Related
I'm not really too sure what engadget is trying to get across. The only thing I saw was the microscopic shot comparison as having any validity. But even then, if you need to 10x magnify a screen to see the difference, is it really worth it?
Then, they go and show pictures of the Super AMOLED display, which people are going to be seeing on an LCD!
So I took it upon myself to write up an article on my group blog, *visually* showing what the difference truly is.
Disclaimer: I own/operate the blog to the article link I am about to post.
http://www.brainlazy.com/article/smartphone/iphone-4-vs-samsung-galaxy-s
Let me know what you guys think. I'm currently getting all of the features into a Galaxy S review.
Nice analogies man hahaha. Good read
The Galaxy S camera isn't "Back-side illuminated" - you should correct your comparison table.
You really need to get your eyes checked if you need to be closer than 30 cm to see the pixels of the pentile screen. The only thing better about the Super Amoled screen is the blacklevels - that's it(besides size that is). The colors are off, the whites are pretty dim, the shadow detail is usually colored(due to the pixel structure) and you can clearly see color-banding which you cannot on the IPS display of the iPhone.
The Galaxy S is a better phone imho, but when it comes to the display the iPhone 4 has the SGS beaten.
EDIT: The SGS has a a Li-Ion battery not Li-Pol.
Anyone speak Italian?! If so look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=NMsl7ceJuK4
Hey guys, thanks for the input. Does anyone have a link to the camera sensor? I had asked a Samsung Representative if they used a back-side illuminated cmos sensor and they replied in the affirmative.
Also, on this page: http://galaxys.samsungmobile.com/specification/spec.html?ver=low
They list the battery type at 1500 mAh li-pol.
I do agree the interpolated nature of the display has color banding issues, however, pixel density is a bit over rated. If you are critical of the SGS display at 30cm, I wonder how you've managed to cope with every computer monitor available today at 60cm. Even a 20" screen at 1080p is 111PPI, FAR lower than the SGS even with accounting for PenTile Matrix.
And if you can only list black levels as superior to LCD, maybe you need to play more fast paced video games. Response rate is critical. Between black levels and response rate, these are attributes that LCD will never be able to attain.
About color accuracy, I guess it's a toss up. Muddy blacks or color banding. Providing the amount of gradiation isn't intense, it's (almost) a non-issue. Shadowing (like you said) in media is a worry. But for most applications, you generally don't see long sprawling gradients.
And, I suppose pixel density is also subjective. I'd prefer to have true black and an immediate response rate. Also, while I can see the tiny little dots of pixels on my SGS at 30cm, they blend it very nice. Much nicer than my desktop monitor.
superb article. hilarious and [email protected]
Agreed, I had a blast reading the article.
It's a perfect to explain the difference to the technically challenged people that thinks Iphone4 is the holly grail.
now, the next best way to show technically challenged people is by having another one of these cool comparison but using an Iphone4 instead.
HTC Desire vs. Galaxy S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpP5QljEqow
assuming some one manages to run Quake 2 on an Iphone4 LOL
btw in the chart near the end, you listed the gyro as Captivate model only, but its on all us models as far as I'm aware
Yea, I have to update the info since the NYC event. Also Samsung used lower numbers for response rate and contrast ratio, so I have to change my dollars/cents thing.
They lowered it exactly by half on each. So instead of 100,000:1 CR, they said 50,000:1. And instead of Response rate at 1 micro second they said 10 microseconds. Which is an order of magnitude different, but still very very nice.
Basically the the money will be chopped in half. Either way, I double checked with a Samsung rep and when I fix those things up, the chart will be accurate.
Images missing.
Thanks. Great article.
Can't see the images though.
thephawx said:
I'm not really too sure what engadget is trying to get across. The only thing I saw was the microscopic shot comparison as having any validity. But even then, if you need to 10x magnify a screen to see the difference, is it really worth it?
Then, they go and show pictures of the Super AMOLED display, which people are going to be seeing on an LCD!
So I took it upon myself to write up an article on my group blog, *visually* showing what the difference truly is.
Disclaimer: I own/operate the blog to the article link I am about to post.
http://www.brainlazy.com/article/smartphone/iphone-4-vs-samsung-galaxy-s
Let me know what you guys think. I'm currently getting all of the features into a Galaxy S review.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea the images are missing for me too! When i click where they should be, i get a 404 not found error.
Samsung is a genious...
Many dumbasses would say "The Galaxy S" doesnt have Flash is a BAD THING..
But to me.. its a GOOD THING ... iPhone 4 uses Single LED flash... This type of flash doesnt even have enough power to make a difference in your picture quality.. its more like a BULL**** feature to trick noobs to buy it.
You need at least a Dual LED/Xenon Flash...
Toss3 said:
The only thing better about the Super Amoled screen is the blacklevels - that's it(besides size that is). The colors are off, the whites are pretty dim, the shadow detail is usually colored(due to the pixel structure) and you can clearly see color-banding which you cannot on the IPS display of the iPhone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your kidding right? I've compared my phone to my mates iPhone 4 and the SGS is clearly superior. It has far better color and webpages are easily readable without zooming in whereas on the iPhone, it's a different story.
Obviously, we compared the two phones at full brightness. He has also returned his new iPhone and continues to use his 3g instead which aesthetically, looks better than the iPhone 4.
