There are a lot of areas where the Galaxy S9 goes a step above the S8. It's got stereo speakers instead of a mono one, the Snapdragon 845 should offer quite a bit more speed, and the rear camera has a ton of new features – such as a variable aperture and 960 FPS slow-motion video.

However, despite these improvements, one area that Samsung left untouched with the S9 series is battery capacity. Just like the Galaxy S8 and S8+ before them, the S9 and S9+ have 3,000 mAh and 3,500 mAh units, respectively.

It remains to be seen how these batteries fare with Qualcomm's new silicon, but even so, some of our forum users aren't too thrilled about Samsung's decision here.

02-25-2018 09:09 PM

I just can't understand why in today's day in age we can't have a battery that lasts 2 Days in a flagship phone pointless. At least put a bigger battery in new models. Totally unacceptable will not buy the S9 or the S9 Plus.

02-25-2018 10:12 PM

Manufacturers keep pushing for thinner (and thus, weaker in my opinion) phones, so don't expect huge batteries. On the flip side, I think if a phone came out with a battery that lasts a week between charges, many of these same people would then complain it doesn't last a full month between charges.


Then again, some folks don't see this as an issue.

02-26-2018 09:43 AM

What's wrong with the size? It seems pretty normal for me. They can only pack so much battery in a small space and the market wants think phones... so ... something has to give :P.

02-25-2018 11:19 PM

The new chips are also 30% more power efficient. It's just like how the S8 has a smaller battery than the Note 2 or 3 but has a longer rated battery life on tests. Battery life isn't always about having more mah.


Now, we want to hear from you – Is the Galaxy S9's battery too small, or is it just fine?

Join the conversation in the forums!

Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9+


Verizon AT&T T-Mobile Sprint