The first Android tablet I ever used was the original Galaxy Tab. It was a 7" Android tablet running Android Froyo, and it seemed a lot like a large version of my Galaxy S. In hindsight, it wasn't a very good tablet, but Samsung was one of the first Android vendors to enter the market and they were working with a version of Android that had never been designed with tablets in mind. As Android moved to Gingerbread and then to the tablet exclusive release of Android Honeycomb, Samsung was always among the group of manufacturers producing Android tablets. While some vendors like LG and HTC have left and returned to the tablet market, Samsung has continually producing new Galaxy Tab tablets, and those tablets constitute a very large portion of the Android tablets that are sold each year. 

While the naming styles of Samsung's tablets have changed over the years, last year the company settled on using the same S moniker that their smartphones have used for years, and that brought us the Galaxy Tab S 10.5 and Galaxy Tab S 8.4. This year Samsung has continued with their Galaxy Tab S naming scheme and has released two new tablets under the Galaxy Tab S2 name. These new tablets bring serious changes to both the hardware and form factors of the original Galaxy Tab S tablets, and I'll be evaluating the larger of the two models. You can view the specs for both tablets and how they compare to their predecessors in the chart below.

Samsung Galaxy Tab S Series
Model Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5" Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4" Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 9.7" Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 8.0"
SoC Samsung Exynos 5420
4x Cortex A15 @ 1.9GHz
4x Cortex A7 @ 1.3GHz
Mali T628MP6 @ 533MHz
Samsung Exynos 5433
4x Cortex A57 @ 1.9GHz
4x Cortex A53 @ 1.3GHz
Mali T760MP6 @ 700MHz
RAM 3GB LPDDR3
NAND 16/32GB NAND + microSDXC 32/64GB NAND + microSDXC
Display 10.5" 2560x1600 SAMOLED 8.4" 2560x1600 SAMOLED 9.7" 2048x1536 SAMOLED 8.0" 2048x1536 SAMOLED
Dimensions 247.3 x 177.3 x 6.6mm 212.8 x 125.6 x 6.6mm 169 x 237.3 x 5.6mm, 389g 134.8 x 198.6 x 5.6mm, 265g
Camera 8MP Rear Facing. 2.1MP Front Facing
Battery 7900mAh
(30Wh)
4900mAh
(18.6Wh)
5870mAh (22.3Wh) 4000mAh
(15.2Wh)
OS Android 4.4.2 KitKat Android 5.0 Lollipop
Connectivity 2x2 802.11a/b/g/n/ac + BT 4, GNSS, microUSB 2.0
Launch Price $499 $399 $499 $399

As far as specs go, we're looking at some serious upgrades, and some changes that may be seen as sidegrades or even downgrades. First and foremost, the SoC receives an enormous bump from Exynos 5420 to Exynos 5433. Unfortunately, like the Galaxy Note 4 Exynos, the Galaxy Tab S2 still has a 32bit kernel and runs in AArch32 mode. Fortunately this doesn't really have any significant performance implications, but I thought it was worth noting for anyone that may be interested.

Moving beyond the SoC, you may notice that the resolutions and sizes of the displays change substantially. Samsung, like many other vendors, is finally moving away from the 16:10 aspect ratio and adopting a 4:3 display ratio which is very close to the 8.5x11" paper used in North America, although not as close to the A series paper used in most other countries. Samsung has settled on 8.0" and 9.7", the latter of which surprises me as it's the exact same size as the standard iPad despite Samsung being able to make displays of whatever size they wish.

What's interesting is that in moving to a new aspect ratio and smaller sizes, both displays lose almost a million pixels of resolution. The drop in PPI on the larger model is fairly significant too, from 288ppi on the Tab S 10.5" to 264ppi on the Tab S2 9.7" In practice I really don't think this matters that much on the 9.7" Tab S2, as I never felt like any elements of the UI or text looked heavily aliased or fuzzy. That being said, with Samsung making their own OLED displays it would have been perfectly possible to maintain their existing pixel density and just make panels of different sizes.

With the new display sizes come new form factors, and both tablets are substantially thinner and lighter than their predecessors. This also results in a drop in battery capacity as there's only so much room to fit batteries inside the chassis, and how this impacts battery life will be investigated later in the review.

