[musicinmyblood23]

i was on the Blackberry site comparing the 9700 to the 9650, and the only superior feature that the 9700 has over the 9650 is battery life. Everything else is pretty much the same.

So why am i saying the 9650 is better than the 9700?

Two words: World Phone.

That's right. The 9650 is keeping the amazing feature of being a world phone, unlike the 9700, which does not have this capability.

Another reason: 9650 is both CDMA and GSM compatible.

Again, 9650 blows the 9700 out of the water because 9700 is only GSM. 9650 can do both.

Conclusion: Who cares about the battery life. World phone and dual cell technology make the 9650 worlds better than the 9700 in my book. Not to mention that double-up in on-board and flash memory to a nice 512MB.

Your opinions are now being read...

[denison1g]

Also it has double the memory.

[jaydee5799]

The 9700 has a faster processor from what we've been told.

[Cross]

I wouldn't say the battery is so much different on the 9650 then the 9700 cause the battery on the 9650 is at 1400 mAh & the battery on the 9700 is at 1500 mAh. The battery isn't that far away in mAh from the 9700. I'm sure the battery will be just as good just last a tiny bit shorter.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[shimojunk]

How about we wait until the 9650 is actually released before we compare? Who knows...the 9650 might crumble into pieces if you get a couple drops of water on it.

[musicinmyblood23]

it's been reported by Kevin on Crackberry that the 9650 will have the processor from the storm 2. i dont know if that's better than the 9700 or not.

I just remembered...9650: OpenGL support.

[Cross]

Yeah. That is true. We have to wait until the 9650 gets released before we start comparing battery & performance, etc.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jgodin03]

I wouldn't say the battery is so much different on the 9650 then the 9700 cause the battery on the 9650 is at 1400 mAh & the battery on the 9700 is at 1500 mAh. The battery isn't that far away in mAh from the 9700. I'm sure the battery will be just as good just last a tiny bit shorter.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Just use a Tour (which use the same battery than the 9650) and compare it to the 9700... 9700 last a lot longer.

Btw, I can use my 9700 in europe, so it's a world phone too. And the 9650 is 3G yes, but does you can use GSM 3G network in america? not too sure...(pretty sur that it's as the Tour. Only EDGE in america)

So for american users: 9650: EVDO or EDGE, 9700: 3G HSPA.

For the memory: I know that OS6 is coming very soon and that both devices are supposed to get it, but with 256mb, I still have 100mb left... Why 512? I cant believe that the OS6 will fill up all my 100mb remaining.

[Cross]

Just use a Tour (which use the same battery than the 9650) and compare it to the 9700... 9700 last a lot longer.

Btw, I can use my 9700 in europe, so it's a world phone too. And the 9650 is 3G yes, but does you can use GSM 3G network in america? not too sure...(pretty sur that it's as the Tour. Only EDGE in america)

So for american users: 9650: EVDO or EDGE, 9700: 3G HSPA.

For the memory: I know that OS6 is coming very soon and that both devices are supposed to get it, but with 256mb, I still have 100mb left... Why 512? I cant believe that the OS6 will fill up all my 100mb remaining.

I will do battery test when the 9650 is released & see how well that goes. I see where you coming from on the 3G Bands. No one knows yet how big OS6 is so again we'll have to wait and see on that also.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[musicinmyblood23]

i agree that more extensive testing is yet to be done, but on paper, the 9650 looks to be the superior device.

[Cross]

i agree that more extensive testing is yet to be done, but on paper, the 9650 looks to be the superior device.

Yes I agree. On Paper it looks better. Extensive testing needs to be done tho to see which device will come out on top.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[eve6er69]

i believe you can use the 9700 around the world because most providers are gsm but you will not get 3g.
just like you can use a storm on at&t with a gsm sim but cannot get 3G

[vrs626]

Two words: World Phone.

That's right. The 9650 is keeping the amazing feature of being a world phone, unlike the 9700, which does not have this capability.

This is some nonsense right here. Pretty much the entire rest of the world uses GSM, so please explain to me how the 9700 is not a world phone??

[Mystic205]

Absolutely!!!............the 9700 doesnt work on Sprint..lol


No seriously... if you have a GSM phone there is pretty much zero need/desire to have a GSM/CDMA phone to travel extensively.

if you have CDMA then you MUST have a CDMA/GSM phone..

So at the end of the day, there is no comparison... if you have ATT or TMO then the 9700 is the best BB you can get.....if Sprint or VZ then the 9650 is the best you can get.

i was on the Blackberry site comparing the 9700 to the 9650, and the only superior feature that the 9700 has over the 9650 is battery life. Everything else is pretty much the same.

So why am i saying the 9650 is better than the 9700?

Two words: World Phone.

That's right. The 9650 is keeping the amazing feature of being a world phone, unlike the 9700, which does not have this capability.

Another reason: 9650 is both CDMA and GSM compatible.

Again, 9650 blows the 9700 out of the water because 9700 is only GSM. 9650 can do both.

Conclusion: Who cares about the battery life. World phone and dual cell technology make the 9650 worlds better than the 9700 in my book. Not to mention that double-up in on-board and flash memory to a nice 512MB.

