Buying a new iPhone 17 Pro Max is only part of the equation. The shiny new device can do a lot once it's finally out of the box and in your hands, but it doesn't change the fact that your experience can still be improved with a few add-ons.

There are countless accessories out there that you can buy to enhance the entire iPhone experience — whether you're picking up an iPhone 17, the larger 17 Pro Max or waiting for the foldable iPhone Ultra. The prospect of spending even more money after dropping at least $1,200 on a brand new phone may not sounds appealing, but trust me, you will be much happier than without — and you don't need to spend a fortune on them either.

Here are 5 accessories that helped improve my iPhone 17 Pro Max that all cost less than $50.

Easy-application screen protector

I used to hate applying screen protectors to my phone, because the whole process was so finicky and I'd inevitably get something wrong. I'd always end up with dust or bubbles under the screen, or screw up the alignment so much that I needed a fresh protector.

And these were the days when screens weren't nearly as durable as they are today. But even with the stronger display glass of the modern day smartphone, screens are still vulnerable to scratches and more serious kinds of damage. The good news is that screen protectors have adapted, and the process of applying them is easier than ever and almost completely pain-free.

Most screen protectors now come with some kind of application tool, but my personal favorites employ a pull-tab. Not only does this ensure perfect alignment with your phone, the fact that the sticky underside of the protector is only exposed to the air for a split-second minimizes the risk of foreign particles getting between it and the screen.

Just remember to clean the screen correctly first. Nothing can account for the fact you left smudges and dust all over your screen before applying the protective layer

While you're at it, make sure to pick up a case for your phone. The iPhone 17 Pro Max is notorious for taking taking damage, as I found out first hand not too long ago.

MagSafe PopSocket

The PopSocket is easily my favorite phone accessory, especially since the modern designs are compatible with Apple's MagSafe.

PopSocket grips make it so much easier to keep hold of your phone and access all corners of the screen one-handed — which is essential for a phone as big as the 17 Pro Max. I've always felt that they ensure a much sturdier grip of my phone too. This stops the phone taking as many unnecessary tumbles and potentially makes it harder for thieves to snatch it out of my hands.

A PopSocket also functions as a handy stand in certain situations, while the magnetic connection ensures the mount has a strong grip on your phone — all without compromising your ability to take it off later.

UGREEN 10,000 mAh Magnetic Power Bank

Apple's MagSafe connection has opened the door for a whole new range of iPhone accessories, all of which take advantage of the magnetic ring hidden in the back of every modern iPhone.

It also means that portable battery packs now include wireless charging. The magnets ensure the battery securely snaps onto the back of your iPhone, and ensures the charging session continues regardless of how much your phone might move.

There are a lot of possible options to choose from, but my personal favorite is the Ugreen Magnetic Power Bank, which offers 10,000 mAh of power and 20W charging speeds. It's not quite enough to recharge your iPhone 17 Pro Max twice, but it'll get you pretty close — and quickly. All without any wires getting in your way.

Anker Nano II GaN 65W charger

Apple doesn't sell phones with charging bricks anymore, which means you need to go out and buy one for yourself. But the good news is that there are affordable options that are far better than anything Apple would freely give away, like this compact 67W charger from Anker.

The Anker Nano II compact charger measures just 1.65 x 1.65 x 1.42 inches and weighs 5.28 ounces. Which is pretty darn small, and is aided by the fact the connection pins fold away for easy storage. In fact I'm pretty envious of this particular design, because electric plugs here in the U.K. have to be way bigger than those across the Atlantic.

Despite the small size, the charger packs a lot of power, thanks to the Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductor inside. GaN chargers can handle higher voltages and produce less heat — allowing chargers to be smaller and lighter than they used to be.

Plus, not only is the 65W charging limit enough to charge your iPhone 17 Pro Max at the fastest possible speeds, it's also enough to power other devices — including iPads and MacBooks.

Belkin 2-in-1 Qi2 Foldable Stand

If you need a stand that does more than simply prop up your phone, then I can personally recommend Belkin's foldable 2-in-1 Qi2 wireless charging stand. This stand is compatible with MagSafe and offers up to 15W charging speeds for your iPhone. The magnetic connection also means you can secure your phone in any position you like, including the horizontal view that activates StandBy Mode.

This particular Belkin stand only charges at 15W, which is lower than the 25W speeds the iPhone 17 Pro Max can handle. However it also comes with a charging pad for compatible AirPods, which enables you to charge both devices at the same time.

Plus, since this is Qi2, rather than MagSafe, it's compatible with even more devices — including Pixel 10 and Samsung Galaxy S26 (with a case).

More from Tom's Guide

• I've been using Pixel phones for the past 5 years, but the lack of Pixel 11 upgrades is indefensible
• iPhone Ultra or iPhone Fold? Sudden questions emerge over foldable iPhone
• iOS 27 brings 5-star ratings to Photos — here is how to use them

Which rugged smartwatch is the more reliable fitness tracker for cyclists, the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 or the Garmin Instinct 3? I decided to find out.

Having just tested the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Instinct 3 while e-mountain biking in the Northern Cascades — Garmin won decisively — I decided it was time for round 2. This time, I tested the two watches in a city setting along one of my favorite routes through central Seattle, Washington.

I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

With the Samsung on my left wrist and the Garmin on my right, my roughly one-hour ride took me through densely populated neighborhoods, alongside neat rows of postcard-worthy houseboats, beneath towering canopies of evergreens, and past buzzing corporate campuses.

Read on for the results.

All three tracking methods noted similar distance and speed

In addition to logging my bike ride with the two smartwatches, I also recorded it using the Strava app on my handlebar-mounted iPhone 16 Plus. Using Strava as our control, all three tracking methods recorded roughly the same total distance, give or take a tenth of a mile or two... but the Samsung was closer.

The Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, Instinct 3, and Strava also recorded roughly the same average moving and max speed, which is reassuring to see. In this case, assuming Strava is again on the money, the Garmin was a little more accurate than the Samsung.

Samsung climb data is (again) inflated

This is the third time I've tested the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 against other devices, and it resulted in noticeably inflated climb data compared to its peers. For example, I discovered the same when I took the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 hiking in the North Cascades, and again when I went e-mountain biking.

I've reached out to Samsung for comment on these results and will keep you posted on the brand's response. Meanwhile, Garmin also inflated my uphill efforts, just by a more forgivable amount.

It's worth noting that this is a bike route I'm deeply familiar with and have logged many times with a wide range of trackers. As a result, I've come to expect the total elevation gain for the ride to be somewhere between 675 and 725 feet.

Heart rate data also lines up nicely

Thankfully, elevation gain is the only metric where the data doesn't agree/upset my stomach. Moreover, it warms my heart to see that my average and max heart rates are a perfect match between the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and Garmin Instinct 3 for this ride.

While the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 uses Samsung's latest health sensor tech, the Instinct 3 uses Garmin's next-to-latest sensor array.

Both watches performed well, but I'd still opt for the Garmin

From heart rate to battery usage to speed and distance, both the Garmin Instinct 3 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 performed admirably in this 11-mile bike ride tracking comparison. Despite one outlier — Samsung's inflated ascent data — I'm pleasantly impressed by the performance of both.

Of course, the Garmin Instinct 3 has been my go-to smartwatch for any and all outdoor adventures, from hitting the trails to the slopes to the water. And even though I'm impressed by the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I'll likely stick with the Instinct 3 for the foreseeable future for logging these types of activities.

More from Tom's Guide

• I biked 11 miles with the Garmin Venu 4 vs Suunto Vertical 2 — and there's a clear winner
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• Exclusive: Garmin Cirqa PM says ‘it just felt like we had all of the pieces in place’ to launch a screen-free fitness tracker

The last couple of months have seen the arrival of some seriously high-profile book-style foldable devices, with brands like Samsung, Motorola and Honor looking to set the standard before the imminent release of Apple’s first foldable, which some expect will be called iPhone Ultra.

I’ve got the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, the Honor Magic V6 and the Motorola Razr Fold lined up for testing — three of the most premium foldables of the year, each aiming for the same spotlight. They all promise big screens, big versatility and big leaps forward, but once you start living with them, the differences come into focus fast.

I’m putting them through the same tests: design, cameras, battery life, multitasking and everyday use. By the end, one of these foldables will stand out as the clear winner — not because of hype, but because it genuinely earns the spot.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs Razr Fold vs Magic V6: Design

In terms of design, Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 feels like it’s finally cracked the code on what a book‑style foldable should be, though its short‑and‑wide design won’t be for everyone. Closed, it measures 153.5 x 68.1 x 12.1mm, which makes it noticeably shorter than most slab phones but still basically as wide as a Galaxy S26 Ultra. That width gives the cover screen a more natural feel for typing and scrolling, even if the squat shape takes a day or two to get used to.

At 201g, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is the lightest in its class, and when you pair that with sharp, squared‑off corners, it makes the device feel significantly more modern than the other two foldables in this face‑off. As for its hinge, it opens with a clean, confident motion and unfolds almost perfectly flat. On top of that, Samsung’s titanium plate and gapless micro‑perforated display stack have drastically minimised the crease — you can still feel it if you go looking for it, but visually it’s so faint that you forget it’s there within minutes. Combined with a new anti‑reflective coating, the Z Fold 8’s main display looks more like a single sheet of glass than a foldable screen. For me, it’s the first time a foldable has felt this seamless.

Motorola’s Razr Fold takes a very different path, leaning into toughness rather than elegance. It’s noticeably heavier at 243 grams, and you feel that extra weight the moment you pick it up, but it’s the kind of heft that makes the phone seem more durable. It boasts a titanium inner plate, stainless steel hinge and Gorilla Glass Ceramic 3, all contributing to a chassis that feels reinforced in a way most foldables don’t. Even when opened, the Razr Fold stays impressively thin at 4.55mm, though its crease is far more noticeable than on the Galaxy Z Fold 8.

The Razr Fold's hinge doesn’t have the snappy, almost playful motion of the Galaxy Z Fold 8 — it’s firmer, more deliberate, built to hold its position rather than glide. And while the Razr Fold technically shares the same IP48/IP49 protection class as Samsung, its overall construction feels more rugged and less fragile. It’s not the most stylish or pocket‑friendly design, but it’s the one that gives you the most confidence that it’ll survive being used like a normal phone rather than a delicate gadget.

Meanwhile, Honor’s Magic V6 sits somewhere in the middle. It’s clean, understated, and very thin — 8.75mm closed, 4mm open — and while the huge round camera array keeps it from looking as sleek as Samsung’s device, it still feels more balanced than the Razr Fold. Its “Super Steel” hinge is nicely engineered, and its use of anti‑reflective silicon nitride layers gives both displays a soft, matte look that’s easy on the eyes. The crease is 44% shallower than its predecessor, the Magic V5, though it's still fairly noticeable, both in look and feel. It's also between its competitors in terms of heft, weighing in at 219 grams.

In terms of visual appeal, the white Magic V6 I'm testing is clean but a little clinical — especially compared to the red vegan leather version shown in our hands‑on review. In other words, it’s sleek, but also a little boring. It also boasts an IP68/IP69 dust and water resistance rating, putting it ahead of its competitors in that regard.

One more thing — there’s one important feature that both the Magic V6 and the Razr Fold boast over Galaxy Z Fold 8: they both offer stylus support. Better still, each device supports stylus input on both their inner and outer displays. I wasn’t able to test this myself, but that functionality is sure to be a major selling point for anyone still frustrated that Samsung removed the feature from its Fold lineup.

Still, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is the only one that nails every essential practical design metric at once: thinness, weight, hinge feel, crease reduction and pocketability. It’s the foldable that feels the most polished and the most effortless to live with day‑to‑day — not because it’s flashy, but because it finally behaves like a normal phone when you want it to, and a big screen when you need it.

WINNER: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8

Runner-up: Honor Magic V6

Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs Razr Fold vs Magic V6: Cameras

Given that all three foldables are premium devices, it’s not surprising that they can all take good photos. That said, one consistently delivered great snaps in my testing. Samsung plays it safe, Motorola pushes ahead in ways I didn’t expect, and Honor lands somewhere in the middle — but which one takes the photography crown?

Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 delivers a camera experience that feels familiar but polished. The two 50MP rear cameras produce rich colors and excellent dynamic range, and the upgraded ultrawide is noticeably sharper than last year’s model. Low‑light photos also come out brighter and sharper, with better control over noise and blown‑out highlights. The only real drawback is zoom — without a telephoto lens, detail drops off quickly once you push past 4x, making the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra a better option for those who value that more.

The Motorola Razr Fold is the one that genuinely surprised me. Its triple‑50MP setup produces crisp, vibrant photos with far more texture than I expected, and the 3x optical telephoto instantly gives it an edge over the other two. Motorola’s Super Zoom Pro also works better than I anticipated, keeping long‑range shots surprisingly clean. Low‑light performance is strong as well, with balanced exposures that avoid Samsung’s occasional brightness push.

Honor’s Magic V6 sits somewhere between the other two. The hardware is strong — a 50MP main, 50MP ultrawide and a 64MP periscope telephoto with 3x optical zoom — and Honor’s AiMAGE Color Engine generally produces natural, accurate colours. The telephoto lens gives the V6 decent reach, but the tuning doesn’t feel quite as confident as Samsung’s or as punchy as Motorola’s. I also noticed a bit of artificial “sweetening” in portrait shots, with skin smoothing that’s more aggressive than I’d prefer. It’s a capable camera system, just not the standout feature of the phone.

Across all three, the Razr Fold still comes out on top. Honor’s 64MP periscope telephoto gives the Magic V6 real reach, and Samsung remains strong in dynamic range and low‑light, but Motorola’s results are consistently sharper, cleaner and more confident across every scenario. It’s the foldable I’d reach for if cameras matter most.

WINNER: Motorola Razr Fold

Runner-up: Honor Magic V6

Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs Razr Fold vs Magic V6: Battery life

Battery life is one of the biggest practical differences among these three foldables. All of them can comfortably last a day, but how much they have left at bedtime varies. Samsung finally feels reliable, Motorola pushes endurance further than anyone else, and Honor’s huge battery delivers surprisingly strong results in my own testing.

Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 is the most balanced of the bunch. The move to a 4,800 mAh silicon‑carbon battery pays off: in Tom’s Guide’s 5G web‑surfing test, it lasted 12 hours and 19 minutes, a solid jump from the Fold 7’s 10:44. In day‑to‑day use, I could get through a full day of email, photos and music and still end up around the 50% mark. Charging is faster too — 70% in 30 minutes — and unlike the others, you can hit those speeds with any standard fast-charging adapter you’ll find on Amazon, not a proprietary brick.

The Motorola Razr Fold is the endurance monster. Motorola fits a 6,000 mAh battery inside a body that doesn’t feel any heavier, and the results are wild. Tom’s Guide measured 14 hours and 44 minutes, the best battery life of any book‑style foldable they’ve tested. Charging is equally impressive: 42% in 15 minutes and 75% in 30 minutes with 80W wired charging — but you’ll need either Motorola’s 80W TurboPower charger, which isn’t included in the box in Australia and which I don’t have access to, or a super fast charging adapter (100w or above, according to online users) to reach those headline numbers.