Design

When Samsung announced the Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge I uttered a well-deserved "finally" with regards to the design of the phones. The aluminum and glass construction was a long overdue and greatly appreciated improvement to Samsung's existing industrial design, and I still think the Galaxy S6 is a pretty great looking and feeling device. However, upon seeing that the design really only used a metal frame and a sheet of glass overtop of a plastic back, I immediately knew that there was no way the design would scale up to tablets. There's simply too much fragility in that type of design, especially as you scale it larger. Since I suspected that Samsung still wasn't at the point where they would be producing aluminum unibody tablets, I wasn't surprised by the design of the Tab S2 tablets when they were announced.

Both versions of the Tab S2 have the same thickness, just 5.6mm. The larger model of the two that I am reviewing has a mass of 389 grams. The thickness and mass are enabled by the Tab S2's construction, which consists of a metal frame around the edges of the device but a plastic back cover. This is obviously a trade off, and I'll start with what's good before discussing what negatives come from it. The most obvious advantage is the low mass. When you pick up the Tab S2 you will be amazed that you're holding a full size tablet. You can't really notice a difference between its 5.6mm thickness and the 6.1mm thickness of the iPad Air 2, but the difference made by the lower mass is enormous. This is the first full size tablet I've used where I can honestly say I don't feel fatigued after holding it for a long period, and that's something you can't really accomplish with an aluminum unibody chassis. In that regard, the Tab S2 definitely has an advantage over every other full size tablet that I've used, and it encourages you to use it more and take it with you in situations where you may decide to leave a heavier tablet at home.

Of course, the obvious negative impact is the feel of the device. The metal frame honestly does nothing to improve the feeling of the Tab S2, especially on this white model which has a coating applied to the frame. The coating also doesn't seem very durable, and there were already chips in it by the time the tablet got to me. Overall it just doesn't feel as nice or well-built when you hold it as an aluminum unibody tablet does. What also disappointed me is that even though it's 5.6mm thick, there's still a small degree of flex to the back cover, particularly near the bottom. The materials used in a tablet can also have an impact on thermal performance which could limit performance in sustained workloads.

Making a device ends up really being a balance of trade offs. I love how light the Tab S2 is, but I'm not a huge fan of the materials used. Every consumer will have their own priorities, and I'm sure many people will find that the low mass and small thickness is worth the compromise in materials. It's also worth noting that this year's design is still miles ahead of the terrible dimples and faux leather plastic of the original Tab S, even if it's not at the level of the Venue 8 7840 or the iPad.

While I'm still on the topic of the materials and the back cover, you'll notice above that the back cover has two metal circles on the back. These are used for attaching Samsung's keyboard cover. I actually wasn't able to get the keyboard cover and I haven't seen it on sale anywhere at this point, but the existence of a first party keyboard case is something worth noting. As for the rest of the back cover, it's pretty much just an unbroken piece of plastic apart from the slightly extruding camera stack and the Samsung logo in the middle.

As far as primarily plastic tablets go, the Tab S2 is a pretty good device. I love how light it is, but at the same time I don't feel like the plastic build befits a $500 flagship tablet. It also doesn't feel quite as sturdy as the Venue 10, but I think Samsung's goal was to make a thin and light device that wouldn't be cumbersome to hold and carry around. They definitely succeeded in doing so, and I think that while there's a group of users like myself that feel a $500 device deserves the absolute best construction and materials, there's another group that feels the $500 should go toward making a device as light and portable as possible. 

System Performance
Comments Locked

162 Comments

View All Comments

  • Brandon Chester - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Thanks for the correction.
  • extide - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Exynos 5433 in late 2015?? WTF Samsung. At least you harped on it pretty hard in the review Brandon, and I agree that a custom designed tablet SOC would be the ideal, even the Exynos 7420 that they are putting in practically everything now would have been a huge improvement. It has a bigger GPU implementation, and the better process would help with power, and GPU throttling, which should clear up quite a few of the negatives of the overall device.
  • extide - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Hrmm, maybe they are using up all their 7420 / 14ff manufacturing capability with the 7420 (plus the A9/A9X) -- and are using up some of the much cheaper 20nm capacity that is just sitting around by using the 5433. Still seems like a bad idea though, I mean a premium device should have a premium SOC.

