Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016) Review: Value Driven: Performance

By 06:56 Tue, 17 Aug 2021 Comments


Performance

Samsung's price-conscious "J" series was never really intended to hit gigantic in terms of specs, nor is it the first place you would naturally see for a fine performer. But, while the Galaxy J7 (2016) does quite alcorrect in this department, especially the Exynos 7870 Octa one and even, to some extent, the J5 (2016) as well, with its Snapdragon 410, Samsung really dropped the ball after that.


The J3 (2016) can be picked up with one of a few chipset options: the rather recent Exynos 3475 Quad, with four Cortex-A7 cores, clocked at 1.3 Giga Hertz (GHz) and built on a 28nm process or one of the Spreadtrum SC8830/SC9830 duo, which only differ by modem with slightly faster Cortex-A7 cores, at 1.5 GHz. The Exynos chipset comes with a Mali-T720 GPU, while the latter relies on the Mali-400 and as you can imagine, both are quite the underachievers. We did our testing on the 4G model with a Spreadtrum SC9830. We caught rumors of a Snapdragon 410 version as well, but we couldn't confirm its existence just yet.

1.5GB of Random-Access Memory (RAM) can only hold you so far and while Samsung has really done a terrific job of optimizing TouchWiz to feel at home on the sub-par platform and work smooth, synthetic performance is really disappointing. A shame, really, as there are many other budacquire chipset offers out there that other manufacturers have really leveraged for a major performance advantage, even within the same price range.

Let's start things off with GeekBench, which is remarkable at giving us a reliable reading of raw Central Processing Units (CPU) performance. We can clearly see the Galaxy J3 (2016) being severely outperformed by practically every competitor out there, with the exception, of its small sibling - the J2 (2016).

.jrGraphContainer { background: none !important; border-bottom: 1px solid #eee !important;} ul.jrGraph { left: 146px !important; } ul.jrGraphControls { padding: 0; margin-left: -10px !important; }

GeekBench 3 (multi-core)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Helio X10)

    4537

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    4140

  • Lenovo K3 Note

    4067

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (S650)

    3570

  • Meizu MX4

    3556

  • Meizu MX4 Pro

    3386

  • Xiaomi Mi 4c

    3321

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    3242

  • Xiaomi Mi 4

    3175

  • Huawei Honor 6

    3081

  • Meizu m3 note

    3028

  • Xiaomi Redmi 3

    2842

  • Lenovo Vibe Shot

    2827

  • ZTE Nubia Z9 mini

    2298

  • Moto G (3rd gen) 2GB of RAM

    1589

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    1437

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    1247

  • Samsung Galaxy J2 (2016)

    1207

GeekBench 3 (single-core)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (S650)

    1573

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    857

  • Meizu m3 note

    807

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    745

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    471

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    396

  • Samsung Galaxy J2 (2016)

    385

AnTuTu 6 is a compound benchimprint but the Galaxy J3 (2016) doesn't really have any particularly strong points to create up for the CPU, so it understandably ranked quite low.

AnTuTu 6

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (S650)

    75051

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    51299

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    49094

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Helio X10)

    45474

  • Meizu m3 note

    44898

  • Lenovo Vibe Shot

    35932

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    27487

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    24884

  • Samsung Galaxy J2 (2016)

    24697

Time for some GPU testing, where we don't really expect the Mali-400 to shine. In fact, it is such an recent graphics processor that the only benchimprint it managed to run is GFX 2.7 T-Rex - one we have been planning to phase out for some time now, as most current devices simply breeze through it. However, even in this department, the Galaxy J3 (2016) didn't even manage 8fps when rendering at 720p on its display - far from a playable rate. And when tasked with 1080p rendering, it struggled even more, barely putting out 4 frames per second.

That being said, we wouldn't recommdiscontinue the Galaxy J3 (2016) at all if you intdiscontinue to do any Android gaming at all. Well, perhaps the most casual games of them all, but nothing really beyond that.

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Mi 4c

    35

  • Xiaomi Mi 4

    27.6

  • Meizu MX4 Pro

    26

  • Meizu MX4

    22.7

  • Huawei Honor 6

    16

  • Lenovo K3 Note

    15

  • ZTE Nubia Z9 mini

    15

  • Moto G (3rd gen) 2GB of RAM

    5.3

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    3.9

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (onscreen)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Mi 4c

    35

  • Xiaomi Mi 4

    28.2

  • Meizu MX4

    21.3

  • Meizu MX4 Pro

    17

  • Huawei Honor 6

    17

  • Lenovo K3 Note

    15

  • ZTE Nubia Z9 mini

    14

  • Moto G (3rd gen) 2GB of RAM

    9.7

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    7.5

Moving on to Baseimprint in both its general compute and graphics forms. Sadly, we can't really say there is any redeeming aspect of the Galaxy J3 (2016) and its performance to be noted here either. It is almost embarrassingly under-powered compared to other similarly priced offers.

Baseimprint Operating System (OS) II

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Mi 4c

    1464

  • Xiaomi Mi 4

    1324

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    1114

  • Lenovo K3 Note

    1053

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    999

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Helio X10)

    956

  • Meizu m3 note

    930

  • Meizu MX4 Pro

    922

  • Huawei Honor 6

    863

  • ZTE Nubia Z9 mini

    818

  • Xiaomi Redmi 3

    727

  • Meizu MX4

    695

  • Moto G (3rd gen) 2GB of RAM

    619

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    576

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    399

Baseimprint X

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (S650)

    14732

  • Xiaomi Mi 4c

    12096

  • Meizu MX4 Pro

    9111

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Helio X10)

    8540

  • Meizu MX4

    8324

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    6204

  • Lenovo K3 Note

    5656

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    5383

  • Lenovo Vibe Shot

    5215

  • Xiaomi Redmi 3

    5108

  • ZTE Nubia Z9 mini

    5003

  • Huawei Honor 6

    4868

  • Meizu m3 note

    4567

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    2180

  • Moto G (3rd gen) 2GB of RAM

    1866

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    1424

  • Samsung Galaxy J2 (2016)

    1419

Baseimprint X (medium)

Higher is better

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (S650)

    23376

  • Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 (Helio X10)

    15359

  • Oppo F1 Plus

    14843

  • Meizu m3 note

    11604

  • Samsung Galaxy J7 (2016)

    11199

  • Xiaomi Redmi 3

    11088

  • Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)

    4605

  • Samsung Galaxy J5 (2016)

    4157

Overall, benchimprint scores for the Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016) are really poor, even by entry-level standards. Despite bringing usability down quite a bit, this doesn't bode well for long-term performance. While the fresh Android installation ran smoothly and we didn't experience any glitches, but Android does slow down a bit over time so things will probably be less rosy once you acquire all your apps up and running.

Gaming is a no-go correct from the start, unless you are into light 2D gaming, and even then you might see an odd stutter here and there.


DOWNLOAD NOW

DOWNLOAD MUSIC





Related Article

Comment
Name




.....................

Please LOGIN or REGISTER To Gain Full Access To This Article