The Samsung Galaxy S9+ was officially unveiled at Mobile World Congress merely days ago, boasting a bunch of premium specs that looks to take on Apple's super-high-end iPhone X.
Apple touts its flagship handset as the "future of smartphones", but both this and the Galaxy S9+ sport 10nm CPUs - the Apple, the company's own A11 Bionic system on a chip, while the Samsung Galaxy S9+ is powered by the Korean firm's very own Exynos 64-bit octa-core CPU running at an impressive 2.7GHz.
To see how the two handsets compare, we have pitted them head to head in a dual of specs. Read on to find who comes up trumps in the smartphones stakes.
iPhone X: 143.6x70.9x7.7mm, 179g
Galaxy S9+: 158.1mm x 73.8mm x 8.5mm, 189g
The Samsung Galaxy S9+ looks almost identical to its predecessor, the Galaxy S8+, apart from being a touch heavier. However, compared to the iPhone X, it looks a lot more sleek in appearance.
While the iPhone X is heavier than the Galaxy S9+'s sibling, the Galaxy S9, weighing 179g compared to 155g, it's not he case with the Galaxy S9+, which is 10g heavier than the iPhone X.
Nevertheless, both phones feature a premium all-glass design surrounded by a metal frame, and both are dominated by their respective bezel-less displays.
Both the iPhone X and Galaxy S9+ are pretty rugged too, with Apple claiming the iPhone X is water and dust-resistant to a 'microscopic' level, and Samsung's claiming that its flagship is IP68 water and dust-resistant, just like its predecessor.
Overall, however, the devices are pretty similar looking in design, apart from the irritating "notch" at the top of the iPhone X's screen, which the Galaxy S9+ doesn't have. A particular boon for Android fans, then.
We'd have to call this one a draw, as it's totally dependant on your preferences.
iPhone X: 5.8in Super Retina (2436x1125, 458ppi) OLED edge-to-edge display
Galaxy S9+: 6.2in QHD+ (531ppi) Super AMOLED curved display
The Galaxy S9+ offers buyers a big glossy curved 6.2in QHD+ Super AMOLED display with a 529ppi resolution, making the S9+ a clear winner when it comes to display specs alone.
That's because Apple's 'Super Retina' display on the iPhone X has a resolution of 2436x1125 and a 458ppi. While this is the highest-resolution screen to feature on an iPhone so far, it's nowhere near enough to take the S9+'s display crown.
Nevertheless, at least Apple makes use of OLED and its True Tone tech, which adjusts the white balance to suit your environment, making for brilliant colour reproduction. And although not curved like on the S9+, the iPhone X's 5.8in OLED panel stretches to fill the front of the phone, albeit for its odd-looking 'notch' as mentioned earlier.
The clear winner here is the Galaxy S9+, however, specs alone don't always translate in the same way when it comes to real world usage, so it'd be worth checking out the flagships' respective displays to see which one you're the most comfortable with.
Hardware and storage
iPhone X: A11 Bionic CPU, 3GB RAM, 64GB or 256GB storage
Galaxy S9+: Exynos 9810 Octa, 6GB RAM, 64GB/128GB storage, with microSD offering up to 400GB extra
The specs speak for themselves in this category. The iPhone X, might be the first phone of Apple's to debut the firm's new A11 Bionic CPU, but when it comes to RAM, storage and thus sheer power, it loses out to Samsung's Galaxy S9+.
This is because while the iPhone X packs 3GB RAM, the S9+ boasts a massive 6GB of RAM. And while Apple only offers a choice of 64GB or 256GB of expensively built-in storage, the S9+ has a substantial 128GB built in as standard (an amount which Apple doesn't offer) but with the option to expand that by a further 400GB via its onboard microSD slot. Although this will have to be purchased separately, at an additional cost.
In terms of processor tech, the iPhone X's six-core CPU is divided into two low-performance cores and four high-performance cores, with the regular cores being 25 per cent faster than the previous A10 chip, and the high-performance cores being up to 75 per cent faster than the A10 SoC. As for the Galaxy S9+, it ships with Samsung's home-made Exynos 9810 processor, an eight-core CPU featuring four performance processor cores, now reaching speeds up to 2.9GHz, and four efficiency cores for extending battery life when less power is required.
So who's the winner in this round? Specs-wise, it has to be the Galaxy S9+, but again, real-life performance is dependant on how the phone is being used, how many apps are installed and how demanding you are of the onboard power.
iPhone X: iOS 11
Galaxy S9+: Android 8.0 Oreo
It's pretty much impossible difficult pitting iOS against Android, because almost everyone knows which operating system they'd rather use.
The iPhone X, naturally, ships running iOS 11. This brings with it some features that will only be available on the pricey flagship, including Face ID, animated emoji (or 'Animoji'), new gestures for navigating home and mult-tasking, and portrait lighting and selfie modes.
As expected, the Galaxy S9+ runs Android 8.0 Oreo and, as usual, Samsung's skin, which is getting better with every iteration of a flagship phone, and will equip the device with a handful of custom features (aka bloatware), including Galaxy Apps, Samsung's own Gallery app and a tool for pairing your Samsung-branded wearable.
There's no clear winning in this round; it's completely down to your preferences when it comes to software, and what ecosystem you're already embedded in.
iPhone X: Dual 12MP (f/1.8 and f/2.4) with OIS, 7MP front-facing
Galaxy S9+: 12MP with OIS, (F1.7), autofocus; 8MP front-facing
Apple hasn't really upgraded the camera so much in the iPhone X compared to the iPhone 7 Plus that was released in 2016. Sporting a dual camera setup, the only upgrade is the two 12MP sensors which means they can now shoot 4K video at up to 60fps and 1080p slo-mo video at 240fps.
In the Galaxy S9+, however, Samsung has completely overhauled the camera setup. While it packs a new dual-lens 12MP camera, it also has a dual f/1.5 and f/2.4 aperture sensor, making it, what Samsung claims "the brightest lens of any smartphone camera in the market.
This is because the lens now lets in 80 per cent more light than on previous models, which minimises noise to capture higher quality images in dark environments than ever before. Samsung said the camera sensor does this by stitching together 12 images taken simultaneously when the shutter button is pressed, merging them together to bolster a better final image.
The winner here has to be the Galaxy S9+, again.
iPhone X: From £999
Galaxy S9+: £869
SIM-free pricing of the S9+ came in more or less as expected at £869, which is of course a lot of money but is still a lot cheaper than the iPhone X, which starts at £999 for the 64GB model.
So for over £100 less, you're getting more storage, a more powerful processor, double the RAM, a better camera and larger screen with the Galaxy S9+, all packed inside a chassis that looks somewhat similar but is only a slightly bit bigger and heavier than the iPhone X.
While it seems like there's a clear winner already, we'll have to reserve judgement until we have pitted the two flagship smartphones head to head in the flesh in a full-on review.
That will be in the next week or two, as according to the launch of the Galaxy S9+ on the first day of MWC on Sunday, it was revealed buyers will be getting their own hands on the devices from 9 March. Check back soon for a full verdict.
Cotton seedling freezes to death as Chang'e-4 shuts down for the Moon's 14-day lunar night
Fortnite easily out-earns PUBG, Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Red Dead Redemption 2 in 2018
Meteor showers as a service will be visible for about 100 kilometres in all directions
Saturn's rings only formed in the past 100 million years, suggests analysis of Cassini space probe data
New findings contradict conventional belief that Saturn's rings were formed along with the planet about 4.5 billion years ago