    Also, I think devices are thin enough. I'd rather add on a couple extra mm and have more battery capacity.
  • johnny_boy - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Despite the better display and dimensions, I would still go Nexus 9 over Samsung. It's cheaper, faster, running the latest near-stock Android, and will continue to get the latest updates well into the future. That said, I don't think software updates are as huge a deal as people make them out to be, at least now that Google ships basically all their core apps/services through the Play Store.
  • Solandri - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    "moving away from the 16:10 aspect ratio and adopting a 4:3 display ratio which is very close to the 8.5x11" paper used in North America"

    This is incorrect. 4:3 (1.33 aspect ratio) is close to 8.5x11" (1.294 aspect ratio) only if you include the margins of the paper. That is, your tablet has bezels, then you waste pixels on white margins, then display the actual information content of the page.

    Quite frankly, that's stupid. You're paying hundreds of dollars for the extra 2-3 diagonal inches of a 10" tablet over a 7-8 inch tablet. Why waste that extra screen space displaying margins? The tablet already has a bezel which provides whitespace (or blackspace) around the edges, just like margins. Allowing you to pick it up and hold it without covering up any information.

    If you subtract the margins, 8.5x11 with 1" margins becomes 6.5x9 or a 1.385 aspect ratio. With 1.5" margins (common with low-density business correspondence) it's 5.5x8 with a 1.455 aspect ratio.

    A4 is 210x297mm, or a 1.414 aspect ratio. With standard 2.5cm margins, it becomes 160x247mm and a 1.544 aspect ratio.

    The Time magazine format is 8.25x10.75. Without margins, the "live" area is 7x10, or 1.429 aspect ratio.

    National Geographic is 7.125x10.24. It's live area is 6.125x9.25, or a 1.510 aspect ratio.

    Combine that with tablets frequently being used to display 16:9 movies (1.77), and a 3:2 aspect ratio (1.5) is probably ideal.
  • Spectrophobic - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Yes, 16:10 and 3:2 are still the better choice for high-end tablets considering its specs are more suited for multimedia consumption. I honestly think 4:3 are more suited for mid-/lower-end tablets which more or less being used as e-readers.

    My personal favourite resolution is 1920 x 1280 (3:2) found on the Surface 3. Slightly better than 1920 x 1200 and allows me to watch 720p videos 1:1 when on portrait. Yes, the letterboxing is immense, but I'll take it over interpolating it to 1920 x 1080 or having black bars on all four corners... But that's just me.
  • R. Hunt - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link

    16:10 is just horrible IMHO for anything other than watching video. 3:2 at least is usable in both orientations.
  • Spectrophobic - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link

    Well, it's just a matter of preference. I like the 16:10 more as I view more vertical scrolling websites more and watch a lot of 16:9 content (YouTube, anime, etc.).

    Also, for Android at least, 3:2 is pretty much non-existent.
  • IUU - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    A tablet is useful primarily for it's portability. As much as it could bring from the desktop for a longer period of time is most wanted.
    Reducing thickness to beat Apple in fashion and slickness , while reducing battery capacity is childish and a grave mistake. It could keep the previous thickness or even increase thickness by 1 or 2 mm as long as it would provide us with a 15 hr lasting battery , or more.
    In addition we are approaching dangerously the 1st quarter of 21st century. Putting 16 or 32 or 64 gb of internal storage is hilarious to put it kindly no matter what cloud options you have. Also, a limited amount of peripheral ports slowly grows to being more than a defect.
    Further more, speaking too much of performance makes no sense, both because despite all their improvements these are weak processors with many cores only to deceive the naïve.
    Even if this is not so, you can't do many things with them to justify "uping" the performance. A tablet to be useful(ie to provide its resources for work) it should be able to connect to just about every monitor keyboard, mouse and computer and not adopt some obscure connection protocols in case they miss a dollar or a penny and consumers don't buy their screens.
    For now they are excellent consumptions devices and could become great creativity tools if Samsung and Apple weren't so narrow-minded and stubborn and pushing them more as fashion and entertainment devices rather than serious computing machines. Despite their limitations these devices could be useful even now, but these businesses don't realise the potential. Maybe it's for the best , someone else will, and will disrupt their practices.
  • name99 - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    "Samsung has settled on 8.0" and 9.7", the latter of which surprises me as it's the exact same size as the standard iPad"

    Sure, "surprise", that's the right word...
    Will you be similarly "surprised" when Samsung introduces a feature very much like 3D-Touch and haptic feedback very much like the Taptic engine? Because I assure you the rest of us will not...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now