Honor’s Magic V6 goes even bigger in capacity with a 6,660 mAh silicon‑carbon battery, the largest of any foldable right now. Tom’s Guide hasn’t run its full battery test yet, but in my own PCMark Work 3.0 battery test, the V6 lasted just under 14 hours, putting it right in line with Motorola’s excellent endurance. It also supports 80W wired and 66W wireless charging, though you’ll need Honor‑approved chargers to reach those peak speeds. It’s a genuinely long‑lasting device, and the huge battery pays off.

Across all three, the Razr Fold still feels like the endurance king thanks to its combination of runtime and charging speed. Samsung delivers dependable all‑day life with faster top‑ups on standard chargers, and Honor’s massive battery gives it impressive stamina, but the Razr Fold is the foldable I’d trust most when I’m away from a charger.

WINNER: Motorola Razr Fold

Runner-up: Honor Magic V6

Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs Razr Fold vs Magic V6: Multitasking

When it comes to multitasking, what really separates these three foldables isn’t the size of their screens — it’s the software experience. Samsung is the only one that feels like it’s been iterating on multitasking for years, and the Z Fold 8 is a testament to that. The moment you open two apps side‑by‑side, everything snaps into place with a kind of smoothness that the Razr Fold and Magic V6 don’t quite match.

On the Galaxy Z Fold 8, multitasking feels natural. The wider 4:3 inner display gives apps room to breathe, but it’s Samsung’s software polish that makes the difference. Dragging an app into split‑screen is instant, resizing windows is smooth, and the new AI‑powered suggestions — like the Calendar icon that appears when someone messages you about plans — make it feel like the phone is really helping you get work done. It’s the only foldable here where running multiple apps at once feels like a core part of the experience rather than a feature buried in menus. Admittedly, the added height of the Z Fold 8 Ultra makes it better suited to running three or more apps at once, but for two apps side‑by‑side, the Z Fold 8 is brilliant.

Motorola’s Razr Fold is fast, and the Snapdragon 8 Elite keeps everything responsive, but the multitasking tools aren’t as refined. Split‑screen works and is perfectly usable, but the narrower layout and simpler window controls make it feel more like a phone doing its best rather than a device designed around productivity. It’s great for quick side‑by‑side tasks, but it doesn’t encourage deeper multitasking the way Samsung does.

Honor’s Magic V6 gives you plenty of screen real estate, and its floating windows and split‑screen options are capable, but the software doesn’t feel as cohesive. Some apps don’t adapt as cleanly, and the workflow lacks the small quality‑of‑life touches that make Samsung’s approach feel effortless. It’s powerful, but not as intuitive.

Across all three, Samsung is the multitasking standout. Motorola is fast but less flexible, and Honor has the space but not the same polish. If you want a foldable that genuinely feels built for productivity, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is the one that performed best for me.

WINNER: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8

Runner-up: Motorola Razr Fold

Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs Razr Fold vs Magic V6: Everyday use

Of the three foldables tested here, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 felt the most natural for me to use on a day-to-day basis. It boasts a level of refinement that can only come from several generations of folding devices. The outer display is finally wide enough that you can stay there for most tasks without feeling cramped, and the anti‑reflective coating makes both screens easier to view outdoors. At this stage, you could say that Samsung’s approach to foldables feels predictable, but that’s not a bad thing — it just means that the learning curve that comes with using a foldable is a thing of the past. Apps typically behave how you expect them to, gestures feel natural, and the whole device has a rock-solid level of polish that makes it feel like a normal phone that happens to unfold into something bigger. And though I resisted its new dimensions at first, the Z Fold 8’s passport-like shape and slim design place the device in a perfect sweet spot for both pocketability and unfolded use.

The Razr Fold is the next best in everyday use. It’s light, easy to carry, and Motorola’s outer display is genuinely helpful for quick interactions. The software stays out of your way, and the phone feels relaxed in a way Samsung’s more structured approach doesn’t. It’s not quite as polished — every now and then an app won’t scale perfectly, or a layout will feel a bit tight — but most of the time it’s a pleasure to use.

Honor’s Magic V6 is a different story. The hardware is great, but the software often feels like it’s borrowing ideas from iOS, which can make everyday use feel a little unfamiliar if you’ve spent years inside Android’s usual rhythms. Some gestures behave differently than you expect, certain menus have that Apple‑style rounded translucency, and a few system animations lean more toward looking pretty than helping you get somewhere faster. None of this is inherently flawed — it’s just a different approach — but it can feel slightly awkward until you adjust.

OVERALL WINNER: Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8

Runner-up: Motorola Razr Fold

Of the three, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 feels the most natural in everyday use. The Razr Fold is a strong second thanks to its great camera system and friendly, durable design, while the Magic V6 is powerful but feels better suited to fans of Apple’s software. If you want a foldable that behaves like a great phone first and a big screen second, Samsung is the one that gets it right.

More from Tom’s Guide

• Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs. Fold 8 Ultra camera zoom test: Don't spend the extra $200 until you see this
• This is the Pixel 11 Pro Fold — and this is when pre-orders officially start
• I asked Siri AI and Gemini a series of increasingly bizarre questions to see how they responded —here's what happened

I've been wearing an Apple Watch to track my runs ever since I ditched Fitbit a few years ago, and I've settled into a good rhythm with one of the best Apple Watches, the Apple Watch Ultra 2, since 2024.

However, before considering a potential upgrade to the rumored Apple Watch Ultra 4 (if it breaks cover), I wanted to see what Samsung's latest — the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — had to offer. So I borrowed the press sample loaned to the Tom's Guide fitness team, strapped it to my right wrist (I wore the Apple Watch on my left) and clocked up my usual 10K (6-mile) run.

The watches are unerringly similar: both sport a rugged design, a shortcut button (Action Button on the Apple Watch, Quick Button on the Galaxy Watch) for starting an exercise quickly and dual-frequency GPS for accurate location tracking.

Of course, one run isn't enough to say whether one is better than the other, but there were a few things that immediately stood out about Samsung's effort. Before we get to them, here's the data each watch captured.

As you can see from the table above, there are some discrepancies in a few areas, which I can explain. I tend to mix running with calisthenics training and aim to complete 100 push-ups during each run.

On the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, I had auto-pause enabled, which kicked in every time I dropped down to rattle off some push-ups. That explains the difference in duration, distance, pace and cadence (since the Apple Watch Ultra 2 just kept rolling), but I'm not sure why the active calorie count is so different between the two.

Leaving the stats behind and progressing on to good old-fashioned subjectivity, here are three things I really liked about the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and one where my trusty Apple Watch Ultra 2 still wins out.

3 things Samsung did better

The bright screen

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a 1.52-inch Super AMOLED display with up to 5,000 nits of peak brightness. The company is known for making display tech, and over the course of the run I was constantly impressed with how legible the display was. It adjusted smoothly between sunlight and shade, and I never had to worry about glare on the screen.

Literally and figuratively, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 outshone the 3,000-nit LTPO OLED screen on my Apple Watch Ultra 2. When you couple this with the fact that Samsung's workout display shows fewer metrics in a larger font size, it means the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 wins the glance-ability contest.

I also like how your current heart rate zone is displayed with a rainbow color scale at the bottom, which pops on the AMOLED screen. While you get more pixels on the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 (502 × 410 vs 498 × 498 pixels on the Apple Watch Ultra 2), this didn't make as much of a difference to me as the brightness.

The strong haptics

Apple calls the haptic technology inside the Apple Watch (and iPhone) the "Taptic Engine". But based on my run with both watches, I'd rate the horsepower inside the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 as higher.

I haven't done a teardown of each model, so I can't say for certain which vibration motor is larger or stronger, but I felt that buzz on my right wrist plenty more than the one on my left. I think it's important too, since I rely on the haptics to alert me to each kilometer I cover. It's not as much of a necessity on a small run, but if you're getting to half-marathon or marathon territory, it becomes indispensable.

Even without haptics, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 called out my splits and pacing from the built-in speaker. It was loud enough (albeit a little robotic) to hear comfortably without ever having to raise my wrist. I disabled this same feature (called Voice Feedback) on my Apple Watch Ultra 2 a long while ago, so I don't have a comparison from this run. But I'll make sure to re-enable it again on my next one to see if the Apple Watch Ultra 2 can hold up in this regard.

The comfortable strap

It seems like a small thing to mention, especially since they're interchangeable, but the bundled Marine Band attached to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 has caught my attention. Samsung sells this separately for $90, and in my experience, it's an extremely comfortable strap that sat snugly on my wrist during the run.

It didn't slide around when I started to sweat thanks to the channel on the underside that encourages airflow. My Apple Watch Ultra 2's Trail Loop band, by comparison, was drenched in sweat by the end of the run.

While I never wore Samsung's original Marine Band, this latest version reduces the weight by 10g (0.35oz) by, among other things, switching the keeper from titanium to rubber.

Overall, the band is slimmer and as a result more flexible on the wrist. Even if you don't plan on upgrading to the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from the first generation, I'd encourage looking into this strap as a purchase. It uses Samsung’s Dynamic Lug band attachment system and fits the original Galaxy Watch Ultra just as well.

I have an affinity for chunky watches, so the Galaxy Watch Ultra's 47.4 x 47.4 x 12.1 mm dimensions don't bother me — but it's definitely a watch I'd rather wear for running than for sleeping.

1 thing it didn't like

Apple's Digital Crown still reigns

It's been hot this summer. Like, really hot. But I live in the U.K., where a lot of the time it's cold and/or rainy. This can often necessitate wearing gloves while out running, hiking, or cycling and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that physical controls always win out where gloves are concerned.

During a run, if I want to raise or lower the volume of my audio or scroll through my metrics, nothing beats the tactile feeling of Apple's Digital Crown. The tiny little grooves etched into the metal can be felt through running gloves, and you don't even need to look at the Apple Watch to use it.

Samsung has given the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 a Touch Bezel feature you can activate in the settings, letting you run your finger around the edge of the display to scroll through the watch's functions. There are some vibration haptics that accompany this, but it's just nowhere near as easy or as satisfying as Apple's solution.

Even a physical rotating bezel as you'd find on a dive watch would have been better. I haven't used this feature in the heavy rain or snow, but I can't see it faring as well as the Digital Crown when you need to interact with your smartwatch with cold, numb fingers.

Final thoughts

Coming away from a single run with the two watches, there's no question the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is the superior device. It's brighter and more performant with greater storage and a longer battery life.

It also undercut the Apple Watch Ultra 2 at launch with a price of $699 to Apple's $799 (the current price of the Apple Watch Ultra 3), so it wins out if you're on a budget, too. Of course, you can currently find the Ultra 2 at a reduced price since it's been usurped by the Ultra 3, but for the sake of comparing apples to...err...apples? Samsung wins on price.

But it's not a complete victory. For instance, I like that the summary of your run stays up longer on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 than it does on the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Also, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is a good-looking timepiece, I'm not entirely sold on the square-circle hybrid case design.

My final takeaway is to see what the Apple Watch Ultra 4 holds if and when it launches in a couple of months. Then I'll decide whether to keep my affinity with Apple going for another year or jump ship over to Samsung's side for future workouts.

What's your wearable of choice for recording your activity? Let me know if you prefer Apple or Samsung (or split the difference and go with Garmin) in the comments below.

More from Tom's Guide

• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• Garmin Cirqa vs Fitbit Air vs Whoop vs Oura Ring: Our fitness experts are helping you pick the perfect fitness tracker
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin

When it comes to streaming movies and TV shows, a larger screen is usually considered the better option. But, that only really works if the screen shape actually conforms to the aspect ratio of the content in question. That's not an issue for most phones or tablet screens, but what about the larger, oddly-shaped foldable displays like the one on the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra?

I've been testing the Z Fold 8 Ultra for the past few weeks, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that watching video on the larger display means I also have to contend with large areas of blank space around the video. This can be rather irritating, especially in brighter environments that highlight both the display crease and my own reflection.

But as many people will no doubt point out, there are multiple ways to watch videos on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra. There's the cover display which, while narrower than most phones, offers a traditional viewing experience. The foldable display can also be oriented in portrait or landscape modes, and switching between the two flips the aspect ratio.

While this may not seem like a big deal, the Z Fold 8 Ultra isn't a perfect square, and that means the flip also changes how video content sits on your phone. But which mode is the better way to watch stuff? I tested the Z Fold 8 Ultra's three viewing experiences against the iPhone 17 Pro Max to find out.

How I tested the screens

It's easy to load up some content on a screen and rely on vibes alone to make your conclusion, but I took things a step further by actively measuring everything on screen. This started with the screen itself, measuring between the bezels and calculating the amount of screen space that is actually available.

I should caveat at this point that this is only a rough calculation, because all four phones have curved corners. This is less of an issue on the Z Fold 8 Ultra because those curves are very slight. However the iPhone 17 Pro Max's corners are larger and more rounded, which means the total screen area is slightly smaller than the math suggests.

Once the total area of each display was calculated, I got to work streaming, throwing up a bunch of different kinds of content and measuring how much screen space they took up. Content included:

• "X-Men (2000)" (2:39:1) purchased on YouTube
• "X-Men-97" (2:35:1) on Disney Plus
• "The Emperor's New Groove" (16:9) on Disney Plus
• "Scrubs" (2001) (4:3) on Disney Plus
• "Avengers: Endgame" (2:39:1) on Disney Plus
• "Avengers: Endgame IMAX Enhanced Edition" (1:9:1) on Disney Plus
• Various vertical videos on TikTok

I set up each video playing on the four screen types, then measured how large each video was. With that in hand, I was able to work out just how much screen space they actually used, and thus, how much space is just sitting there going to waste. Crucially, this means I can figure out the best option for watching content in something close to a full-screen experience.

I should also note that while a lot of streaming platforms offer a "zoom to fill" option on smart phones and tablets, I have not taken this into account since that essentially crops the video and means you don't see everything that's going on.

iPhone 17 Pro Max

The iPhone 17 Pro Max has roughly 17.6 square inches of screen space available, but it seems as though a bunch of the tested content struggles to fill up that space by default. The most efficient use of the screen comes from TikTok, which takes up 92.94% of the screen. This shouldn't be a huge surprise given the platform's vertical video feed that can take up almost the full length of the screen.

When it comes to horizontal video, the content doesn't fare nearly as well. The worst offender was "Scrubs," though this shouldn't really be a surprise since the early seasons were broadcast in the (then standard) 4:3 aspect ratio. That box-like shape isn't great at filling up wider-screen devices, reflected by the fact it only filled 61.41% of the available space.

Widescreen live action movies didn't do so well either. Both movies have been cropped vertically, and can't take full advantage of the landscape height, but they don't fail to take advantage of the iPhone's width and crop that way as well. In fact, all the movies suffered from this and left at least 1.1 inches of wasted space across both sides of the display. In the end, though, both movies wasted only slightly less space than "Scrubs" did, taking up 61.95% of the usable screen space

The IMAX edition of "Avengers: Endgame" fared a little better, with the IMAX scenes using up more of the vertical space that the standard aspect ratio. Because of this, the movie, along with the bizarrely proportioned "X-Men-97," used up 77.95% of the iPhone's available screen space. This was closely followed by the 16:9 "Emperor's New Groove," with 76.53%, a difference accounted for by a slightly shorter and narrower video.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra (Cover Display)

Looking at the results for the Z Fold 8 Ultra's cover display, and you'll see a couple of oddities. Both "X-Men 97" and the standard edition of "Avengers: Endgame" both took up 100% of the screen space. Which is certainly good, though this made me pause and wonder what's going on.

