Share this Story

Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Available From AT&T and Sprint Today

samsung galaxy note 3

The Galaxy Note 3 from Samsung is available on AT&T and Sprint starting today, but Verizon customers will need to wait just a little bit longer. If you haven’t seen our full review of the Note 3, you can see that here. To sum up the review, the Note 3 is a fantastic phone for anyone looking to upgrade to a larger device.

The phone is a specification powerhouse, sporting a Snapdragon 800 processor, 3GB of RAM, a 13MP camera that takes amazing shots, a gorgeous 1080p display, and the phone features a ton of useful S-Pen software to go along with the stylus. 

AT&T customers can pick up the Note 3 starting today on contract for $299, while new Sprint customers can grab it for only $249. Again, if you are into over-sized devices, the Note 3 should be your dream phone.

AT&T – $299
Sprint – $249 for new customers

Picking one of these monsters up on either carrier?

  • Kung Young

    If you are interested, I tested the Note 3 with the Samsung Note 2 Multimedia smart dock and it works. Check out the video here:


  • ChemicalDeath

    Nothing on the Sprint website?

  • jerry

    What is the price difference between the 32 GB and the 64 GB? I heard TouchWiz takes up 13 GB of the internal memory. Can anyone confirm this?

    • Yohohohh

      I don’t know the difference in price, but the 32 GB version comes with 27 GB of actual usable storage.

  • Rafy286

    My brother has been trying to purchase the device today with Sprint and has been turned down multiple times. Basically stores are only selling the device on contract. So I tried making the purchase on Sprint.com and I’m getting some insane taxes ($140) off contract. So frustrating.

  • Rodeojones000

    No thanks.

  • Big e

    I played with it at AT&T today and I must say I love this phone. I have my pre-order in at Verizon

    • Phillies3429

      I did the same thing. Haha. Was hoping it felt more like leather on the back. Still better than what Samsung has put out before though.

  • sr_erick

    I canceled my VZW Note 3 order a couple of days ago. I’m coming from a Note 2, and while I love it, sometimes I wonder if it’s truly too big. I really want to use it one handed as of late but it’s just not working out too well. I snagged a used Moto X that I’ll try out for a while and wait a month or so until I can find some used Note 3’s on the market instead of dishing out over $750 for a new Note 3. I’m also curious to find out if battery life on the Note 3 will be on par with that of the Note 2, which is amazing.

  • Armus

    The big question on everyone’s mind is can we crack that ass… Err bootloaders?

    • Mike Hilal

      Pretty sure root will be available shortly (and not a moment too soon). BL cant be too much further behind.

  • Stephen Cox

    I haven’t paid that much attention since I love my GN2… did they finally fix the “using the stylus on the soft keys” limitation on the GN phones like they did on the Note 8.0?

    • Armus

      Yes they actually did

  • 04stangman

    Yet again. Verizon is freaking last. Fuk

    • Adrynalyne

      Too quick of a phone release might destabilize or compromise Verizon’s network….haven’t you learned anything being a VZW customer? Sheesh!

    • Jeff C

      but at least it’s only a week. could be a lot worse ya know?

      • Paul Christopher

        This! This is actually relatively quick of a release for VZW

    • flosserelli

      Verizon needs more time to:
      A. install bloatware
      B. lockdown bootloader
      C. ensure network certification
      D. place logos
      E. all of the above

  • Renny

    If I purchase an ATT note 3 for the $299 contract price does the store require that I activate the phone right away? Im trying to buy the ATT version and not activate it, then sell it on ebay or CL for $700, then buy the TMo unlocked BL version outright then activate that on ATTs network. Would this work?

    • JoshGroff

      In theory it should since T-Mobile uses many of the same bands as AT&T, I’m not sure if LTE would work though.

      • Renny

        but does att require I activate the phone right away when I buy it on contract for $299?

        • JoshGroff

          They might, but assuming you already have AT&T, you can just switch the SIM out to your old phone and for all intents and purposes the device will no longer be activated, since it’s the SIM that links the device to you.

        • 918273645ams

          No they don’t require anything. I pre-ordered it, and I had to activate it myself by going to a website.. Which you don’t HAVE to do.

    • tomn1ce

      Why not just buy the ATT version after you have sold the one you’re getting on contract?

    • Mike Hilal

      TMO’s device is already on sale…you could buy it as of yesterday. The ETF is not too steep if you want to take advantage of a subsidized price.

