | |
| Display | ||
|---|---|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 |
| Resolution | 1440 x 2560 pixels, 16:9 ratio (~534 ppi density) | 1440 x 2960 pixels, 18.5:9 ratio (~570 ppi density) |
| Size | 5.5 inches, 83.4 cm2 (~70.2% screen-to-body ratio) | 5.8 inches, 84.8 cm2 (~83.6% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super LCD3 | Super AMOLED, HDR10 |
| - | 3D Touch (home button only) Always-on display | |
| Platform | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 & 4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A57) | Octa-core (4x2.7 GHz Mongoose M3 & 4x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55) - EMEAOcta-core (4x2.8 GHz Kryo 385 Gold & 4x1.7 GHz Kryo 385 Silver) - USA/LATAM, China |
| Chipset | Qualcomm MSM8994 Snapdragon 810 (20 nm) | Exynos 9810 (10 nm) - EMEAQualcomm SDM845 Snapdragon 845 (10 nm) - USA/LATAM, China |
| GPU | Adreno 430 | Mali-G72 MP18 - EMEAAdreno 630 - USA/LATAM, China |
| OS | Android 7.0 (Nougat) | Android 8.0 (Oreo), upgradable to Android 10, One UI 2.5 |
| Memory | ||
|---|---|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) - dual SIM model only |
| Internal | 32GB 3GB RAM, 64GB 3GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM, 256GB 4GB RAM |
| eMMC 5.0 | UFS 2.1 | |
| Main Camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Features | Dual-LED flash, panorama | LED flash, auto-HDR, panorama |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, PDAF, OIS | 12 MP, f/1.5-2.4, 26mm (wide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF, OIS |
| Video | 4K@30fps (24-bit/192kHz audio), 720p@120fps | 4K@30/60fps, 1080p@30/60/240fps, 720p@960fps, HDR, stereo sound rec., gyro-EIS & OIS (30fps) |
| Selfie camera | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dual | - | 8 MP, f/1.7, 25mm (wide), 1/3.6", 1.22µm, AF 2 MP (dedicated iris scanner camera) |
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.4 | - |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1440p@30fps |
| Sound | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | Yes |
| 35mm jack | No | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes, with stereo speakers |
| 24-bit/192kHz audio | 32-bit/384kHz audio Tuned by AKG | |
| Comms | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bluetooth | 4.1, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE, aptX |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS | GPS, GLONASS, BDS, GALILEO |
| Radio | No | FM radio (USA & Canada only) |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | USB Type-C 3.1 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (front-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Iris scanner, fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass, barometer, heart rate, SpO2 |
| - | ANT+ Bixby natural language commands and dictation Samsung Pay (Visa, MasterCard certified) | |
| Battery | ||
|---|---|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, QC2 | 15W wired, QC2 Wireless (Qi) (market dependent) |
| Stand-by | Up to 480 h (3G) | - |
| Talk time | Up to 23 h (3G) | - |
| Type | Li-Ion 3200 mAh, non-removable | Li-Ion 3000 mAh, non-removable (11.55 Wh) |
| Misc | ||
|---|---|---|
| Colors | Silver, Black | Midnight Black, Coral Blue, Titanium Gray, Lilac Purple, Burgundy Red, Sunrise Gold, Ice Blue |
| Models | 10 evo, M10f, 2PYB2 | SM-G960F, SM-G960, SM-G960F, SM-G960U, SM-G960W, SM-G9600, SM-G960U1, SM-G960N, SCV38, SM-G960X, SC-02K |
| Price | About 230 EUR | About 110 EUR |
| SAR | 0.60 W/kg (head) | 0.63 W/kg (head) 0.96 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | 0.51 W/kg (head) | 0.36 W/kg (head) 1.18 W/kg (body) |
| Tests | ||
|---|---|---|
| Audio quality | - | Noise -93.4dB / Crosstalk -93.9dB |
| Battery life | Endurance rating 58h | Endurance rating 78h |
| Camera | Photo / Video | Photo / Video |
| Display | Contrast ratio: 1357:1 (nominal), 2.407 (sunlight) | Contrast ratio: Infinite (nominal), 4.630 (sunlight) |
| Loudspeaker | Voice 65dB / Noise 75dB / Ring 80dB | Voice 68dB / Noise 74dB / Ring 81dB |
| Performance | GFXBench: 6.9fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | AnTuTu: 250156 (v7) GeekBench: 8830 (v4.4) GFXBench: 14fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
HTC 10 evo
- Longer endurance rating (58h)
- Unique unibody design
- Quick Charge 2.0 support
- Older, less efficient processor (Snapdragon 810)
- Inferior display quality
- Lacks wireless charging
Samsung Galaxy S9
- More powerful processor (Exynos 9810/Snapdragon 845)
- Superior display quality (Super AMOLED, high contrast)
- Wireless charging (Qi)
- Slightly lower endurance rating (78h)
- Potentially more expensive
- Software support may be limited
Display Comparison
The Samsung Galaxy S9 boasts a demonstrably superior display. While both phones feature a contrast ratio for sunlight viewing (2.407 for the HTC 10 evo and 4.630 for the S9), the S9’s ‘Infinite’ nominal contrast ratio signifies a much deeper black level and more vibrant colors thanks to its Super AMOLED panel. This translates to a more immersive viewing experience, especially with HDR content. The S9’s smaller bezels also contribute to a more modern aesthetic, while the 10 evo’s display, though adequate, feels dated in comparison.
Camera Comparison
Both phones offer photo and video capabilities, but details are limited. Assuming similar software processing, the Galaxy S9 likely has an advantage due to its potentially larger sensor and more advanced image stabilization (OIS). The S9’s variable aperture lens (not specified in the data, but a key feature) would also provide greater flexibility in different lighting conditions. The 10 evo’s camera is likely competent, but the S9’s hardware and software optimizations would result in superior image quality, particularly in low light.
Performance
The chipset difference is substantial. The HTC 10 evo’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 810, built on a 20nm process, is significantly less efficient and powerful than the Samsung Galaxy S9’s Exynos 9810 (EMEA) or Snapdragon 845 (USA/LATAM, China), both fabricated on a 10nm process. The S9’s processors feature newer CPU core designs (Mongoose M3/Kryo 385 Gold) and a more advanced GPU, resulting in faster app loading times, smoother multitasking, and better gaming performance. The 10 evo will struggle with demanding modern applications, while the S9 remains reasonably capable. The S9’s RAM speed (likely LPDDR4) also contributes to its snappier performance.
Battery Life
The HTC 10 evo’s endurance rating of 58 hours is higher than the Galaxy S9’s 78 hours, but this doesn’t tell the whole story. The S9’s more efficient processor and display technology offset its slightly smaller battery capacity. While the 10 evo might last longer on a single charge with minimal use, the S9’s 15W wired charging (plus optional Qi wireless charging) provides greater convenience. The S9’s faster charging speeds mean less time tethered to an outlet, and the wireless charging option adds a layer of usability the 10 evo lacks.
Buying Guide
Buy the HTC 10 evo if you prioritize maximum battery life above all else and appreciate a minimalist design. It’s a solid choice for users who primarily need a reliable phone for basic tasks and don’t demand cutting-edge performance. Buy the Samsung Galaxy S9 if you value a vibrant, high-contrast display, faster performance for gaming and multitasking, and the convenience of wireless charging. It’s ideal for users who want a more premium experience and are willing to trade some battery life for it.