Checking the measurements of the cover display versus the iPhone 17 Pro Max, and I noticed that the video was actually smaller on the iPhone — despite the fact the 17 Pro Max has almost 2.5 extra square inches of available screen space.

Weirder still was the fact that my Google-purchased copy of "X-Men" was smaller than "Endgame," taking up a paltry 53.19% of the screen. They were both the same size on the iPhone, but the Z Fold 8 Ultra decided that the black bars must be preserved for this particular movie. This appears to be a YouTube issue, because X-Men on Disney Plus expanded to the full size of the display, just like Endgame did.

The IMAX version of Endgame obviously came out a little worse, since the taller image requires more space than the 8 Ultra's cover display allows — causing black bars at either side of the screen. That said, it still used up 87.54% of the available screen.

16:9 content like "The Emperor's New Groove" fared a lot worse here, though, since the narrow screen forced the video to shrink at the edges even more than an IMAX movie. Likewise the design meant "Scrubs" left a load more wasted space thanks to its square-ish aspect ratio. Both videos used up a respective 71.55% and 57.74% of the available screen space.

As for TikTok, this result did surprise me. The vertical videos used up all the available width when playing, but they didn't take full advantage of the screen length. Which again, I assume is down to the 8 Ultra's narrow cover display, and means TikTok only used 76.94% of the available screen space.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra Foldable Display (Portrait)

The Z Fold 8 Ultra's larger display is the size of two cover displays side by side, which should mean a larger video to watch, right? Well, apparently not. At least not when the phone is in portrait mode. The size of the screen means there is a lot more wasted space, but the videos themselves aren't automatically bigger than they appear on the cover display either.

Both "X-Men-97" and the standard version of "Avengers: Endgame" ended up being smaller than their counterparts on the Ultra's cover display — in terms of height, width and overall area. Both used a respective 41.08% and 37.71% of the available screen space.

That only worse performer was X-Men on YouTube, which used up 37.04% thanks to the way YouTube presents the video. That means almost two thirds of the screen is going unused. However, the video itself is larger than what I saw on the 8 Ultra's cover screen and the iPhone 17 Pro Max. So there is still a benefit to using the large screen.

There is an awful lot of wasted screen space watching in portrait mode. "The Emperor's New Groove" only used 47.33% of the screen, while the IMAX edition of "Endgame" took up just over half (50.34%). TikTok also suffered, using up 55.63% and showed off a video that was both shorter and wider than the one from the iPhone.

The major winner here is "Scrubs," thanks to the aspect ratio, which means it took up 67.51% of the screen and offered a much larger overall image than we've seen from it so far.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra Foldable Display (Landscape)

The key benefit to watching video in landscape mode is that the entirety of the display crease gets covered up by whatever you're watching, which makes it nearly impossible to see. The other main advantage to watching video this way is that the videos are larger (and less wasteful) than in portrait mode

The biggest winner is again, "Scrubs," or any other older TV show that was filmed with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The show took up 83.74% of the total screen space, over 16% more than it did in portrait mode. This obviously means that the video is noticeably larger, though the standard definition image does not look great if you're getting up close with the screen.

Most of the other videos take full advantage of the extra width, with the only exception being "The Emperor's New Groove," which is about 0.4-inches narrower. However the extra height afforded to 16:9 movie means it uses up 58.33% of the screen, compared to the 46.46% utilized by X-Men and the standard version of "Avengers: Endgame."

"X-Men-97" is 0.2-inches taller in this configuration, meaning its total raises to 50.09%, while the IMAX enhanced edition of "Endgame" fills up 58.88% on account of its extra height.

The only real loser here is TikTok, which is shorter and narrower in landscape mode, and wastes an extra 11% of the screen compared to portrait mode. That also makes sense, since this orientation is wider than it is long, and that means the vertical videos get squashed down compared to viewing in portrait mode.

Verdict

With the exception of TikTok, landscape mode actually seems to have the largest overall video size of all four display configurations, barring one. The way "Avengers: Endgame" is presented on the cover display means it is slightly taller on the outer screen, by one tenth of an inch.

The cover display's aspect ratio means it seems to be uniquely suited to playing live action theatrical releases. Assuming the service you're using actually makes the most of the space, and doesn't do what YouTube did with my copy of X-Men and squashes the whole thing down for no reason.

As for TikTok, it's clear that the Z Fold 8 Ultra's foldable display is not as well-suited to vertical video as non-folding screens. Likewise, those of you that are bothered about black areas of screen around your video, you may want to avoid foldables for the time being. If you need a larger image to watch, you should probably invest in some kind of tablet.

But now the one question I have is this: How different would the results have been if I'd had a Galaxy Z Fold 8 to compare everything to? Samsung has positioned the passport-shaped device as the ideal device for streaming and media after all, but that face-off is going to have to wait.

More from Tom’s Guide

• I used a thermal camera to see how hot the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra gets compared to the Galaxy S26 Ultra — here's what happened
• I tested the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Galaxy S26 Ultra for 2 weeks — here’s the one I’d buy
• I just tried the new Samsung DeX on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 — and it has one huge upgrade

Can you get a decent TV for under $500? Surprisingly, yes. I have both the brand-new Samsung U8000H and the new(ish) Amazon Ember 4-Series at Tom's Guide's testing lab at the moment, so what better time to put them in a head-to-head battle?

I watched three movies on 4K Blu-ray in Filmmaker mode: "The Super Mario Galaxy Movie (2026)", "The Batman (2022)", and "Top Gun: Maverick (2022)". For this test, I used an HDMI splitter, so both TVs had the same input material. I put the Samsung TV at max brightness and the Amazon TV at 50% brightness (as 100% was much too bright).

As you read, keep in mind that the Samsung U8000H is on the left while the Amazon Ember 4-Series is on the right. Which one came out on top? Read on to find out.

Movie #1: 'The Super Mario Galaxy Movie'

The first thing I noticed was that the Amazon Ember 4-Series is incredibly pink-toned. The reds were blown out, as you can see in the GIF above. The desert scene looked more like a Barbie set than a level of Super Mario Galaxy.

That's not to say the Samsung U8000H was perfect. While the 4-Series was too pink, the U8000H was too yellow. The desert sand almost resembled Cheeto powder. (Gross!) Cheeto dust feels a bit closer to the film's intended colors, but neither TV did a great job.

Overall, neither the Ember 4-Series nor the U8000H blew me away, but the Samsung has better color accuracy. The Samsung's blue skies appeared bluer — as you can see in the GIFs above — and luminance was more even in the highlights.

Uniformity was actually a major issue on the Ember 4-Series — the highlights were much less controlled and bled out across the scene. Lights often bled into darks, as you can see in the GIF above.

Movie #2: Top Gun: Maverick

The Amazon Ember 4-Series performed much better than the Samsung U8000H ... at least at first. The Samsung appeared washed out in the darker scenes at the start of "Top Gun: Maverick". Gray-toned scenes looked almost monochromatic.

Red-toned scenes were also a little yellow, as you can see in the GIF above.

That being said, fast-flying scenes were smoother on the Samsung panel and the night sky appeared much darker on the U8000H, which you can see in the GIFs. Blacks popped more on the Samsung panel, and you can see the loss of detail in the highlights on the Amazon TV.

So, after a disappointing start, the Samsung model won this round, too. The white/black balance is far superior on the Samsung. Skin tones are also much too pink on the Ember 4-Series — Tom Cruise looked like he'd spent a week in Ibiza with no sunscreen.

Movie #3: 'The Batman'

"The Batman" is an incredibly dark movie, which can pose a real problem for budget models like the ones I'm testing here. I was worried both TVs would struggle with contrast and black levels... and I was correct.

The Amazon Ember 4-Series overcompensates for the dark color grading with pink-toned skin colors and highlights leaking into shadowed areas. The Samsung isn't as vibrant as I would like, but it handles blacks better.

As you can see in the GIF above, the lights are blown out on the Amazon, but a little too dark on the Samsung.

The Samsung U8000H handled the motion of motorbikes and falling rain better, but micro details like eyebrows and fine lines were presented more clearly on the Amazon.

In general, I found my eye drawn more to the Amazon during most nighttime scenes — likely because it's brighter, despite the lack of color accuracy. Neither models have full-array local dimming, but the Samsung U8000H's LED panel handled high-contrast scenes better.

Which sub-$500 TV would I buy?

So remember, the Samsung U8000H starts from $247 for the 43-inch model (the one I tested here). Comparatively, the 2025 Amazon Ember 4-Series is $329 for the 43-inch model.

Given their respective prices and performance, I would buy the Samsung U8000H, and there would be very little competition. I much prefer the Samsung's controlled luminance and color accuracy. While the Amazon TV has some interesting Alexa features, it's not worth the added cost.

I think you should save your money and get the Samsung. With the money left over, you could even get the Sony HT-S100F (my favorite cheap soundbar) and still have some money for a discounted DVD or a few weeks of Netflix.

More from Tom's Guide

• We asked readers which TV brand they trusted most — and one company rose above the rest
• One of the top LG OLEDs of the year just got a huge $900 discount
• These are the 5 affordable TVs you should buy for your student heading off to college — and they're all on sale now

If you’re headed into cougar country to go e-mountain biking and you're tempted to watch videos of real-world cougar encounters beforehand, I encourage you to reconsider. Otherwise, what should be a lovely day in nature might feel a bit more, well, intense.

Fortunately, I encountered no cougars while researching this story.

With that out of the way, I just got back from electric mountain biking in Northern Washington State’s Cascade range — aka, cougar country — while wearing the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 on my left wrist and my go-to outdoor adventure watch, the Garmin Instinct 3 on my right wrist.

After several excellent hours spent ripping it up on a vast network of trails, followed by a quick check of the results, it was clear as day which smartwatch I’d choose to wear next time I go e-mountain biking.

I went e-mountain biking with the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Garmin Instinct 3

Samsung lacks a dedicated e-bike mode

I had a hunch that the Garmin Instinct 3 would be more up to the task of accurately logging a mountain e-bike adventure than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2. Even before my helmet reached my head, I noticed a shortcoming of the latter: it not only lacks a mountain e-bike tracking mode but also doesn’t even have an e-bike mode.

So, I settled for Samsung’s standard mountain bike tracking mode. Meanwhile, the outdoor-oriented Instinct 3, of course, had a dedicated mode for the day’s activity.

Garmin’s elevation data appears more accurate

Assuming our control, the Strava app running on my iPhone 16 Plus is correct, then the Instinct 3 overcounted my climb by 141 feet, while the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 inflated it by as much as 344 feet, a notable difference. This also isn’t the first time the Ultra 2 reported an inflated climb in my testing.

With elevation gain being one of the primary metrics I focus on post-ride, along with top speed and distance, the Garmin is an easy choice over the Samsung. It's also worth noting that the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 failed to report my total ascent in the post-workout stats. Fortunately, I documented the stat before ending the session (something I've made a habit of doing for these exact moments).

The Instinct 3 is more comfortable than the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

Finally, the Garmin Instinct 3 feels much comfier on my 6.5-inch wrist than the Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, especially while working up a sweat. The Samsung case isn’t only taller and wider than that of the 45mm Instinct 3; it’s also much heavier, weighing 86 g versus 54 g for the Garmin.

After a few hours of riding, I must admit, I was eager to remove the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 from my wrist.

But the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 was easier to read in direct sunlight

There was one aspect of the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 I preferred: Its ultrabright display. Even in direct sunlight with shades on, I was able to read the Samsung watch’s display at a glance. That wasn’t the case for the Garmin Instinct 3.

Of course, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 display maxes out at a seriously impressive 5,000 nits. Garmin doesn’t generally provide screen brightness metrics for its wearables, but I highly suspect that the Instinct 3 screen maxes out at around 1,000 nits.

Which of these smartwatches would you choose to track your next outdoor adventure? Let me know in the poll below.

More from Tom's Guide

• Can the $99 Fitbit Air beat the $799 Apple Watch Ultra 3 at fitness tracking? I manually counted 4,500 steps to find out
• I walked 4,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — and the winning margin was razor-thin
• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike

Samsung’s been making its “Ultra” phones for years under the Galaxy S banner, but this year marks the first time the title is being used for a foldable phone. Needless to say, Samsung is trying to change the narrative with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra — by slapping its premier "Ultra" badge on a foldable for the very first time.

On paper, it packs the flagship hardware specs that I know appeal to hardcore fans who’ve remained faithful to the Galaxy S line for years, including the same 200MP main sensor as the Galaxy S26 Ultra. But when you’re paying a massive premium for a phone that folds, the cameras can’t come up short against the traditional slab flagship.

There are valid reasons why Samsung’s primary flagship remains the best camera phone around, armed with a quadruple camera setup that includes two telephoto lenses — whereas the Z Fold 8 Ultra comes with just a single telephoto lens with a shorter optical range. To see if Samsung’s newest foldable genuinely earns its name, I captured side-by-side photo sets with both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and the Galaxy S26 Ultra. Here’s what I found.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Camera specifications

What’s really fascinating when looking at the specs alone is that the cameras are not entirely identical. Despite both devices sharing a 200MP resolution for their main sensors and a 50MP (f/1.9) ultrawide camera, the Galaxy S26 Ultra technically holds an edge in optical range and low-light capabilities.

For starters, the S26 Ultra features a wider f/1.4 aperture compared to the Z Fold 8 Ultra’s f/1.7, allowing more light to enter the sensor — which should result in better low-light performance, less noise, and blur-free action shots.

Over in the telephoto department, the S26 Ultra also benefits from dual telephoto lenses, complete with a superior 50MP sensor featuring 5x optical zoom. In contrast, the newer Z Fold 8 Ultra relies on just a single 10MP telephoto camera with a shorter 3x optical zoom. These specs alone tell me there’s no way the Z Fold 8 Ultra is going to match the S26 Ultra in sheer telephoto performance.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: 200MP high resolution

These first two shots illustrate the amount of detail captured when set to their maximum 200MP photo option. Not only do both produce massive file sizes, but the differences between them appear minimal at first glance. Looking at the full scene, it’s great that both phones balance the exposure evenly, though the S26 Ultra is slightly brighter in the shadows.

Zooming in, however, reveals that the Z Fold 8 Ultra retains sharper details and definition almost everywhere. From the base of the tree to the ornate floral arrangement hanging over the terrace in the background, I’d give this round to the Z Fold 8 Ultra.

Winner: Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Colors

Judging by color performance alone, both phones deliver vibrant shots of the flower arrangement inside Whole Foods.

While the S26 Ultra has a penchant for a warmer color temperature — evident in how the pink flowers take on a slightly orange tone — the Z Fold 8 Ultra’s shot isn’t too far off, albeit not quite as warm. Still, neither phone clearly outperforms the other when it comes to color rendering here.

