Ali Chiddy, 19 Feb 2017"Now that many phones have the option to lower the resolution in software, you can have the be... moreBecause they did not game... Lowering screen resolution will help just GPU. But if your tasks do not trigger GPU as much, then you will not notice a difference... Even screen lowered resolution still pushes all these pixels... But just make screen lower resolution and play some games, you should see some improvement.
There is absolutely no need for 2k, 4k or 8k on phones. Not even the 11k Sammy talked about early last year. 720p or 1080p should be max for phones. Yeah 2k and 4k is great for vr, but no phone has the battery to give enough joy and pleasure of vr. People can buy glasses if they want a more detailed phone screen.
I always used to laugh at the number of Macbook Airs being rebooted in the silent room at uni (force closed because the POS has obviously frozen). 25 years and the still can't get the OS right
Now, where are the stupid people who criticized Sony for using a 1080p display for the Xperia XZ? Where are you now?
And where are the people who bashed Sony for using 4K display for the Xperia Z5 Premium? Where are you now?
I guess this is what people say against Sony:
1080p - "It's 2017 already and they're still stuck at 1080p wth?"
2K - "Sony, that's overkill! Look at LG flagship battery lives! Go back to 1080p!"
4K - "Useless. Our eyes can't even see a difference between 1080p and 4K on smartphone screens."
I wish there will be one day that people will finally be satisfied by Sony. Pfffttt...
People are saying 4K is needed for VR. You're absolutely right! But force implementing it on VR gear manufacturers, instead of smartphone makers. You won't be using your smartphone for VR all the time, during which 4K will be a complete overkill.
I'm still using 1080p all across my devices. Even my 55" TV has 1080p, because I'm sitting 3m from it and I don't see any pixels anyway.
"Now that many phones have the option to lower the resolution in software, you can have the best of both worlds - 720p for performance and battery life when you need it and a sharp screen the rest of the time."
This isn't right, as far as what the following review has tested using an S7 Edge with Nougat:
"We also tested if selecting a lower display resolution (a new feature introduced by Android 7 Nougat) would have a positive impact on the battery life. We compared the battery performance using the native 1440p setting as well as the lowest available setting of 720p.
The short answer is - the change in resolution didnÂ’t affect any aspect of the battery life - not in our testing routine. The minor differences we recorded were in the minutes, and are well within the margin of error of the tests. Perhaps an alternative usage pattern might lead to some meaningful advantages of going low-res, but our experience doesn't point in that direction. One such potential scenario is gaming, but then again you already had the option to limit resolution within Game launcher."
I have owned two LG G3s, almost the most perfect phone ever made for so many reasons - let down by ONE issue, the (at the time) high-resolution display killed the processor and battery life. I now have an in between phone of an iPhone SE, that has very good battery life and a pretty low res display, but the way Apple have implemented the retina text rendering and such means it's just as nice.
This issue of over hyping the tech over usability is why for all their flaws, Apple are still doing ok. I'm typing this on a 2015 Macbook Air (probably the best laptop ever made), after having owned a Surface Pro 4, a few nice Dells, Chromebooks, even a Macbook Pro or two. The Air gets it right because the screen is (technically) pretty low res, but good enough for most work, the battery life is outstanding (10 hours), it's very fast (even when running many apps), the fans have only kicked in once in 1 month of use, the keyboard is better than the new MacBooks and so on.
The point I'm making is that if a device is well designed, it will suffice.
In the phone world, Motorola get this, hence the Moto X, Moto G etc are fast despite relatively low prices. (Only flaw with the X was lack of memory.)
LG G3 was great because it was comfy in the hand, has a very narrow bezel, wireless charging, a great camera, FM Radio, ability to customise the nav bar (LG unique), tap to wake (wish the iPhone could do that!) etc. Only let down, as mentioned, screen drew too much power.
Anonymous, 19 Feb 20174k in phones is useless your eye wouldn't tell the difference between 4k and 2k on such a smal... moreNo much difference between QHD (2.5k) and FHD (2k) even at 5.5 inch and on. QHD is useless as it does not downscale well and it's bad for VR.
4k is the best (good for both VR and every day use), FHD is second (best for every day use, also the cheapest option). Bye, bye, your opinion is objectively wrong.
Anonymous, 19 Feb 20174k in phones is useless your eye wouldn't tell the difference between 4k and 2k on such a smal... more4k or UHD are the lowest resolution for a good VR experience. If you buy a flagship you want to have a great 360 experience, otherwise even 720p is good enough.
Anonymous, 19 Feb 20174k in phones is useless your eye wouldn't tell the difference between 4k and 2k on such a smal... more4k is the best. Your eye can INSTANTLY tell the difference while in VR. Also 4k can downscale to 1080p for every day use without losing any detail (that any other downscale would cause) because it is 4:1 EXACTLY pixel wise.
The users of this poLL (and you) are misinformed and dangerous as they keep technology back for no reason. It's irrelevant that 4k can't be seen with naked eye, that's not its supposed use....
I'd say that 1080p is not good enough anymore. Though, 4k might be too much for some screen sizes.
For me it's like this:
- 1080p - good up to 24"
- 1440p - good between 25" and 28"
- 4k - good at 30" +