    • grumpyfuzz

      I just want to know if the T-Mobile GN3 works on AT&T. I want to know if the bands work. Some guy I contacted said the LTE works on it. I don’t know though, because he said 3G/4G doesn’t work on it. But it has the same 3g/4g bands as my current phone, and that works fine on the AT&T network.

  • shon

    I love my Note3..I can easily keep this phone for two years..won’t upgrade until Note 4 or 5 depending on how much time they put between them

  • Ian

    As much as I know benchmarks don’t matter, I still think its underhanded that Samsung is adding benchmark “boosting’ code to further invalidate benchmarks.


    • Jeremy Alajajian

      Nearly all companies were recently proven to be doing this. Only Motorola and the Nexus line were exempt from the practice.

      • Justin W

        Apple, also, was exempt from this practice.

      • Ian

        Interesting, and not all that unexpected. LG must not be doing it on the G2 or its marks would be more in line with the GN3 considering they are both running the Snapdragon 800 SoC.

        • Adrynalyne

          LG is doing it too, they just suck at it apparently.

          • Ian

            Lolz, lets go with that.

          • Justin W

            I’m thinking they either forgot to do it or just didn’t do it with the G2.

          • Adrynalyne

            Let me see if I can find the link where they showed the G2 being guilty as well.

            Edit: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks

          • Guest

            Here we go. They cheat at less, but were found guilty on some.


          • Justin W

            I saw the chart the other day but didn’t pay attention to the G2. Maybe their software needs some optimization or they just don’t go to the full lengths Samsung does?

          • Adrynalyne

            I think they just do it to a lesser degree and on less benchmark apps.

          • el oso borracho

            They did it with the G2. And when the G2 and the Note 3 were put head to head -without- the cheats, the Note 3 still beat the G2, despite having the same processor.

    • Justin W

      They released a statement about it as well.

      “The Galaxy Note 3 maximises its CPU/GPU frequencies when running features that demand substantial performance. This was not an attempt to exaggerate particular benchmarking results. We remain committed to providing our customers with the best possible user experience.”

      I take benchmarks as measuring real-life every-day performance, and what Samsung does is artificially inflate those performance metrics, which gives the user a false result.

      Source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/samsung-denies-boosting-benchmarks-while-failing-to-address-the-evidence/

      • Ian

        Sure, but the code doesn’t lie.

        • Justin W

          Agreed. They actually denied artificially increasing benchmark results, and then tell people they weren’t artificially increasing their results for benchmarks.

          • Bionicman

            they put all their processor cores on full blast…they didn’t alter the numbers in some underhanded way… the way i see it they just made it so their CPU’s run as fast as they can when being bench-marked. how is this bad?

          • JoshGroff

            If everyone was doing it and it didn’t skew results, it wouldn’t be.

          • Dusty

            Well even if everyone optimized their devices for benchmarks it would still skew results since everyone would do it differently. It would be a different story if the manufacture(i.e. qualcomm) would optimize it.

          • JoshGroff

            If they all used the same method, forcing CPUs to full blast, then it wouldn’t skew results as much. Might still be skewed a little by different clock speeds and what not, but it’d be a lot closer.

          • Adrynalyne

            Samsung is doing it to say “hey look, we are faster than the competition” when in reality they are boosting numbers that can never be obtained to make themselves look better.

            Then they deny doing it.

            It is unethical as hell.

          • Dusty

            You do realize besides for Motorola and Nexus devices all others do the same right?


            don’t understand why you are out to get samsung…. lol

          • Adrynalyne

            Precisely why those asshats won’t get my money either.

            I am not out to get Samsung. I am out to not get Samsung, ever again. I don’t support a company that lies about inflating benchmarks.

          • Dusty

            Well may Motorola and Nexus bring you much joy! ( no sarcasm) Have a wonderful rest of the day has been nice talking to you =)

          • Adrynalyne

            I’ve not completely read up on it, but I’ve heard they also raised thresholds on the GPU past stock specs for when it downclocks due to heat as well.

            Its not really bad, its just underhanded, especially when it is only doing it and detecting it for benchmarks. If it was doing it for games as well, I’d be more understanding.

          • Ian

            It’s bad because any other app outside of that list (in the code) does not get the same treatment, even if they would benefit from it.

          • Justin W

            Because that’s not how processors work on an everyday basis. Benchmarks are meant to give an overview of expected performance. By forcing the processors to always run at 2.3Ghz, consumers expect more than will be delivered by the device.

          • Bionicman

            i thought the point of benchmarks is to see how fast a device is and can go? if you wanted to see real world performance, use the device and see for yourself.