Winner: tie

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Ultrawide

Given that both phones share identical 50MP (f/1.9) ultrawide cameras, I’m not surprised that this wide shot of Bryant Park is almost too close to call. Both devices capture impressive sharpness across the frame with minimal distortion around the edges.

However, looking closely at the lighting dynamics, the Galaxy S26 Ultra handles exposure and shadows slightly better — a trend I previously noted in the 200MP test. Notice how the people seated in the foreground have better visibility and contrast on the S26 Ultra, whereas the Z Fold 8 Ultra pulls a bit more shadow detail at the expense of a somewhat flatter tone.

Once again, it's a narrow victory, but the S26 Ultra takes it thanks to its superior dynamic range.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Dynamic Range

With the sun coming from behind, the background and sky are much brighter than the metal statue sitting in the shadow — a setup that clearly reveals how their dynamic range performances differ.

I’m initially drawn to the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra’s punchier overall shot, which is largely due to how it boosts contrast. Doing so, however, comes at the expense of the highlights in the trees and the glass building in the background.

On the other hand, the Galaxy S26 Ultra exhibits superior dynamic range. It manages to tone down the harsh highlights on the metal statue while pulling up subtle details in the darker foliage and shadowed steps along the bottom left. Ultimately, the S26 Ultra achieves a more balanced, natural exposure without blowing out the brightest areas or over-darkening the shadows.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Portrait

At first glance, I don’t notice a whole lot of difference in the way they approach portrait shots, as both apply just the right amount of bokeh to blur the background while preserving clean edge separation around my colleague, Mark Spoonauer.

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra produces a natural skin tone and plenty of fine detail across Mark’s face and shirt. However, closer inspection reveals that there are sharper details captured by the Galaxy S26 Ultra’s portrait shot. Most noticeably, the fabric of his shirt and the stitching around his pocket show superior definition.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Selfie

The S26 Ultra has a slight advantage on paper for taking selfies thanks to its 12MP front camera. The Z Fold 8 Ultra features dual 10MP selfie shooters, but for this test, I’m specifically comparing the cover screen camera.

It’s a very close call, though, with neither phone clearly outperforming the other. I really like the amount of sharp detail both capture across Mark’s face, as well as the texture of his shirt. Meanwhile, both devices manage to lift the exposure nicely in the shaded areas in the background.

Winner: tie

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Low light

When shooting in dimly lit conditions, the main sensor aperture specs show their real-world impact. The Galaxy S26 Ultra’s wider f/1.4 aperture pulls in significantly more light than the Z Fold 8 Ultra’s f/1.7 lens, creating a slightly brighter scene overall.

Looking at the backyard patio shot, the Galaxy S26 Ultra does a much better job illuminating the white fence in the background, the lawn, and the texture of the patio pavers.

Don’t get me wrong, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra still produces an excellent low-light photo that brightens an otherwise dark scene, but those same background areas remain darker and cast heavier shadows around the base of the chairs and side table. Thanks to its wider aperture, the S26 Ultra also retains cleaner details across the patio furniture without introducing excessive noise.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Telephoto

Where I find the most substantial difference between them is in their telephoto performance. At shorter distances, they deliver nearly identical results, but the shots above of the ice cream truck show how the Galaxy S26 Ultra offers true Ultra-level performance.

Comparing them across 5x, 10x, and 30x zoom levels highlights the clear advantage of the Galaxy S26 Ultra’s setup. At 5x zoom, both phones capture solid shots of the ice cream truck menu, but the S26 Ultra renders crisper text across the menu labels with less digital noise.

The divide widens significantly at 10x: the S26 Ultra retains sharp edges, vibrant contrast, and legible text on the menu options. To capture the same framing, the Z Fold 8 Ultra relies on digital cropping from its single 10MP 3x telephoto lens, leaving the 10x image noticeably softer with smoother, watercolor-like textures.

Finally, at 30x zoom, the S26 Ultra’s superior optical hardware gives its image processing far better detail to work with. The text labels under each ice cream cone remain surprisingly readable, whereas the Z Fold 8 Ultra’s 30x crop produces blurred text and blob-like details.

Winner: Galaxy S26 Ultra

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Verdict

While the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra proves that foldable cameras are no longer scaled-down afterthoughts, I wouldn’t say it has completely earned the "Ultra" crown across the board. For a phone bearing Samsung’s most prestigious naming convention, it can’t afford to come up short in any category — yet it still does.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra remains the undisputed camera king of Samsung's lineup. Thanks to the wider f/1.4 aperture of its main camera and its dedicated 50MP 5x periscope lens, the S26 Ultra consistently pulls ahead in the areas that separate the good from the great: low-light environments, dynamic range handling, and long-range telephoto zoom. If you want the absolute best camera results, the S26 Ultra is still the phone to get.

However, if you want the versatility of a foldable, the Z Fold 8 Ultra gets dangerously close in several areas. Still, falling short in low-light and telephoto performance is a tough pill to swallow considering the staggering price tag attached to Samsung's newest foldable.

More from Tom’s Guide

• Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs. Fold 8 Ultra camera zoom test: Don't spend the extra $200 until you see this
• This is the Pixel 11 Pro Fold — and this is when pre-orders officially start
• I asked Siri AI and Gemini a series of increasingly bizarre questions to see how they responded —here's what happened

While everybody has been talking about the new shape of the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, and to be fair, it's been very pleasant to use, one of the most overlooked upgrades on Samsung's new book-style foldables is the less noticeable crease.

Samsung says it has significantly reduced the crease thanks to its new Flex Titanium display technology, which debuts on both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra.

But is it actually enough to catch up with other foldable phones that already have less visible creases? Earlier this year, I came away impressed by the Oppo Find N6, particularly because of how subtle its crease was. So, I compared the Galaxy Z Fold 8 against the Oppo Find N6 to see which one comes out on top.

Can Samsung match Oppo's "Zero-Feel" crease?

When Oppo announced the Find N6 earlier this year, one of the biggest talking points was its "zero-feel" crease. The company claimed it had reduced the crease to the point where you could barely see or even feel it while using the phone.

Having gone hands-on with the device, I can confirm that claim wasn't just marketing hype. The crease really was impressively subtle. Naturally, that made me even more curious to see what Samsung had done with the Galaxy Z Fold 8.

To compare the two, I placed the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and the Oppo Find N6 side by side under the same lighting conditions. I looked at both phones with the displays turned on and off, viewed them from multiple angles, and repeatedly ran my finger across each crease to compare how they looked and, perhaps more importantly, how they felt.

Right away, it became obvious that the two companies have taken very different approaches.

Samsung says its new Flex Titanium display technology redesigns the folding display to reduce the crease. However, structurally, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 is still the same as previous generations, with a single, clearly defined crease running down the middle of the display.

It's much shallower than on previous Galaxy Fold devices, but it's still easy to spot under direct light.

The Oppo Find N6, on the other hand, looks quite different. Rather than one defined crease, the center of the display appears more like a series of tiny ripples. Neither phone hides the crease completely, but the two companies have clearly taken different approaches.

To be honest, I don't think either phone has a huge visual advantage when the displays are turned off. How visible the crease is depends almost entirely on the lighting and the angle you're looking at the screen from.

Where I did notice a difference was in how the crease feels. Running my finger across the Galaxy Z Fold 8, I could still feel a fairly noticeable dip before reaching the other side of the display.

The Oppo Find N6 feels different. Instead of one distinct crease, your finger glides across a series of much subtler ripples. The transition is smoother overall, and if you aren't deliberately looking for it, you barely notice the crease.

With the displays turned on, I really struggled to spot the crease on either phone. Whether I was gaming, browsing articles, or watching videos, it quickly faded into the background to the point where I barely noticed it.

Samsung's new anti-reflective coating on the inner display also helps here by reducing reflections that would otherwise make the crease more obvious under bright lighting.

Winner

So if I had to pick a winner, I'd probably go with the Oppo Find N6. I'll be honest with you, no foldable that closes completely is ever going to have a perfectly invisible crease. That's simply the nature of the form factor, and anything that folds is going to crease.

The Find N6's crease feels just a little smoother under your finger, and overall, I'd give it a narrow win.

That said, I don't think that should stop anyone from buying the Galaxy Z Fold 8. Samsung has made a massive leap forward compared to previous Galaxy Fold devices.

The crease no longer feels like one of the phone's biggest compromises, and once the display is turned on, the new anti-reflective coating actually helps make it even less noticeable during everyday use.

More from Tom's Guide

• Galaxy Z Fold 8 deals are here: how to save up $1,200 on Samsung's new foldables
• The tech world hyped up the Galaxy Z Fold 8's 'crease-free' display — here's a reality check after 7 days
• iPhone Fold report reveals this is how Apple is killing the crease

For the past few weeks we've been putting TV manufacturers' feet to the fire. We're holding them accountable by grading them in key categories like design, performance, features and pricing — and now we're asking our readers to get involved.

We recently asked readers which brand they trusted most and one company was the clear winner. Now we're coming to you all directly with a short survey that will help us figure out what you love and hate about the six biggest TV makers: Hisense, LG, Samsung, Sony, TCL and Vizio.

Fill it out at your leisure and let me know in the comments what your biggest gripes are.

Here's how I'd answer

Testing TVs for a living has left me with an embarrassing amount of screens in my home. In my home office I've got a 75-inch TCL QM9K. Downstairs in my living room is a Samsung S95D OLED. In my music listening room I've got the Hisense U8N.

In the above survey, I'd mark all three down.

How long have I owned those TVs? Not all that long.

The first TV I ever owned was a massive CRT model that I used to play N64 and PS1 games on growing up. My parents bought that TV for me and my brother in 1996 and I was still rocking it to play Halo 2 a decade later.

These days, however, I'm trading out TVs every two to three years. That's probably a bit excessive, honestly, but as someone who covers this stuff, I want to make sure that I have access to all the latest and greatest technology to provide the best analysis to you guys.

Would I buy these TVs again? I absolutely would. They're all great value options. Not everyone probably feels the same as I feel, though. For some of you I'm sure the answer is going to be a resounding no. If that's you, drop a comment below letting me know why that is.

If the answer is yes, also drop a comment below letting me know why you like your TV so much. By doing so, you could be directly helping someone find their new favorite TV.

Stay tuned for the results of these surveys and check out our guide to the best TV brands in 2026 if you haven't done so already. You'll be seeing the results used in more stories in the coming weeks as we continue to break down what's working — and what's not working — in the world of TVs.

More from Tom's Guide

• There's a better cable for TVs than HDMI — but here's why we'll probably never use it
• Best Buy Essentials Ultra-Thin Amplified HDTV Antenna review
• Your streaming stick isn't broken — these apps are just slowing it down to a crawl

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is a fantastic foldable, with a lot of great upgrades that (mostly) stands up to the Ultra moniker. But the Galaxy Z Fold 7 was also a fantastic foldable when it was released last year, with our review declaring it to be the foldable phone we've been waiting for.

Obviously this leaves us with a few questions that need answering. The Z Fold 8 Ultra is the better phone, but is it still good enough to supplant the Z Fold 7 as the foldable you should buy? After all, the Z Fold 8 Ultra is more expensive, and the Z Fold 7 is likely to get some price cuts in the wake of the Ultra's launch.

So how does the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra compare to the Galaxy Z Fold 7, and which of these foldables is right for you?

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Specs

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Price & availability

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 has been on sale since last July, with prices starting at $1,999 for a model with 12GB of RAM and 256GB of storage. 512GB is available for $2,199, while a 1TB model with 16GB of RAM can be purchased for $2,499.

Color options include Silver Shadow, Jet Black, Blue Shadow and the Samsung-exclusive Mint. This phone is also likely to be discounted in the wake of the Z 8 series launch, since it's already a year old.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra goes on sale on August 7, with prices starting at $2,199 for a model with 12GB of RAM and 256GB storage. 512GB raises the price to $2,299, while 1TB with 16GB of RAM will set you back $2,699.

Color options include Violet Shadow, Cream, Graphite and the Samsung-exclusive Green Shadow.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Design and Display

Samsung didn't offer any bold redesigns with the Z Fold 8 Ultra, and the new foldable's shape and size is more or less identical to the Galaxy Z Fold 7. They're not quite the same, since Z Fold 7 cases don't appear to fit on the back of the 8 Ultra, but it's close enough that you'd need precise measuring tools to notice.

The biggest upgrade is that the Z Fold 8 Ultra features a new Flex Titanium display, which offers improved durability and significantly less creasing in the middle. It's not quite crease-free, but it is almost invisible compared to the Z Fold 7.

The Fold 8 Ultra also has a much better screen when it comes to dealing with bright light. Both phones have the same high resolution screens and adaptive 1-120Hz refresh rates, but the Z Fold 7 isn't nearly as bright as the 8 Ultra. In fact, last year's foldable recorded a peak brightness of 2,245 nits, while the Z Fold 8 Ultra hit 2,687 nits.

The anti-reflective coating on the newer foldable also makes it a lot easier to use the Fold 8 Ultra in bright conditions, and it makes a shocking amount of difference in reducing glare. By which I mean you won't see your own silhouette staring back at you nearly as much.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Performance

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is the first Galaxy foldable to feature the custom "for Galaxy" chipset, which means it shares the same Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chipset as the Galaxy S26 series. Older foldables utilized Snapdragon's standard flagship chip, so the Z Fold 7 arrived running the same Snapdragon 8 Elite as countless other non-Samsung phones.

While the off-the-shelf chip is no slouch, the upgrade to a For Galaxy chipset means that the Z Fold 8 Ultra gets to enjoy a performance boost compared to its predecessor.

As you can see in the table above, the Z Fold 8 Ultra finished Geekbench 6 with a single-core score of 3,733 and a multi-core score of 11,457. That's compared to the 3,052 and 9,735 scores recorded by the Z Fold 7 during the same benchmarking test. That's quite the jump, especially on the multi-core testing.

Graphics performance is a pretty similar story, with the Z Fold 8 Ultra scoring 12,950 in 3DMark's Solar Bay Unlimited benchmark test, with an average framerate of 49.24 fps. The Z Fold 7 came out with 10,912 and 41.21 fps which, while not terrible performance, seriously lags behind. Geekbench's AI test is more of the same with the Z Fold 8 Ultra coming in with a score of 71,715 to the Z Fold 7's 59,663.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Cameras

The camera situation on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is a little hit and miss, though the same is true of the Z Fold 7. Both phones share the same 200MP main camera lens, 10MP telephoto lens with 3x optical zoom and a pair of 10MP selfie cameras (one for each screen).

However, the 8 Ultra's ultrawide camera has been given a much-needed update, increasing the resolution to 50MP — among smaller changes. But saying the phones both have similar camera hardware doesn't really tell us how different the photos actually are — especially now that software plays such a huge part in the process.

You'd think that the quality of the 200MP main lens would be identical across both phones, but that actually isn't the case. They seem alike at first glance, but the Z Fold 8 Ultra is actually picking up a lot more detail compared to its predecessor.

