Samsung Galaxy E7 review: Easy touch

Snapdragon 410 is fine for a daily driver

The Samsung Galaxy E7 is powered by the 64-bit Snapdragon 410 chipset. Inside it ticks a quad-core Cortex-A53 processor, clocked at 1.2GHz. The chip is manufactured using a 28nm process, so it's not exactly state-of-the-art. It occupies the lower midrange in Qualcomm's current lineup.

More importantly, 2GB of RAM are on board, which should provide enough headroom for split-screen multitasking on that large display.

As usual, we kick off our benchmark battery with the CPU-centric GeekBench 3.0 test. The Galaxy E7 posted similar results as the HTC Desire 816 with the older Snapdragon 400 inside. Another S400 device, the Sony Xperia C3 lags behind. Explanation can be found in the higher-clocked processor within the Desire 816, 1.6GHz quad-core Cortex-A7 as opposed to the more modest 1.2GHz clock rate in the Xperia C3. Understandably, the Meizu m1 note aces this one with its true octa-core silicon, ticking at 1.7GHz.

GeekBench 3

Higher is better

• Meizu m1 note
  3988
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  2880
• OnePlus One
  2663
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  2435
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  2423
• LG G2
  2243
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
  2172
• HTC Desire 816
  1510
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  1468
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  1181
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  1159

The Antutu 5 benchmark measures compound system performance, including RAM and storage. The Galaxy E7 doesn't fare too well here either and posts a modest score in the lower twenty-thousands. It's still ahead of what's shaping up to be its archrival, the Xperia C3.

AnTuTu 5

Higher is better

• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  42301
• Meizu m1 note
  39224
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  32487
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  31436
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  21562
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  18466

This brings us to another compound benchmark, BaseMark OS II. The Galaxy E7 manages to beat the Xperia C3 yet again, but also bests the HTC Desire 816. Still, it's no match for its more capable sibling the Galaxy A7.

Basemark OS II

Higher is better

• OnePlus One
  1196
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  1094
• LG G2
  848
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  786
• Meizu m1 note
  715
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  600
• HTC Desire 816
  520
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  466
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  452
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  275

The CPU centric parts of the benchmark also are no place to shine for the Galaxy E7. The Xperia C3 is behind again, as is the Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML, but that one uses an Intel chipset which doesn't do particularly well in CPU benchmarks.

Basemark OS II (single-core)

Higher is better

• OnePlus One
  2213
• Meizu m1 note
  1754
• HTC Desire 816
  1739
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  1701
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  1572
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  1514
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  1462
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  1203

Basemark OS II (multi-core)

Higher is better

• Meizu m1 note
  12848
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  12771
• OnePlus One
  10234
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  9284
• HTC Desire 816
  7071
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  6172
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  5600
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  5234

The GPU inside the Snapdragon 410 is the Adreno 306, a minor upgrade over the Adreno 305 found in Snapdragon 400 chips. It's not adequate for demanding 3D use, as the scores in the GFXBench test routines clearly indicate.

The off-screen 1080p tests yield rather poor results, but in the E7's case they're mostly irrelevant, as the GPU only needs to output 720p resolution as opposed to the standardized 1080p in the off-screen tests. Still, the numbers aren't overly inspiring with less than 10fps in the T-Rex test and just shy of 4fps in the more intense Manhattan benchmark.

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• OnePlus One
  28.3
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  27
• LG G2
  22
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
  15
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  15
• Meizu m1 note
  15
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  9.8
• HTC Desire 816
  5.9
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  5.8
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  5.8
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  5.3

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (1080p offscreen)

Higher is better

• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  13
• OnePlus One
  12.1
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  5.8
• Meizu m1 note
  5.8
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
  3.7
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  1.9
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  1.8
• HTC Desire 816
  1.7

GFX 2.7 T-Rex (onscreen)

Higher is better

• OnePlus One
  30
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  27
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
  25
• LG G2
  23.1
• Meizu m1 note
  16
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  15
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  13.3
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  11
• HTC Desire 816
  11
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  10.6
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  9.6

GFX 3.0 Manhattan (onscreen)

Higher is better

• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  13
• OnePlus One
  12.9
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  5.8
• Meizu m1 note
  5.7
• Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
  4.7
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  4
• Samsung Galaxy Grand 2
  4
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  3.9
• HTC Desire 816
  3.9

Basemark X further confirms that the Galaxy E7 isn't meant for demanding graphics applications. A similarly priced Asus Zenfone 2 posts a six times higher score. That said the Galaxy E7 still manages to leave the Desire 816 behind by a margin.

Basemark X

Higher is better

• OnePlus One
  13129
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  12565
• LG G2
  11101
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  4802
• Meizu m1 note
  4617
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  2974
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  1915
• HTC Desire 816
  1437

Browser performance turns out a bit more encouraging. The JavaScript intense Kraken 1.1 benchmark puts the E7 in the middle of the crop, only about 10% behind the Galaxy A7. Desire 816 is left behind again as is the Xperia C3.

Even better performance is shown in the BrowserMark 2.1 test, where even the S801-powered OnePlus One is no match for the Galaxy E7. The Chinese competition remains miles behind.

Kraken 1.1

Lower is better

• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  6360
• OnePlus One
  7008
• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  12266
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  12416
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  13462
• HTC Desire 816
  13564
• Meizu m1 note
  15055
• Sony Xperia C3 Dual
  15737

BrowserMark 2.1

Higher is better

• Samsung Galaxy A7 (S615)
  1655
• Asus Zenfone 2 ZE551ML
  1486
• Samsung Galaxy E7
  1344
• OnePlus One
  1339
• HTC Desire 816
  774
• Xiaomi Redmi Note
  588
• Meizu m1 note
  536

So all in all, the Samsung Galaxy E7 is no powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination. You're better off looking elsewhere for raw performance or 3D gaming. That said, in real-life use the Galaxy E7 doesn't lag or stutter and handles multi-window browsing and video playing with ease. If your smartphone use is dominated by such lighter tasks, the Galaxy E7 will deliver.