          • Justin W

            If the processor isn’t set to run at 2.3Ghz every minute of every day, you won’t see the same results you would see in these rigged benchmarks. It’s rigged because Samsung and other manufacturers make it so the processor is set to X Ghz and overclocked by X amount (or the thermal limit is increased so it can reach a higher clock more consistently), when that’s not how the processor will react to normal daily usage, which is the problem. They are “promising” a better experience by rigging the benchmarks than what you are actually getting.

          • Dusty

            they didn’t artificially increase benchmark results so they are going to say they didn’t. They just had it optimized for benchmarks. All they really did was optimize the cpu and gpu to run at their peak speeds. Its no different then intel implementing turbo boost on their cpus. Turbo boost essentially won’t run unless you do cpu intensive tasks. On every day usage on a pc (web browsing, videos, office, etc.) your cpu will run at much lower frequencies. PC components have been doing this for YEARS. no point getting so upset about this.

          • Adrynalyne

            Raising your GPU temp thresholds above stock specifications is artificially increasing performance, because benchmarks aside, no other app can do that.

            Denying it doesn’t make Samsung look any better either.

          • Dusty

            Again, that isn’t called artificially increasing performance. Was it optimized for benchmarks? Yes and again GPU manufacturers have been doing this for years as well. You have to remember most of the hardware in mobile phones is more than the phone itself needs. i have yet to read an app or even Android OS for that matter that is ever going to need the GPU run at 100%. So naturally while the user is using it it will never reach the performance the GPU reaches during benchmarks. I don’t understand why you are making it such a big deal when benchmarks aren’t meant for exact performance. You use it to get a general idea since numbers never equate to everyday usage.

          • Adrynalyne

            Overclocking a GPU (which is basically what happens when you raise temperature thresholds) is artificial. There is no other way to state it.

            I know what Benchmarks are for. I also know Samsung is smart enough to realize that a lot of people will buy something due to benchmark results instead of real world.

            Many people are stupid, and Samsung is capitalizing on it. It is ethically questionable behavior and I mean that for all companies that do it.

            Just maxing out cores is a little different. That I don’t see an issue with as much as bypassing hardware safeguards for a benchmark app.

          • Dusty

            You keep using the word artificial incorrectly. What samsung is doing isn’t called artificial its called optimization. They are optimizing the gpu to clock higher (as you have stated) during benchmarks. Yes they coded it so it does it specifically for benchmarks but there isn’t anything artificial about that since the GPU actually reaches those speeds. Artificial would have been if samsung put a code that tricked benchmarks and skewed their results in favor of their devices. Again, other pc component companies have been optimizing their cards for bechmarks for years and so have other mobile companies. Stop getting so angry at JUST samsung. Your argument is invalid.

          • Adrynalyne

            Unobtainable performance that is reserved for a benchmark is artificial. We can debate semantics all day long, but at the end, it is wrong. It is no different than when I threw in a hack that loaded all of Quadrant into ram so that it gave fantastic benchmarks (which I disclosed as a joke/easter egg/toy, btw).

            Was it real? Sure…it was just running the entire app from ram, which skewed I/O scores. However, I artificially inflated it because other apps cannot do that (technically they could in this case, but I digress). Artificial. Period.

            I I buy a car that goes 0-60 in 3.5s as measured by the car company, and later find out that its because they changed the ECU to perform higher, then they artificially inflated the results, because I can never obtain that without modification of my own ECU, which would void my warranty.

            If I overclock the GPU so that all apps can receive the performance Samsung purports, I void my warranty.

            If Samsung does it just for benchmarks, it does not void the warranty.

            So for this performance to be real and not an artificial inflation, then Samsung needs to let everyone do it.

            This is not a difficult situation to understand if you aren’t pedantic.

          • Dusty

            It is obtainable. It isn’t like the gpu can run at say Speed A but you can never use Speed A. Speed A is just only used during benchmarks which “you” control when to run. That analogy is completely different. How are you going to compare frequencies speeds vs placing something in a different storage for optimization? Different concepts.

            Benchmarks don’t run at say Speed A for more than 5-10 minutes. IF the user OCs it could be ran for HOURS essentially if you were playing games and the GPU had to reach Speed A for it.