Your opinions are now being read...

[kaerfree]

Really the 9650 is better because of more memory and open GL support. You can't use the world phone as a perk because gsm phones are always world phones. As far as the battery goes the 9700 is the best, go ahead and take a look at it there is no other berry out right now using this battery. It is larger and more efficiant than any other battery that I have seen/used

[musicinmyblood23]

Really the 9650 is better because of more memory and open GL support. You can't use the world phone as a perk because gsm phones are always world phones. As far as the battery goes the 9700 is the best, go ahead and take a look at it there is no other berry out right now using this battery. It is larger and more efficiant than any other battery that I have seen/used

this coming from a 9700 owner...

[Ibn la Ahad]

The 9700 has a faster processor from what we've been told.

Not true. Def not true. The Bold 9000, the Bold 9700 and I think the Bold 9650 all have the 624 MHz processor, so same speed.

[harveyjr]

BlackBerry - BlackBerry | Wireless Handheld Devices, Software & Services from Research In Motion (RIM)

[berrybore]

BlackBerry - BlackBerry | Wireless Handheld Devices, Software & Services from Research In Motion (RIM)

good job man... he jus took a big dodo on everyones face tats arguyin over wats better... neways for all those tool aruging that a faster processor means better look up a thing called megahertz myth... basicaly just having a faster megahertz doesnt ment diddly squot.. it has a lot to do with memory too (which 9650 has more)... and also how efficient the OS is... thats y some laptops with lower megahertz still beat out other laptops with higher megahertz in speed tests... case in point.. an AMD is all about speed but intel is still far more efficient and beats amd on many tests

[mikeplus1]

Really the 9650 is better because of more memory and open GL support. You can't use the world phone as a perk because gsm phones are always world phones. As far as the battery goes the 9700 is the best, go ahead and take a look at it there is no other berry out right now using this battery. It is larger and more efficiant than any other battery that I have seen/used

There are places in the world where you need CDMA due to lack of GSM service besides the US where there are places you need CDMA b/c GSM has no service, but I digress, bottom line is having both is a plus for sure. There are after market batteries for the 9630 that will fit the 9650 that have 2600mAHR which is nearly twice the capacity of the stock 9700 or 9630 batteries and adds only 3-4mm to your device thickness. Seidio also makes a 1700mAHR battery that fits in the existing slot and works with the stock door. And yes, of course they make them for the 9700 as well. Seidioonline.com (or CB store) also has some pretty good cases that allow easy access to the side and top buttons as well as the charging ports.

[christopherri]

good job man... he jus took a big dodo on everyones face tats arguyin over wats better... neways for all those tool aruging that a faster processor means better look up a thing called megahertz myth... basicaly just having a faster megahertz doesnt ment diddly squot.. it has a lot to do with memory too (which 9650 has more)... and also how efficient the OS is... thats y some laptops with lower megahertz still beat out other laptops with higher megahertz in speed tests... case in point.. an AMD is all about speed but intel is still far more efficient and beats amd on many tests

My head hurts after reading that.

[berrybore]

My head hurts after reading that.

lol well dam tat wasnt my end goal at all

[dLo GSR]

good job man... he jus took a big dodo on everyones face tats arguyin over wats better... neways for all those tool aruging that a faster processor means better look up a thing called megahertz myth... basicaly just having a faster megahertz doesnt ment diddly squot.. it has a lot to do with memory too (which 9650 has more)... and also how efficient the OS is... thats y some laptops with lower megahertz still beat out other laptops with higher megahertz in speed tests... case in point.. an AMD is all about speed but intel is still far more efficient and beats amd on many tests

but you know nothing about either processor in the BBs, nor how they function with the same OS, so your argument doesn't work. you're essentially saying that any processor that is lower in MHz is probably better.

by the way, if you look at that comparison page, here is the breakdown:
battery life: 9700 > 9650
size: 9700 > 9650
weight: 9700 > 9650
memory: 9700 < 9650

aside from networks (and seriously, where are you going to find a CDMA network outside of the US that you can switch to in a jam? even if there are CDMA network elsewhere, switching your phone to them is not the same as throwing a SIM card in), there are no other differences on that sheet.

[kram941]

but you know nothing about either processor in the BBs, nor how they function with the same OS, so your argument doesn't work. you're essentially saying that any processor that is lower in MHz is probably better.

by the way, if you look at that comparison page, here is the breakdown:
battery life: 9700 > 9650
size: 9700 > 9650
weight: 9700 > 9650
memory: 9700 < 9650

aside from networks (and seriously, where are you going to find a CDMA network outside of the US that you can switch to in a jam? even if there are CDMA network elsewhere, switching your phone to them is not the same as throwing a SIM card in), there are no other differences on that sheet.

Those two are totally personal preference.

So you list looks more like this

battery life: 9700 > 9650
memory: 9700 < 9650

[dLo GSR]

Those two are totally personal preference.

So you list looks more like this

battery life: 9700 > 9650
memory: 9700 < 9650

i didn't say what was preference, i was showing the only differences on that comparison page, because the poster made it sound like the two were night and day. the rest of the "specs" are exactly the same.