The text on this mail box is a lot more legible, and the finer details in the brickwork stand out a lot more. Overall, the Fold 8 Ultra delivers a much clearer and crisper image.

Despite the big bump in resolution, the difference in the ultrawide shots are pretty subtle — just as they were when I tested the cameras for the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra review. The Z Fold 8 Ultra offers crisper image quality and a slightly brighter photo overall. At a glance, most won't be able to pick up the subtleties of how the two cameras are different.

Macro shots aren't that dissimilar either, and both phones are able to capture the smaller details from close-up shots. However, the Z Fold 7's shot is noticeably more washed out, and doesn't feature the same deeper coloring of the Z Fold 8 Ultra.

The selfie camera quality is more or less identical on both phones. Some areas are clearer than others, depending on which side you're looking at, but that seems to be due to the variations on focus rather than the actual quality of the final shot. The Z Fold 8 Ultra is a little bit brighter, though.

Portrait mode is exactly the same, with the exact same focus variations and brightness difference as the regular selfie mode. Neither photo has any particular characteristics that make it superior to the other, and the bokeh effect looks exactly the same across both devices.

Speaking of identical, the same is true of the telephoto lens at 3x optical zoom. The quality of the shot on both phones is pretty poor, and it's an upgrade Samsung desperately needs to make ahead of the Z Fold 9 launch next year.

Pushing the magnification up to 10x doesn't make any difference either. While the details are being picked up by the camera, the actual quality of the final shot is atrocious compared to other flagship phones that cost considerably less money — including Samsung's own Galaxy S26 Ultra.

Samsung made a point of emphasizing how much it was improving low light capabilities with the Z Fold 8 Ultra, and it definitely looks like it's succeeded. Compared to the Z Fold 7, the night-time shots are brighter, crisper and pick up a lot more detail from the mail box. In fact, the Z Fold 7 shot blurs out the letters V and R around the crown at the top

Samsung has clearly made some improvements to the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, especially where low light photography is concerned. But a lot of the daytime upgrades seem to be a lot more subtle, and less noticeable to the casual observer. Whether that minor boost is worth it for you all depends on which phone you have, and whether the Z Fold 8 Ultra's other upgrades matter to you or not.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Battery & charging

One of the biggest upgrades on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is the fact that the battery life is so much better now. This is thanks to a higher capacity silicon carbon battery with 5,000 mAh capacity, compared to 4,400 mAh for the Fold 7. Our custom battery test, which involves web-surfing over a 5G connection until the power runs out, clocked the Z Fold 8 Ultra's battery life at 14 hours and 33 minutes.

While this isn't as good as the Galaxy S26 Ultra, it is almost four hours longer than the Galaxy Z Fold 7's 10 hours and 44 minutes of battery life. Under 11 hours is pretty disappointing, but hitting 14+ hours means the Z Fold 8 Ultra is far more likely to make it through a single day without recharging.

The Z Fold 8 Ultra offers 45W wired charging compared to the Z Fold 7's 25W. That faster charging allows the phone to reclaim 76% of its battery life in just 30 minutes, compared to 54% on the Z Fold 7. Wireless charging has also increased by 5W, with up to 20W Qi2 speeds on the Z Fold 8 Ultra — though the embedded magnets are still missing from the phone.

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: Verdict

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has a lot of upgrades compared to last year, and the majority of them are available in areas that actually matter to your everyday use of the phone. Battery life is significantly improved, performance has taken a pretty big jump and the bright, anti-reflective display makes it significantly nicer to use this phone in a variety of conditions.

Those are all notable quality of life improvements that could make the Z Fold 8 Ultra the foldable of choice for most people. The camera changes are subtle, with the biggest difference being low-light performance.

Overall. the Fold 7 is still a very good foldable, especially when you can find it for a sizable discount. But if you're in the market for a new foldable phone, the Fold 8 Ultra is hands-down the better option.

More from Tom’s Guide

• I just tried the new Samsung DeX on the Galaxy Z Fold 8 — and it has one huge upgrade
• iPhone Ultra vs Galaxy Z Fold 8 — here's 3 big ways Apple could win
• I tested the Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs. Fold 8 Ultra to see if the lack of a telephoto zoom is a dealbreaker

What’s in a name? In the case of the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, the “Ultra” part is supposed to signal to buyers that Samsung’s flagship foldable is a higher tier of phone. And in many ways it is, from the super bright display with less of a crease to the silicon-carbon battery (a first for Samsung phones).

But at $2,099, is the Fold 8 Ultra truly an “Ultra” phone? I’ve been testing it for a couple weeks, and while there’s plenty of great upgrades, there are some ways the Fold 8 Ultra falls short of the $1,299 Galaxy S26 Ultra. After testing these two phones side by side, including taking lots of photos, here’s the one I'd buy.

Galaxy Fold 8 Ultra vs Galaxy S26 Ultra: Specs Compared

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Design and durability

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is remarkably light and compact for a phone that unfurls to an 8-inch display. It weighs just 7.58 ounces, which is barely heavier than the Galaxy S26 Ultra that limits you to a 6.9-inch screen.

In addition, the Fold 8 Ultra is only 4.1mm thin when it’s opened, which is even thinner than the Fold 7. Still, when closed the Galaxy S26 Ultra is a millimeter thinner, which is expected for a slab phone.

The Fold 8 Ultra may be thinner, but it’s definitely not ready for a day at the beach. This foldable is once again IP48 rated, which means it can withstand being submerged in water for 30 minutes — but it is not dust resistant.

However, the Galaxy S26 Ultra carries an IP68 rating, which means the phone is dust tight. It’s also worth mentioning that other foldables are rated IP68, including the Motorola Razr Fold and Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Displays

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 packs dual screens: a 6.5-inch cover display that’s fine for running apps (if a bit cramped for typing) and a huge 8-inch main display. And the S26 Ultra has a 6.9-inch panel.

The main reason to get the Fold 8 Ultra is the bigger main display. With 8 inches at your disposal, you get a more immersive video watching experience, as well as the ability to run apps side by side.

What you don’t get is the S26 Ultra’s Privacy Display, which narrows the viewing angle for any snoops around you and can even black out just parts of the display.

I really like that the Fold 8 Ultra features an anti-reflective coating that seriously cuts down on glare when you’re outside. Plus, thanks to Samsung’s Flex Titanium technology, the Galaxy Z Fold 8’s crease is much less visible than previous Samsung foldable phones. It’s still there, but more subtle.

Thanks to a brighter screen, I also found using the Z Fold 8 outside in direct sunlight a lot easier, whether I was browsing the web or just taking or reviewing photos. On previous Samsung Folds, I mostly used the external screen for taking pics.

In our lab testing the Z Fold 8 Ultra hit 2,687 nits of brightness with HDR content. That’s considerably higher than the S26 Ultra’s 1,806 nits.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: S Pen

Samsung ditched the S Pen on the Galaxy Z Fold 7 in order to make a thinner design and it’s still missing on the Fold 8 Ultra. Without a built-in digitizer for the screen, you simply can’t use an S Pen.

Meanwhile, the S26 Ultra has an S Pen built into the design. So you can use the stylus for taking notes, drawing and making fine edits on the go.

I spoke to Samsung executives about the missing S Pen on the Fold and they’re “open” to bringing it back.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Cameras

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has an Ultra-ish camera setup, starting with a 200MP main camera and 50MP ultraside, same as on the Galaxy S26 Ultra. But the new foldable falls down in the zoom department.

Let’s start with the good news. In most conditions, the main and ultrawide cameras on the Fold 8 and S26 Ultra turned in nearly identical results, whether it was flower close-up ultra-wide shots of Bryant Park or portraits. Panoramas were similar, too.

It’s when you try to get in close that the Fold 8, well, folds. While the S26 Ultra packs dual telephoto zoom lenses at 3x and 5x with a maximum of 100x digital zoom, the Fold 8 Ultra has only a single 10MP telephoto lens with 3x optical zoom and 30x digital zoom.

Check out this close-up of an ice cream truck. At 30x, you can make out all of the menu names underneath the pictures of the cones on the S26 Ultra. On the Fold 8 Ultra it’s just a bunch of blobs.

Same thing with this shot of a medieval scholar sculpture on the side of a New York City building. At 10x, you can make out more details in his face, hair and garb. And at 30x the Fold 8’s Ultra’s shot looks like an impressionist painting by comparison.

The S26 Ultra has a slight selfie advantage, too, with a 12MP front camera. The Fold 8 Ultra has dual 10MP shooters. But the results are pretty close in my eyes. The advantage the Fold has is that you can flip around the cover display and take super sharp selfies with the rear cameras.

I’d say the Fold 8 Ultra and S26 Ultra are fairly evenly matched in low-light settings. In this photo of a record player in near darkness, the S26 Ultra delivered a brighter and crisper shot. The colors look more realistic too, especially in the pink macrame.

However, while the S26 Ultra gave me a brighter shot of the bottles in this bar, especially the blue Casa Azul, the text looks sharper through the Fold 8 Ultra.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Performance

Packing the same Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chip for Galaxy, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and S26 Ultra are both multitasking powerhouses, and they’re both great for gaming.

In our lab tests, the S26 Ultra finished slightly ahead in Geekbench, 3DMark graphics and Geekbench AI, but I wouldn’t say it’s a big difference.

The S26 Ultra could be helped by the fact that it has vapor chamber cooling, while the Fold 8 Ultra does not.

I played Wuthering Waves on both the Fold 8 Ultra and S26 Ultra, and it was more immersive on the Fold because of its large display. But I found it a touch smoother on the S26 Ultra.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Battery life and charging

Samsung has made the leap to silicon-carbon battery tech with the Fold 8 Ultra, going from 4,400 mAh on the Fold 7 to 5,000 mAh on its latest foldable. That’s the same capacity as the S26 Ultra albeit with lithium ion.

On the Tom’s Guide battery test, which involves continuous web surfing over 5G, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra lasted an impressive 14 hours and 33 minutes. That’s a huge upgrade over the 11 hours turned in by the Fold 7.

The Galaxy S26 Ultra lasted an even longer 16 hours and 40 minutes, but keep in mind that it was powering a smaller 6.9-inch display compared to the 8-inch screen on the Fold 8.

The Fold 8 offers 45W wired charging and 20W wireless charging, compared to 60W wired and 25W wireless on the S26 Ultra. But the phones turned in similar results in our wired charging test.

The Fold 8 Ultra got to 76% in 30 minutes versus 77% for the S26 Ultra. Note that neither phone has built-in magnets for Qi 2 charging, so you’ll have to buy a case with that feature.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Software and special features

Both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Galaxy S26 Ultra offer a bunch of AI features that come in handy, including automated actions with Gemini (like helping to book dinner reservations or even vacations), Call Screening and Now Brief for summarizing your daily schedule. They also both let you transform your photos with a simple voice prompt.

However, the Fold 8 Ultra offers a few unique tricks of its own. This includes Now Nudge in Split View, which can give you quick hints for opening a second app on its own screen to save time. And My FanCam can automatically follow a subject in your video, cropping the clip on the fly.

Plus, unlike the Galaxy S26 Ultra, the Fold 8 Ultra boasts a Flex Mode for using the foldable like a mini laptop. And when shooting photos and videos you can use the Cover Screen preview feature to let the subjects see themselves in real time.

Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs. Galaxy S26 Ultra: Verdict

I’m not going to say that calling the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra an Ultra phone is false advertising, but you do have to make a bunch of trade-offs versus the Galaxy S26 Ultra.

With the foldable you don’t get an S Pen or an IP68 rating for dust resistance, and the S26 Ultra offers both a more powerful telephoto zoom and Privacy Display feature. Plus, the S26 Ultra lasted longer on a charge.

However, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is a very versatile foldable phone that grants you a much bigger display, the ability to run up three apps at once and handy AI tools like Now Nudge with Split View.

But at $2,099, the Fold 8 Ultra costs $800 more than the S26 Ultra. So you really, really want to own a foldable if you’re going that route.

Bottom line: If you want the ultimate multi-tasking powerhouse, get the Fold 8 Ultra. But if you want the biggest zoom, best-in-class privacy and an S Pen, snag the S26 Ultra for less.

The Google Pixel 11 Pro XL is set to launch at the August 12 Made by Google event, alongside the rest of the Pixel 11 series. If past releases are anything to go by, this should be the flagship Google phone for the year, with the largest display, best battery life and all the other things that make premium phones worth having.

But the question still remains, how will it compare to other flagships like the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra? Pixel phones typically lag behind their rivals in the hardware department, and while they do make up some of the distance with robust AI and software features, it still feels like something is missing. A new phone is a new opportunity to one-up the competition, but will the Pixel 11 Pro XL actually catch up to the Galaxy S26 Ultra?

Here's our rundown of Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra, based on all the rumors and leaks we've heard so far.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Specs

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Price & availability

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is available right now, with a starting price of $1,299 for a model with 256GB of storage and 12GB of RAM. However, given the phone is a few months old, we have started seeing some significant discounts from various retailers — including Samsung itself.

The Google Pixel 11 Pro XL is expected to cost $100 more than last year's model, meaning the phone may start at $1,299. The cheapest model will reportedly come with 256GB of storage once again, but it may feature a memory downgrade with just 12GB of RAM — compared to 16GB in the Pixel 10 Pro XL.

In other words, it looks like both phones will cost the same amount for similar core specs.

The Pixel 11 Pro XL release date isn't known right now, but new Google typically opens pre-orders for new Pixel devices at the end of the launch event, with the release day scheduled one to two weeks later. So expect to have your hands on a Pixel 11 Pro XL before the end of the month.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Design & display

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra is the larger of the two phones, rocking a 6.9-inch screen, measuring 6.44 x 3.07 x 0.31 in and weighing 7.55 oz. Meanwhile the Pixel 11 Pro XL is expected to come with a 6.8-inch display, measure 6.4 x 30.1 x 0.33 inches and weigh 7.9 ounces. That means, despite being slightly smaller, it is a heavier device — though part of that will come from the Qi2 magnets in the back of the 11 Pro XL.

The 11 Pro XL's screen is tipped to be brighter, with leaks promising a 3,600 nit display, compared to the 2,600 nit S26 Ultra. This should prove beneficial for the 11 Pro XL in bright situations, though it's unclear if it will have an anti-reflective coating the same way Samsung offers. Likewise, it's unlikely we'll see the Privacy Display features from Google anytime soon.

Both phones should offer rounded corners, though Google has the horizontal triple-lens camera bar while Samsung has stuck with the vertical quad-lens system for another generation. However Samsung's phone lacks the "Pixel Glow" feature that's rumored to be coming to all Pixel 11 phones, and is expected to serve as a notification light on the back of the device.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Performance

Performance is not the area Google usually excels at, especially since it moved to Tensor chips. Considering this, and how high the performance benchmarks are for Galaxy S26 Ultra's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy, we should not expect to see the Pixel 11 Pro XL topping any benchmark leagues following its release.

That's especially true when you remember some of the rumored changes coming to this year's Tensor G6 chip. The G6 is rumored to drop to seven cores, instead of the usual eight, though it will be built on TSMC's 2nm process — which improves transistor density, and in the process boosts performance and power efficiency. To make matters worse, Google is utilizing a MediaTek M90 modem, which is several years old at this point.