          • Adrynalyne

            We are just going around in circles here.

            ar·ti·fi·cial adjective ˌär-tə-ˈfi-shəl

            : not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural

            : not happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people

            : not sincere

          • Dusty

            Way to edit your post. Here let me explain why your analogy is flawed.
            By your analogy it would be if you bought a car that went 0-60 in 3.5s according to the manufacturer. But when you drive your car it could only obtain 4.0s because it was governed (the engine could only put out 400hp). You take it to the track, local road, highways and it is all the same.
            This is what samsung has done with their phone:
            You buy a car that goes 0-60 in 3.5s and the manufacturer rates it at 3.5s. You drive your car and it can only go 4.0.s You take it to a race track and now you can obtain 3.5s (since the engine can now put out 500hp). The performance is obtainable but only when you are on a race track.
            I hope you understand this analogy. If you can’t then i feel bad for you. Either way i’m done talking about this. As i wrote in a post below this topic doesn’t deserve all this attention.

          • legaceez

            Dude you’re pathetic. Is your only way to try and prove a point to insult somebody? Then I feel sorry for you. Please get off your high horse. As every here is trying to point out to you YOU are the one that is not bright enough to realize what’s going on here. So what if I edited my post for clarity? SUE ME lol…

            Let me make it as plain as possible. Again if you can’t understand this then just stop because I feel sorry for you. The two exact same benchmark apps were run, one with a renamed app name. Two exact same bench marks were run in both apps. Why is the performance higher in the app that wasn’t renamed? Think about that one for a second. Doesn’t matter who ran the tests in theory they should be exactly the same right? Take everything out of the equation. Two exact same apps and benchmarks but different results in the app that wasn’t renamed…

            Now it was proven that Samsung specifically looks for certain app names and forces the CPU to run at 100% when it detects them. Specifically only certain benchmark apps. Apps that has no real world use besides judging performance. If they were really doing it for our benefit why not speed up every useful app out there? Think about that for a second. How can you argue that’s not a targeted performance increase? If other manufacturers aren’t doing that do you consider that fair?

            Let me see if I can use your analogy with race cars. Imagine the manufacturer only allowed you to use 100% of your cars speed on an approved race track where you are testing it. Then when you buy it and drive it off the lot boom you can never achieve that same performance again because the engine is never running at 100% like it did on the race track. See what I mean? Is that not misleading?

            EDIT: BTW I realized I responded to the wrong post lol dumb forum set up…

          • Dusty


            other manufacturers do do it…. lol so angry. I never insulted him.I stated a fact that he edited his post. I stated that i would feel sorry for him if he couldn’t comprehend what i wrote. I never called him names or anything of that sort. You should calm yourself =)

          • legaceez

            You certainly tried to belittle him at the end there but that’s besides the point I responded to the wrong post. I thought it was directed at me lol

            No anger there though everything was pretty calmly stated.

          • Adrynalyne

            Thats an underhanded insult. Not that I care…I have thick skin.

          • legaceez

            The point is though they specifically did it when those benchmark programs were running. You rename the benchmark app and lo and behold there is no optimization. If the artificial increase wasn’t targeted at specific apps and indeed just increased to meet demands as needed then the CPU and GPU would have acted the same in all cases.

            That’s proof of intent to force those specific apps to run faster than they normally would.

          • Dusty

            I understand what samsung is doing. My argument is that A) GPU manufactures have done/been doing this for years. B) Samsung isn’t the only one doing this.
            C) This again isn’t called artificial its called optimization. I said the difference up top.

            I don’t condone what Samsung is doing as right or any manufacturer but it is what it is. Benchmarks were never meant to be used as exact results. They were meant to be used to get a good idea (excluding the intensive benchmarks for PCs). In that sense it doesn’t make much difference and shouldn’t be this big of a topic.

          • legaceez

            Yea but skews results. Not everyone is doing this and not to this extent. Motorola and Nexus phones don’t do it and neither do iPhones. Just because you think everyone cheats it doesn’t mean you should also cheat.

          • Dusty

            please read what i wrote. i said “i don’t condone what Samsung is doing.”

          • legaceez

            You say that but argue the other before hand so it’s tough to tell your stance on things. Gotcha though.

            In the end everyone is just arguing semantics it seems.

    • BCoils

      They want your money. Your respect is of no consequence to them.

  • Adam

    Meh I got the G2 instead. Its nice though but the G2 has less bezel on the side and this seems to have more lag and not as zippy when i tried it in the store yesterday.

    • Steve Ballmer

      Touchwiz can do that to a device. Aaron from PhoneDog basically complained that the G2 could be too fast.

      • Bigwavedave25

        Yeah, I watched his video remarks… what’s up with that? A performance “overboost” is almost needed now to allow a device to stay fast for the memory intensive future.

        I did go by BB at lunch today and played with the GN3 for about 10 minutes. Beautiful screen and I didn’t notice any lag in the [short] time I played with it.