There's more to performance than benchmarks and the latest hardware, but considering Google's track record with weak performance, you'd have thought it would make more of an effort.

The 11 Pro XL is also expected to come with a new Titan M3 security chip, which will supposedly feature a new "Tensor Processing Unit" and offer forwards-compatible protection against whatever future cyberattacks bad actors might develop — though how that compares to the latest version of Samsung's Knox isn't clear.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Cameras

On paper the Galaxy S26 Ultra has the advantage in the camera department. The phone is equipped with a 200MP main camera lens, partnered with a 50MP ultrawide lens, 50MP telephoto lens with 5x optical zoom and a 10MP secondary telephoto capable of 3x optical zoom — plus a 12MP selfie camera on the front.

In contrast, the Pixel 11 Pro XL is expected to come with a 50MP main camera, 48MP ultrawide and a 48MP telephoto lens with 5x optical zoom (and up to 120x AI assisted digital zoom). There's no word on what sort of resolution to expect from the selfie camera, but you shouldn't expect anything less than the 42MP lens from the Pixel 10 Pro XL.

Obviously we won't know how much better or worse the Pixel 11 Pro XL's cameras are compared to S26 Ultra until we actually get our hands on the phone. Camera hardware only tells you so much, especially with how important software has become to the photography process. So we'll have to do some thorough hands-on testing

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Software & AI

Software is easily the area where Pixel phones excel, especially since the 11 Pro XL will be several months newer than the Galaxy S26 Ultra. The phone will have the usual array of software benefits, including first-in-line access to the latest Android updates, quarterly Pixel drops with new features, and the latest and best AI Google has to offer.

Samsung usually isn't that far behind, though. While One UI has had some hiccups in rolling out to everyone, Samsung tends to be pretty good at getting new updates to users fairly quickly. Just not as quickly as Google does with Pixel.

Likewise Samsung has invested a lot in AI, and there's been a lot of crossover between Pixel and Galaxy phones when it comes to the latest features. So we won't know for sure who has the best AI suite until Google actually reveals what the Pixel 11 series has to offer.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Battery & charging

Battery life is another thing Pixels flag on compared to Samsung, but we won't know how much has changed until we actually test the 11 Pro XL's battery life for ourselves. However, the phone has a slightly smaller 5,115 mAh battery compared to the Pixel 10 Pro XL, which doesn't fill us with a lot of confidence.

The 10 Pro XL lasted 14 hours and 35 minutes in our custom battery test, compared to the 16 hours and 10 minutes recorded by the S26 Ultra. If the Pixel 10 Pro XL can't beat the S26 Ultra's 5,000 mAh battery life, then a smaller Pixel 11 Pro XL isn't likely to have much luck.

But you can't always predict these things ahead of time, and we will see what results the lab testing reveals following the 11 Pro XL's release.

The Pixel 11 Pro XL is also expected to offer 45W charging, which is slightly below that of the S26 Ultra's 60W speeds. However the two should be equal on the wireless charging front, with 25W Qi2.2 speeds, even if the Galaxy doesn't have the same built-in magnets as the Pixel. That said, the Galaxy S26 Ultra still offers reverse wireless charging, which Google scrapped last year.

Google Pixel 11 Pro XL vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra: Outlook

We know a lot about the Pixel 11 Pro XL, even if the official reveal isn't scheduled until August 12. Sadly everything we've heard suggests that this is a basic run of the mill hardware upgrade from Google, which means it's going to struggle to compete with the Galaxy S26 Ultra — which is our pick for the best Android phone.

That said, we can't make an absolute decision until we have both phones in our possession, and compare their performance side by side. A lot of factors don't show up on the specs sheet, and the only way to figure out which phone is better is with hands-on testing. Performance, cameras and battery life are the main three.

So for now, it looks like Samsung may have the edge in a bunch of areas, even if Google hasn't quite given up yet. Still, for the time being, we're just going to have to be patient to see what Google actually has in store for us.

More from Tom’s Guide

• Galaxy Z Fold 8 vs. Fold 8 Ultra camera zoom test: Don't spend the extra $200 until you see this
• This is the Pixel 11 Pro Fold — and this is when pre-orders officially start
• I asked Siri AI and Gemini a series of increasingly bizarre questions to see how they responded —here's what happened

Samsung’s new foldable phones are almost here, and if you’re planning to get any of them, you should know about their most underrated feature in my opinion: Samsung DeX. This year’s lineup consists of three new foldables — the Galaxy Z Flip 8, Z Fold 8, and Z Fold 8 Ultra — which all come with the latest version of Samsung’s desktop interface.

Just as before, you can easily access DeX by plugging them directly into a monitor, whether via USB-C, an HDMI port using a USB hub, or even wirelessly on a supported display or TV. I’ve been testing this new Samsung DeX for the past week, and it gains one specific feature that makes it more useful for productivity.

In fact, this new Samsung DeX is exactly like the one I tested on the Galaxy S26 from earlier this year — which inherited it from the now-discontinued Galaxy Z TriFold.

Samsung DeX on Fold 8 and Flip 8: What's new

The only new addition to this year’s Samsung DeX is the ability to create up to four workspaces. Each desktop can support up to five apps, which means I can run 20 different apps simultaneously.

While I don’t need to actively use that many apps at once, having them organized makes a huge difference. For instance, I’ve set up one workspace strictly for work-related apps I frequently access — like Slack, Gmail, Chrome, Google Docs, and Messages. In another, I have my social networking apps, while a third is dedicated to editing apps I use consistently, such as CapCut, PhotoDirector, and PowerDirector.

By clicking the icon with the three vertical lines in the lower-left corner of the interface, I can easily jump to the workspace I need — which functions very similarly to how Windows 11 handles multiple desktops. With access to more workspaces, I can keep my apps organized and stay much more productive.

Samsung DeX on Fold 8 and Flip 8: What’s missing

Apart from that, this version of Samsung DeX is no different from the past few iterations. For example, I like being able to run two apps side-by-side and automatically resize them by adjusting the slider between them. That way, I can make Chrome take up more of the desktop while leaving a smaller window for Slack.

However, there are still a few improvements that could elevate the experience. First and foremost, I’d love to see DeX copy Windows 11’s “Snap” feature, which lets you arrange apps in preset layouts for better organization. While DeX still offers side-by-side multitasking, I want that extended to four apps at once — where each app occupies a quadrant of the display.

Secondly, I would love for Samsung to bring back support for multiple user profiles. Many of the best Android phones offer this feature, but Samsung has left it out for several generations now. It’s a crucial addition because it would allow users to separate work and personal accounts cleanly. For example, I have bookmarks specifically tied to my work account that I can't access in DeX because Chrome is locked to my personal profile.

Samsung DeX on Z Flip 8, Z Fold 8, and Z Fold 8 Ultra: Bottom line

I can’t deny that I rely on Samsung DeX on these new foldables when I’m in a pinch and forget my laptop. In fact, I can accomplish nearly 90% of my daily workload using DeX alone — though that missing 10% could easily be bridged if Samsung adds the features I mentioned.

DeX is also invaluable to me because I can pair it with my Xreal smart glasses, a wireless mouse, and a Bluetooth keyboard. It makes for the ultimate portable desktop experience, projecting the interface directly in front of me with optional semi-transparency so I can stay aware of my surroundings.

And considering Samsung’s ongoing developments in wearable displays and smart glasses, I’m genuinely excited to see where Samsung DeX goes next.

More from Tom’s Guide

• I’ve tested the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and it proves Apple really needs to solve this one thing
• Gemini Notebook just sold me on foldables — here's why I finally get the hype
• Don't pay full price for your Galaxy Z Fold 8: this preorder deal knocks up to $1,200 off

In the last couple of weeks, Samsung leakers and some news reports have indicated that the Z Fold 8 series is proving super popular and already selling better than its predecessor. This could be great news for the iPhone Ultra, which is supposed to launch next month.

Samsung decided to confirm those numbers itself with a new press release asserting that the Z8 series of foldables is breaking records for pre-orders, especially the new wider Galaxy Z Fold 8. According to the Korean company, pre-orders increased more than 30% compared to last year's Galaxy Z Fold 7.

For the series, the wider Z Fold 8 makes up "nearly half of all pre-orders" with the Lavender color already sold out, though Graphite is apparently the most popular hue. Samsung claims 3x as many Flip users are switching to the bigger Fold this year as well.

Per the Korean version of the Samsung website, the company received 1.44 million pre-orders between July 28 and August 3, a record for any Galaxy phone.

Additionally, the release reveals that the Z Fold 8, Z Fold 8, Galaxy Z Flip 8, the new Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 and Galaxy Watch 9 will all be available on store shelves starting Friday, August 7.

Why this is good news for Apple

One of the more solid rumors surrounding the forthcoming iPhone Ultra is that Apple has opted for more of a passport-style design that is shorter and wider than traditional foldables like the Z Fold 8. A slew of dummy units and leaked renders have shown off the squatter form factor.

Samsung will likely never confirm this, but allegedly the company redesigned the Z Fold 8 into the new wider format specifically to rival Apple's purported design.

Apple's take on the passport-style foldable is supposed to feature an inner display measuring 7.8 inches in size or just slightly smaller than the iPad mini, but slightly bigger than the 7.6-inch display on the Z Fold 8. This size is supposed to give Apple's foldable an aspect ratio close to 4:3, just like the iPad.

Apple's device was probably going to prove popular since the tech giant claims around 32% of the global smartphone market share.

But despite a starting price of $1,899, Samsung's wider foldable is proving popular. Early estimates tipped the iPhone Ultra to cost around $2,000, though more recent ones have hedged higher, around $2,400, thanks to increased component costs.

If those prices are true, Samsung and Apple could be in for an interesting rivalry as Samsung's lower prices face Apple's popularity.

More from Tom's Guide

• Samsung Galaxy S27 Ultra leak reveals silicon carbon battery leap — but also a camera downgrade
• I trekked the Cascade Mountains with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 vs Garmin Instinct 3 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 — this is the one I'd take on my next hike
• iPhone Ultra vs Galaxy Z Fold 8 — here's 3 big ways Apple could win

As Senior TV Editor, I see nearly every TV release year after year. It’s a special opportunity to share a ton of helpful context with folks shopping for a new TV, but it also means that I’m liable to lose sight of how the average person feels about the state of the industry.

This is why, for the last several weeks, we’ve been asking you — the readers — which major TV brand you consider to be the most trustworthy.

Between Hisense, LG, Samsung, Sony, TCL and Vizio, one brand proved more trustworthy than the rest — and it wasn’t particularly close. Sony, makers of some of the best TVs you can buy, rose above the competition. Here’s how the rest of the pack stacked up.

Trusted TV brands: Full results

In just over two weeks, our poll compiled just over 3,200 votes. Here's a breakdown of the results at the time of publishing:

Among our readers, Sony-branded QLEDs, OLEDs and True RGB TVs are the most trusted. LG and Samsung are closely positioned in second and third place, while TCL, Hisense and Vizio received far fewer votes overall.

It's an interesting time to analyze these results. We recently conducted a week-long exercise in which we doled out report cards to these brands, grading each on performance, features, price and more. Sony received our highest grade for performance (A). However, Sony was also the recipient of the lowest grade we handed out for price (C-).

Our reasoning for these grades is simple: Sony's superb engineering and unparalleled picture processing amount to some of the best performance money can buy. Unfortunately, the cost of this consistency is often passed down to the viewer, as Sony TVs tend to be priced higher than rival TVs.

Sony TVs in 2026 and beyond

If Sony's 2026 Bravia TV lineup is any indication, the company is perfectly comfortable assuming the role of a trusted premium TV-maker — even if its mid-range and luxury models are priced higher than the competition.

Interestingly, our poll proves that viewers and TV-shoppers aren't necessarily fazed by this arrangement. Among our readers, Sony is more trustworthy than LG and Samsung (brands that specialize in high-end performance) and far more trustworthy than TCL and Hisense (brands commonly associated with value-forward, budget-friendly models).

Recently, Sony spun out its TV business, with rival brand TCL taking on a 51% stake in the operation. It's tough to say how this might affect Sony TVs, TCL TVs and the reputation of both brands.

We'll be continuing to run the poll, so if you haven't responded to our poll about TV-brand trustworthiness, we want to hear from you: Your input could help shape how these companies will build, tune, and market these TVs in 2027 and beyond.

More from Tom's Guide

• We just graded every TV brand on price, performance and more — here’s how their report cards stack up
• This RGB LED TV is the one to buy if the Sony Bravia 9 II is outside of your budget
• TCL and Sony are joining forces to sell more TVs — but is that bad news for shoppers?

Samsung has packed a bunch of upgrades into the new Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, but the one noticeable absence is the lack of any sort of active cooling system. The Galaxy S26 Ultra has a built-in vapor chamber to prevent heat build-up, and similar features have existed in non-folding flagships for over a decade.

The question isn't why hasn't Samsung added a vapor chamber to its foldables yet, it's whether that actually matters. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has the same super-powered Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chip as the S26 Ultra, and I was curious how much heat would actually build up in both phones — and more importantly, where it ends up.

So I grabbed my trusty thermal camera, the Flir One Pro, and set up the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra alongside the Galaxy S26 Ultra, Galaxy Z Fold 7 and the iPhone 17 Pro Max side by side. Then, by running 3DMark's Solar Bay Extreme Stress Test, I recorded just how much heat all four phones produced.

Is it getting hot in here?

If you look at the video of all four phones, you can see that the Galaxy S26 Ultra starts heating up the fastest, hitting around 30C/86F in around a minute. The iPhone 17 Pro Max isn't that far behind, though the Z Fold 8 Ultra and Z Fold 7 both seem to be heating up a lot more slowly in their folded state.

The S26 Ultra seems to concentrate most of its heat in the top left corner, on the opposite side of the phone to the vertical camera bar. Meanwhile, the iPhone 17 Pro Max has a large section of heat across its top half, where the raised plateau camera bar is — which makes sense considering Apple designed the camera bar to help dissipate heat.

As the videos approach the 4-minute mark, the S26 Ultra starts to approach 40C/104F, while the two foldables only just hit 30C/86F. The iPhone isn't that far behind Samsung, and in the case of all four phones the heat seems to be mainly concentrated in the top half of each device.

By the time the 10-minute run is almost complete, parts of the S26 Ultra and iPhone have exceeded 40C/104F, while the foldables both seem to be hovering between 35C/95F and 37C/99F. At this stage the heat seems to have covered the entirety of the four phones, though only the iPhone and S26 Ultra have such high concentrations.

When I picked up the phones after closing 3DMark, I found that the S26 Ultra definitely felt the hottest, especially around the camera bar. Not quite enough to instantly burn yourself, but hot enough that you don't want prolonged exposure to it. The iPhone was similar, though didn't feel quite as hot, while the two foldables didn't feel that much different from normal.

Unfolding the heat

Of course these readings were taken from the front of the phone, while the two foldables were all closed up. How much of a difference would unfolding them make? As it turns out, quite a lot.

As soon as the benchmarking test started, heat bloomed out of both phones in the top right — right where the camera bar is. Unsurprisingly given its more powerful hardware, the temperature climbed much higher on the Z Fold 8 Ultra, though the Z Fold 7 wasn't that far behind.

Within 20 seconds the temperature had jumped past 30C/89F, and after a minute the Z Fold 8 Ultra had already climbed past 40C/104F. 20 seconds later the Z Fold 7 joined it, and in both cases the heat was concentrated in the top right corner before slowly spreading out over both halves of the phones.

The temperature plateaued pretty quickly, landing a few degrees higher than 40C and hovering around that level. The majority of the heat remained concentrated on the right side of the phone too, with minimal transference over to the left half.

This explains why the heat build-up seemed so slow in the previous test. The majority of the heat will have also been concentrated at the back of the device where the thermal camera couldn't pick it up as easily.

Verdict

The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra can get pretty hot, but so does the Galaxy S26 Ultra and both phones seem to heat up to similar temperatures. Or, at least they did during identical Solar Bay Extreme Stress Tests — different processes will obviously have different effects.

The way the heat spread out was completely different, though. The Galaxy S26 Ultra recorded the highest temperatures in the top left side of the phone, on the opposite side of the phone to the cameras. Teardowns have revealed that this is where the vapor chamber cooling pushes the excess heat, so it's natural that this would see the most extreme temperatures. The same goes for the iPhone 17 Pro Max and its own raised camera bar.

The unfolded stress test showed that the Z Fold 8 Ultra (and Z Fold 7) don't have that advantage. While the heat appears in that top corner by the cameras, it quickly spreads across the entire right side of the phone. Apparently, the heat struggled to bypass the hinge, which is an interesting observation.

In the case of the Z Fold 8 Ultra the heat isn't being actively routed away from core internal components — like the battery or chipset. That means it has no choice but to spread out until it reaches the edge of the phone and radiates away. You can actually see that happening in the thermal video as the heat spreads out from the very top of the phone.

While concentrating the heat in one area seems like a bad thing, if it's a spot with few major components then letting the heat spread across the entire phone is even worse. Because it means the heat isn't actively being siphoned away from the components that are most affected by extreme temperatures. Over extended periods of time, that will lead to degradation and reduced performance and affect the phone's lifespan.

One thing I did notice when I accidentally closed 3DMark on the Z Fold 8 Ultra at the end of the test, is that the temperature started to drop pretty rapidly once the stress test stopped running. Which should mean that short periods of high-performance activity shouldn't pose a long-term problem. As long as you don't do it too often.

If you are doing anything performance heavy, make sure to take the appropriate measures to keep your phone as cool as possible. Our tips for helping your phone survive a heatwave will also apply here, which means avoiding direct sunlight, stop charging and so on. You can speed up the heat removal with things like fans or phone coolers, and you should absolutely avoid forcing your phone to cool down with appliances like the fridge — that's just going to cause even more issues.

More from Tom's Guide

• I’ve tested the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and it proves Apple really needs to solve this one thing
• I tried the new Galaxy AI video tracker on my Z Fold 8 — and it fixes my biggest problem with phone videos
• I asked Siri AI and Gemini a series of increasingly bizarre questions to see how they responded —here's what happened

When Samsung launches the Galaxy S27 Ultra early next year, the flagship phone could be much different phone compared to the Galaxy S26 Ultra. A slew of rumors and confirmed news in the last few days revealed one massive upgrade and at least two potential downgrades.

First, the upgrade with the rumored debut of a silicon-carbon battery in the S27 series. This news isn't totally surprising as Samsung finally put this newer battery technology in the recently launched Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra.

The rumor comes from two different sources: The Galox on X and YouTuber TechDroider. Both claimed that the S27 Ultra will get a 5700 mAh silicon-carbon battery.

If the battery rumor is true this would be the first capacity upgrade to the Ultra model since the Galaxy S20 Ultra. That's seven generations of phones with essentially the exact same battery.

While Chinese phone makers have been pushing silicon carbon battery equipped devices since 2024, Samsung has taken a more conservative approach.

“We have been testing silicon batteries for quite some time. We’re looking at being very — I wouldn’t say conservative — but more taking it one step at a time," Samsung's Jay Kim — the executive VP of the Galaxy Z Fold 8 series — told Tom's Guide Mark Spoonauer.

Still, the new battery bumped the Z Fold 8 Ultra up to 5,000 mAh, a big boost from the 4,400 mAh lithium ion in the Fold 7.

It doesn't necessarily mean Samsung was always going to put a silicon-carbon battery in its main phone line but signs are looking good.

Worse cameras

One of The Galox's rumored specs is a 50MP 5x telephoto lens and a second telephoto camera in the S27 Ultra. However, regular Samsung leaker Ice Universe threw some water on the rumor claiming that there will be no second telephoto camera.

If true that would be a downgrade from the current setup which features a 200MP main, 10MP telephoto, 50MP periscope telephoto and a 50MP ultrawide. Per Ice Universe, the S27 Ultra would drop the 10MP telephoto lens.

At the same time, Ice put up another post asserting that Samsung is using inkjet printing technology to make the camera module thinner. This could make the camera array smaller overall.

One of the flaws of the S26 Ultra is its massive camera bump, which makes it impossible to set the phone down flat anywhere. As an S26 Ultra owner, it's one of the more annoying aspects of the phone.

If I'm being honest, I'd rather have the smaller camera bump than an extra telephoto lens.

Beyond that, both The Galox and TechDroid suggested that the camera array could spread across the entire width of the phone mimicking what Apple did with the iPhone 17 Pro models. If the S27 Ultra is missing the fourth camera, it seems the iPhone and Galaxy phones will be nearly indistinguishable.

Higher prices

Unfortunately, next year's Galaxy S27 Ultra is likely to be more expensive. Samsung managed to keep the starting price of the S26 Ultra at $1,299 the same as the S25 Ultra.

However, late last week, Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon confirmed to CNBC that it will increase prices for its Snapdragon silicon. This means the costs will be put on smartphone makers like Samsung, which can't even get its own memory division to lower prices for the mobile division.

“Cost went up, prices are going to go up,” Amon told CNBC. Amon specifically blamed the supply constraints on memory for the increase. He did say the price increase was "temporary," but with the AI-driven RAM crisis not expected to abate until 2028 at the earliest, it's not clear how long this "temporary" hike will last.

Still, it means the next Samsung phone will likely be more expensive.

More from Tom's Guide

• The tech world hyped up the Galaxy Z Fold 8's 'crease-free' display — here's a reality check after 7 days
• I tried the new Galaxy AI video tracker on my Z Fold 8 — and it fixes my biggest problem with phone videos
• Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: More expensive, barely different

I'm far from a good videographer (which is one of the reasons I've remained a writer-first in this era of Reels, TikToks, and Shorts). But that doesn't mean I don't record videos on my phone. Whenever I'm at a concert, a game, or any kind of event, I still find myself pulling out my phone to capture the moment.

The problem is that I'm terrible at keeping the camera locked on my subject. Filming a performer from way out in a crowd is quite difficult, especially when you're zoomed in.

Samsung's new foldable phones come with a new Galaxy AI video tracker feature that is designed to solve exactly that problem. I spent some time trying it on my Galaxy Z Fold 8, and I can confidently say it made filming way easier — even if there's still one thing I'd like Samsung to improve.

How Samsung's My FanCam AI feature actually works

What My FanCam essentially does is take away the stress of trying to keep a moving subject perfectly framed throughout a video. Instead of manually tracking someone while you're recording, Galaxy AI can detect a person in your video after you've finished filming and automatically follow them throughout the clip.

The end result is a new video that stays focused on that one person, almost as if someone had tracked them with the camera the entire time.

Using it is fairly straightforward. First, record a video using the Camera app on your Galaxy phone as you normally would. Once you're done, open the video in the Samsung Gallery app, tap the Galaxy AI icon, and select My FanCam.

Galaxy AI will then scan the video and detect the different people in the frame. Once it's finished, you'll see touch targets appear over each detected person. Simply tap the subject you want Galaxy AI to follow.

Before exporting the video, Samsung also lets you choose the aspect ratio. For vertical videos, 9:16 is selected by default, but you can also choose options like 1:1, 3:4, and a few others.

Once you've made your selection, tap Follow, and Galaxy AI will generate a brand-new video that keeps your chosen subject in frame throughout the clip. You can then preview the result and, if you're happy with it, Save Copy to your gallery.

My FanCam worked far better than I expected during my testing

In my testing, the feature worked great and kept track of my subject impressively well. In a way, it reminded me of Apple's Center Stage, except instead of working during live video calls, My FanCam works on pre-recorded videos, and it works on multiple people in the same clip.

The AI processing itself is also fairly quick. Samsung says the processing time depends on the length of the clip, but all of the videos I tested were processed within a matter of seconds.

Another nice touch is that it works on older videos already sitting in your gallery, so you're not limited to footage you shot after you got your new phone. This means you can go back and create FanCam videos from footage you've already captured.

My biggest complaint right now is that it's exclusive to the Galaxy Z8 series phones. And the cameras, at least on the regular Galaxy Z Fold 8, aren't the sharpest. That means if you're tracking a subject that's far away, the footage can come out looking slightly pixelated once the feature crops and zooms into your subject.

I think Samsung could take this feature a step further by using Galaxy AI to enhance the final output, especially when the video has been cropped heavily. A little AI sharpening or detail enhancement can take this feature up a notch.

Even so, I still love the feature in its current form. The fact that Samsung is using AI to automatically track a subject after you've already recorded the video is incredibly useful. I also think it would make even more sense on higher-end Galaxy phones like the Galaxy S26 Ultra, where the better camera hardware would give the AI much more detail to work with.

More from Tom's Guide

• I just realized the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra fixes the worst thing about fingerprint scanners
• I just spent 24 hours with the Galaxy Z fold 8 Ultra — here's what I liked and what I didn't
• I just tested the phone everybody thinks is a preview of the iPhone Fold — God, I hope they’re wrong

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I much prefer flip phones over notebook-style foldables. Part of the reason is that they’re way more compact than the average slab, while offering better utility as a backup vlogging camera over notebook foldables like the Z Fold 8 Ultra.

But after spending extended time testing generation after generation of flips, I can’t shake the feeling that the Z Flip line has plateaued. With the Galaxy Z Flip 8, Samsung seems content at adding minor polish — all while asking for more of your hard-earned money. Don’t get me wrong: last year’s Galaxy Z Flip 7 emerged as one of the best foldable phones around, but this year, Samsung hasn’t given the Flip quite the same level of treatment as its Z Fold line.

What used to feel like the most exciting form factor in tech is starting to suffer from incremental fatigue, which I’ll explain thoroughly in my Galaxy Z Flip 8 review. It’s still a sleek piece of engineering, but when modest tweaks are paired with a price hike, it’s a lot harder to justify the upgrade.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: Specifications

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: Cheat sheet

• What is it? Samsung’s 8th generation flip-style phone, serving as the successor to the previous Galaxy Z Flip 7.
• Who’s it for? The Galaxy Z Flip 8 is best suited for tech enthusiasts and casual content creators who value a sleek, pocketable clamshell design that gives them creative and more intuitive ways of capturing content.
• What does it cost? The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 starts at $1,199 for the base model with 256GB of storage — marking a $100 price increase over last year's model. Upgrading to the 512GB option will set you back $1,399.
• What do we like? The Galaxy Z Flip 8 delivers substantial performance gains thanks to the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 processor, alongside a noticeably brighter screen that hits a peak of 2,150 nits. It also remains a superb, highly versatile vlogging camera, made even better by the addition of horizon-level stabilization.
• What don't we like? A $100 price hike makes the Z Flip 8 harder to justify, especially since the overall design, camera hardware, and battery life remain almost the same as before.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: Release date and price

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 officially hits shelves on August 7, 2026, with pre-orders live now. However, that tech comes at a higher cost: the Z Flip 8 starts at $1,199 for 256GB of storage.

That’s a $100 price hike over last year's model, which also saw a $100 increase over the Galaxy Z Flip 6 before it. And if you want the extra storage, Samsung’s asking a whopping $1,399 for the 512GB model. While it’s still cheaper than the Motorola Razr Ultra 2026’s premium price tag of $1,499 (which comes with 512GB), the bigger problem is how this new price point intrudes on traditional flagship territory.

You have four color options: Pink, Graphite, Cream, and Mint, which is an online exclusive. The pink shade of my review unit is charming, but the Mint option is definitely the standout of the bunch.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: The Ups

Substantial performance gains

One of the biggest upgrades I’m happy to see is the decision to go back to Qualcomm. Samsung made a surprising switch last year with the Z Flip 7 by using its own Exynos chip, but the return to Qualcomm’s flagship silicon gives the Z Flip 8 its most important hardware upgrade.

The Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 certainly proves it’s a powerhouse for this flip-style phone, delivering huge performance leaps over the Z Flip 7 — and even its main rival, the Motorola Razr Ultra 2026. In Geekbench 6, the Galaxy Z Flip 8 delivers a single-core score of 3,627 and a multicore score of 11,215. That’s a massive step up over last year's model and noticeably outpaces the Razr Ultra 2026.

Graphics performance tells a similar story. On 3DMark Wild Life Unlimited, the Z Flip 8 notches an overall score of 29,723 with an average frame rate of 177.9 fps. By comparison, the Z Flip 7 ran at a much slower frame rate (114.6 fps) — while the $1,499 Razr Ultra 2026 reached 24,437 (146.3 fps).

Brighter screen

Despite there being no physical changes to either display, I’m happy to report that the main 6.9-inch AMOLED screen is noticeably brighter, reaching a peak brightness of 2,150 nits. It’s a solid step up over the Z Flip 7’s peak of 1,989 nits, though it still trails the Razr Ultra 2026’s more astounding 2,322-nit reach.

This increase makes it much easier to watch Instagram and TikTok reels outdoors on sunny days. I just wish Samsung had added the same anti-reflective coating found on the Z Fold 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra, as glare from reflections can still be problematic at certain angles.

Action-cam stability with Horizontal Lock

One software addition I’m happy to see Samsung borrow from the Galaxy S26 is the new Horizontal Lock option built into Super Steady video mode. No matter how I’m holding the phone — even when jitters are introduced while recording — the video footage stays completely level.

Because the Z Flip 8’s folding clamshell design naturally lends itself to handheld vlogging, Horizontal Lock is a fantastic pairing for this form factor. While it does result in a slight crop to achieve that gimbal-like stability, the level footage it produces makes handheld clips look surprisingly professional without needing an external stabilizer — and you can see how well it works compared to the Z Flip 7 above.

Still a superb vlogging camera

Even if the camera hardware remains largely unchanged, the Galaxy Z Flip 8 continues to be one of the best pocketable vlogging setups you can buy. A big reason for that is its flip-phone form factor, which allows me to prop it up on any flat surface like a built-in tripod or bend it to a 90-degree angle to hold like a classic camcorder.

What continues to make it such a great tool is the outer FlexWindow paired with the rear cameras. This lets me easily preview the frame while vlogging, while also delivering much better selfie captures than a standard front camera. Plus, compared to larger notebook foldables, it’s still far more intuitive to hold with one hand while keeping an eye on your shot.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: The downs

It’s more expensive

While the original Galaxy Z Flip from 2020 remains the most expensive model in the series, the Z Flip 8 marks the second consecutive year of a price hike. It’s $100 more at $1,199 for the 256GB base model, while stepping up to 512GB sets you back a steeper $1,399.

Although it still manages to undercut the even more expensive Motorola Razr Ultra (2026), I don't think the upgrades offer enough value to justify the extra cost. In fact, this higher price point pushes the Z Flip 8 directly into competitive flagship territory. When you're paying this much, minor refinements and a chip upgrade feel a lot harder to rationalize — especially when the overall hardware design, camera specs, and battery performance have largely remained stagnant.

Design is starting to look and feel stale

On paper, Samsung manages to make the Z Flip 8 ever so slightly thinner and lighter than its predecessor, but these minor improvements are practically impossible to notice when it’s side-by-side with the Z Flip 7 in real life.

The fundamental aesthetic remains completely unchanged, as well. From the outer FlexWindow shape, to the flat aluminum sides and hinge mechanism, Samsung is sticking to the exact same visual playbook for another year. While it’s still a sleek, solidly constructed device, the design is undeniably starting to look and feel stale. It deserves the same redesign that allowed the Z Fold 7 to gain attention with its mind-boggling thinness.

Camera performance is barely improved

Taking photos with the Galaxy Z Flip 8 feels almost identical to using its predecessor. Across most everyday shooting conditions, I don’t see significant gains in image performance from either its 50MP main camera or its 12MP ultrawide.

Take a look at the daytime shot I captured above of the side of the building in shadow. From the dynamic range performance to the fine details of the stone facade, there’s barely any difference between them.

Another perfect example is the 10x zoom shot of the tree in the gallery above. The fine details in the trunk and branches are no different between the Z Flip 8 and the Z Flip 7.

Against the Razr Ultra 2026, the Z Flip 8’s 12MP ultrawide doesn’t come close to matching the detail and definition captured by the Razr Ultra. When I zoom into the tree, the Razr's shot exhibits noticeably more definition in the bark and branches.

The sole area where I see significant improvement is low light. I’m referring to near pitch-dark conditions, as opposed to dim scenes with ambient light around. Notice how the Z Flip 8 makes the top level of the house look much brighter compared to the Z Flip 7, all while drawing out more stars in the night sky.

Marginal battery improvement

Battery life on the Galaxy Z Flip 8 moves in the right direction, but only by a hair. In our battery drain test, the Z Flip 8 logged an average time of 12 hours and 5 minutes, edging out the Z Flip 7 by under half an hour. What’s strange is that despite having the same 4,300 mAh capacity as before, the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 doesn't bring as dramatic an endurance boost as what I found with the Z Fold 8 Ultra. At the same time, the Motorola Razr Ultra (2026) blows past both Samsung clamshells with a massive 16:20 battery runtime.

Unlike the new Folds, the Z Flip 8 doesn’t get faster 45W wired charging. Instead, it remains capped at 25W, and its charging times are barely faster than the Z Flip 7's — with the phone reaching 59% in 30 minutes compared to last year's 55%.

Not enough software improvements

On the software front, One UI 9 covers all the basics I want, offering the same strong level of multitasking and productivity Samsung’s custom experience has continually delivered. However, there are only a few new AI tricks, including more multimodal tools, enhanced Flip Shot shooting options, and minor updates to both Now Brief and Now Nudge.

The outer FlexWindow, in particular, feels underutilized despite bringing more apps and basic actions to the cover screen. Aside from minor widget updates and basic app support, Samsung hasn't introduced any breakthrough features here. I was hoping for more specialized Galaxy AI tools, but the fact that Samsung didn’t give the Z Flip 8 the same AI-tracking My FanCam feature found on the Z Fold 8 says a lot about where the software falls short.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 review: Bottom line

The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 remains one of the sleekest, most refined clamshell foldables you can buy, but its generational leaps are getting harder to see. On one hand, the return to a Qualcomm silicon with the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 delivers impressive performance gains, the screen gets bright enough to tackle outdoor glare with ease, and video features like Horizontal Lock make it an even more formidable tool for vlogging. If you're coming from a Z Flip 5 or an older slab phone, these upgrades are enough to warrant buying.

However, when paired with a $100 price hike that pushes the base model to $1,199, Samsung's baby-step approach feels tough to defend. With the overall design aesthetic, camera specs, charging speeds, and battery endurance remaining unchanged as before — all while competitors like the Motorola Razr Ultra 2026 push the envelope in battery life and image detail — the Z Flip 8 feels less like a step forward and more like a complacent upgrade settled on just getting by.

It's still a great foldable, but in a market where price tags keep climbing, minor polish is no longer enough to justify the upgrade.

If you want one of the best soundbars in your home, you could be spending thousands and thousands of your hard-earned cash. But what if I told you you could upgrade your TV’s sound for less than £350? I know — shocking. The Samsung Q600H has a good balance between voice, SFX, and OST. It’s a sleek, easy-to-use, budget-friendly soundbar and can be customized to suit you using the SmartThings app.

But be aware that, since it’s so cheap, the sound lacks the width and height you’d usually get from more expensive soundbars. This model is also only available in the U.K. and E.U. markets, but if you’re in the U.S., you can pick up last year’s model, the Samsung Q600F, instead. We gave this soundbar 4.5 stars, and it’s our top choice mid-range option to spruce up your home sound system.

To find out more about the new soundbar, you can keep reading this full Samsung Q600H review.

Samsung Q600H review: Specs

Samsung Q600H review: Price & availability

The Samsung Q600H retails at full price for £549 on the Samsung website, but you can find it cheaper on Amazon U.K. for £349 or at Currys for £499. This soundbar is only available in the U.K. and E.U., which is a shame for those of you who are stateside, as this is a really great soundbar for the price.

If you’re in the U.S., the closest soundbar would be the Samsung Q600F. The F is the 2025 iteration of the Q600H and costs just $379 at Amazon U.S. If you’re in the U.K. and are happy to buy a model from the previous year, the Q600F will cost you £221 at Amazon U.K. We gave this soundbar 4.5 stars when we reviewed it last year, and it remains one of our top picks, so I’d recommend it if you’re trying to save money without sacrificing performance.

For a soundbar with more room-filling sound and better width and height distinction, check out the Samsung QS750F for $899/£699. This all-in-one soundbar performs well beyond its price tag and is suited for anyone who wants a more expansive sound or needs separate rear speakers.

And if you don’t want to spend too much money because this is your first venture into the world of soundbars, the Klipsch Flexus Core 100 could be a great option. It’s very affordable at $349/£299 and gives you the option to add on a subwoofer, but lacks Wi-Fi connectivity, which I found very beneficial from the Q600H for AirPlay and Google Cast.

Samsung Q600H review: Design

The Samsung Q600H doesn’t exactly stand out from the crowd. It looks like every other soundbar I’ve seen. But that’s a good thing. I appreciated that when I was watching TV, it was barely noticeable when set up underneath. The Titan Black Colour looks great and isn’t distracting.

The unit weighs 29.1 pounds, and I found it easy to lift and set up by myself. It measures 46.5 x 18.4 x 10.7 inches, so it doesn’t take up too much room either. I set the subwoofer up off to the side of my TV stand, and it looked good, without drawing too much attention.

Controls

You can adjust the sound using the on-board buttons at the top of the soundbar, or you can use the included remote control. I get a little overwhelmed when I have multiple remote controls on the go. One for the TV, Blu-ray player and soundbar can all get a bit much. Luckily, the remote of the Q600H is very thin so doesn’t feel cumbersome — it feels more like a genuinely useful addition. I also controlled settings such as sound mode and EQ through the SmartThings app on my phone, which was straightforward, which I’ll get into in more detail later on.

Features

The Q600H soundbar has customisable sound modes, EQ adjustment for bass and treble, night mode, and voice enhancement. Most of this can be controlled via the SmartThings app, which I’ll discuss more below.

Samsung Q600H review: App

This was my first time using the SmartThings app, and I was blown away by how easy it was. In my job, I have used a whole host of smart home apps, but this has to be one of the most straightforward to navigate.

In the app, you can switch between different sound modes. I found Standard mode the best for balanced audio and natural sound when watching sitcoms. Surround mode gave me more expansive sound for action sound effects. AI Adaptive sound was the best for detail, prioritizing ambient sounds over the soundtrack. The soundbar also has Game Pro mode, but unfortunately no dedicated music mode.

You can control EQ settings in the app, as well as the level on the subwoofer. I enjoyed the level of customization I got with the soundbar, but you get more freedom by paying a premium price for something like the Samsung QS90H ($999/£899). The QS90H is an all-in-one system with a 7.1.2 channel configuration — a lot more powerful than the 3.1.2 of the Q600H.

Samsung Q600H review: Sound quality

I tested the Samsung Q600H soundbar with our standard watch of “Top Gun: Maverick”, as well as a few other films I know and love, TV streaming, and music streaming via AirPlay.

Movies

I watched “Top Gun: Maverick”, “La La Land”, and “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” on 4K Blu-ray. The opening scene of “Top Gun: Maverick” allowed me to evaluate the width, height, high-frequency sound and bass. I enabled AI Adaptive Sound and increased the bass. I also increased the subwoofer to the max to get the full effect of the rumble of the plane engines. In this scene, the high-frequency sounds such as ropes swishing and clanging chains were very clear — I could hear everything distinctly, but not as crisp as when using the Samsung QS90H. The bass of the jet engines stirring to life was well-balanced without rumbling, and the song “Danger Zone” wasn’t overpowered by the planes.

Using AI Adaptive Sound prioritizes diegetic sounds (things like sound effects, foley, vocals etc), as I was able to hear high-frequency details such as the light ticking of a clock, and the dialogue remains incredibly clear. In the scene where we see the Darkstar hypersonic plane take off for its Mach 10 flight, I didn’t get the impact I was anticipating with the sonic boom. While the radio dialogue in the dogfight scene was clear over the OST, it’s also worth noting that there wasn’t a great deal of width or height, and while this soundbar has SpaceFit Sound Pro, I was unable to test it as I didn’t have a compatible Samsung TV to hand — despite testing in a room with 10 TVs.

In the movie’s beach scene, the track “I Ain’t Worried” by OneRepublic playing over the scene demonstrated impeccable bass performance and great balance between dialogue and overture tracks.

Next, I watched “La La Land”, a film that I think has one of the best original soundtracks of all time (yes, they should have won that Oscar). After watching this, I would wholeheartedly recommend the soundbar for musical lovers, despite the lack of music mode. During “Another Day of Sun”, I could clearly hear the footsteps of the actors and dancers as they jumped across cars and slammed doors. Hearing these sounds so distinctly added a lot of detail to the scenes.

Throughout the movie, the dialogue was clear when the characters spoke at the same time as the OST. When the four roommates were getting ready, I could hear the echo in the bathroom set and, later, the clacking of their heels on the street.

Speaking of click-clacking, I was actually disappointed when listening to the “Lovely Night” dance scene. I could hardly hear Mia and Sebastian’s tap shoes, but other sounds such as the kicking up of dust were clear as day.

Finally, I watched “The Fantastic Four: First Steps”. Sound effects from the movements of the Silver Surfer felt very expansive; however, other SFX sounds weren’t very clear. I switched to Surround mode, which heightened the SFX and resulted in a more immersive experience. For example, when Herbie “speaks”. However, conversation from the human characters wasn’t as clear. But in general, I enjoyed watching this movie with the soundbar and think it elevated my viewing experience.

TV

To test TV performance, I watched ‘Invincible’ on Prime Video. I watched using the AI Adaptive Sound setting in the SmartThings app, and increased the bass and treble, with the subwoofer set to the highest setting.

The first episode of the TV show had a whole lot of action sound effects of a battle, with a lot of dialogue included. Indistinct chatter in the background of scenes, such as when Mark is walking through the school halls, was audible without taking over the soundstage, suggesting that the soundbar handled the layers of sound well.

The subwoofer kicked in for sound effects such as punching and more gruesome sounds like blood splatters, which were emphasised well, without taking over from the dialogue or soundtrack. I could also hear effects like the splatter of blood and guts moving across the room in accordance with the on-screen movements (gross!).

Music

To test the music playback performance, I listened to a couple of different songs using AirPlay. There’s no dedicated music listening mode on the soundbar. Firstly, I listened to “High and Low” by Empire of the Sun. This soundbar demonstrated excellent bass performance during synth sounds; however, the treble sounded harsh. I turned down the treble in the SmartThings app, which helped to improve the vocals, but it still wasn’t great.

Next, I listened to “Famous Last Words” by My Chemical Romance. This didn’t sound as forceful as I’m used to, and the layers of the song sounded disjointed. There was nowhere near enough depth to do the song justice. The stripped-back bridge resulted in a better performance because there were fewer components to confuse the soundbar, but when it built up again, it struggled to keep up.

Finally, I listened to an acoustic track, “Cariad” by The Royston Club. The stripped-back vocals sound amazing and actually made me exclaim “Oh! That’s good!” in shock. But then when the drums kicked in, they overpowered the acoustic guitar. Bass performance is seemingly the priority with this soundbar.

Samsung Q600H review: Verdict

The Samsung Q600H is an ideal option for a cheap, entry-level soundbar for anyone who wants to enhance their at-home movie watching on a budget. I’ve found it incredibly easy to use with the included remote control or the SmartThings app, and the smart features make it feel highly customisable to fit your desired sound. I appreciated the great balance between dialogue, SFX, and OST sound, and the sleek, unobtrusive design is the cherry on top.

My only real qualm with the soundbar is the lack of width and height in the soundstage, but for less than £350, it’s something I’m willing to overlook. Unfortunately, this soundbar is only available to purchase in the U.K. or E.U., with no plan for a U.S. release. However, you can purchase last year's model, the Samsung Q600F, in the U.S.

Overall, the Samsung Q600H is a solid option to upgrade your home theatre, and one I’ll be making use of to watch the best new movie releases.

In case you hadn’t noticed, AI is having a bit of a backlash moment. More and more people are opposed to data center construction where they live, for example, and a lot of consumers (especially Gen Z) are questioning the need for generative AI overall.

Samsung seems to be tuned in to this sentiment with the launch of the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra. Instead of hitting people over the head with ‘Galaxy AI,’ the company is focusing on a handful of features that it believes have real-world benefits.

“We don’t want to overwhelm the consumer with AI,” Samsung EVP Jay Kim told me. “A lot of industry focus on AI is sort of as itself as a technology, but I think it’s shifting from technology to benefits. We’re looking at how you make this meaningful, how do you make this more easy to access?”

Subtler AI

One example is Now Nudge. Say you get an incoming text that references an upcoming appointment with the date. The Z Fold 8 and Z Fold 8 Ultra are smart enough to present a little Calendar button. When you tap that, the Calendar app will automatically open in Split View on the right side of the display.

“You're looking at the screen, and then it understands where you're looking at, and then it actually provides the next action, it suggests your action,” Kim said. “Before you have to go through extra steps to make that work, but now it's instant. We’re just trying to help consumers get things done in a more easy way.”