Billus said:
Your kidding right? I've compared my phone to my mates iPhone 4 and the SGS is clearly superior. It has far better color and webpages are easily readable without zooming in whereas on the iPhone, it's a different story.
Obviously, we compared the two phones at full brightness. He has also returned his new iPhone and continues to use his 3g instead which aesthetically, looks better than the iPhone 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How come he returned his iphone4 is he going to get a Samsung S?
Billus said:
Your kidding right? I've compared my phone to my mates iPhone 4 and the SGS is clearly superior. It has far better color and webpages are easily readable without zooming in whereas on the iPhone, it's a different story.
Obviously, we compared the two phones at full brightness. He has also returned his new iPhone and continues to use his 3g instead which aesthetically, looks better than the iPhone 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll take the Galaxy S hands down any day of the week, particularly the screen and OS. However,
Obviously, we compared the two phones at full brightness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just flat out disagree with this testing procedure. It's borderline retarded IMHO.
[*]Firstly, especially with the webpages with reading (the thing you brought up half a line prior, though albeit in a different paragraph) reading demands low brightness.
[*]Secondly, read the posts here, everyone is turning the brightness to "0%", low, and even download an app that brings that "0%" down to true 0% rather than the 8% that it actually uses. People are doing this because it's easier on the eyes, saves battery and a multitude of other reasons.
[*]Thirdly, this screen is plenty bright without full brightness. Even in direct sunlight you don't need this at full brightness, the screen is that good (again, love it)
Really, in summary, the way you should test both devices is the real-world usage scenario. Anything else and all you are doing is showing off it's potential, not it's practical use. Again, I think I've posted here or another thread or both how much I was against the Engadget test, particularly because they lead with the macro lens shots. To me, that was sensationalist, they were trying to either get "oohs and ahhs" or make Apple look as good as possible. Either way, that's journalism at its worst and not even something I want to read in a blog I visit. However, to do something like turn brightness up all the way is just a tiny bit better...unless this is actually how you or your friend would use the device regularly. Again, I believe that each device can even, have an independent setting, one at 0% and one at 100% if that's how the user would typically use the device. To get back to my Engadget point, that's why it's important to give as many views and settings as possible. Compare them all, find out where one's strengths lie because you have such a wide audience. However, I'm not sure how many people use a macro lens to view their device on a daily basis, so leading with that is just retarded. Do I think it's completely irrelevant? Maybe not as perhaps there are some people who wouldn't get the detail needed because they have near super-human perfect vision where they can detect all these things that are too minor to even be called subtleties.
I have to say that in terms for average daily use, there isn't any real practical difference between the two phones at face value. I have a SGS, my wife has the iPhone 4 btw. But that being said, after spending any length of time with the iPhone 4, you will notice a difference once you go back to the SGS. If may not be initially obvious, but your eyes will be able to discern the difference.
If you're using the phone to read mucho text, I'm sorry, there is no way the SGS can trump the iPhone 4. The iPhone 4 retina display is a beautiful one and I guarantee that if you use both for decent amount of time with an unbiased mind, you WILL notice the difference in terms of text definition and clarity.
However, when it comes to motion and movies, the SGS takes a dump all over the iphone. The iPhone, whilst still great to watch movies on, can't compare to the far superior contrast, colours, and vibrancy of the SGS AMOLED screen. When you have motion on screen and you're not squinting at text, the high pixel density, to me, almost doesn't even factor into the equation anymore.
So there's my two cents. I wouldn't trade my SGS for her iPhone 4 at all, however, I would probably sing a different tune if I did a lot of e-reading or web browsing on my phone. After using the iPhone to browse text for even a few minutes, I hated going back and doing the same on my SGS. Anyway, to say one display is practically (not technically) superior to the other only depends on the purpose of which you'll be using it for. Both are great and I don't see why people have to argue the point that one has to be better than the other.
hmm... i like reading my webpages at full brighness
i hate dim LCD or any kind of screens
Ptechnix said:
I have to say that in terms for average daily use, there isn't any real practical difference between the two phones at face value. I have a SGS, my wife has the iPhone 4 btw. But that being said, after spending any length of time with the iPhone 4, you will notice a difference once you go back to the SGS. If may not be initially obvious, but your eyes will be able to discern the difference.
If you're using the phone to read mucho text, I'm sorry, there is no way the SGS can trump the iPhone 4. The iPhone 4 retina display is a beautiful one and I guarantee that if you use both for decent amount of time with an unbiased mind, you WILL notice the difference in terms of text definition and clarity.
However, when it comes to motion and movies, the SGS takes a dump all over the iphone. The iPhone, whilst still great to watch movies on, can't compare to the far superior contrast, colours, and vibrancy of the SGS AMOLED screen. When you have motion on screen and you're not squinting at text, the high pixel density, to me, almost doesn't even factor into the equation anymore.
So there's my two cents. I wouldn't trade my SGS for her iPhone 4 at all, however, I would probably sing a different tune if I did a lot of e-reading or web browsing on my phone. After using the iPhone to browse text for even a few minutes, I hated going back and doing the same on my SGS. Anyway, to say one display is practically (not technically) superior to the other only depends on the purpose of which you'll be using it for. Both are great and I don't see why people have to argue the point that one has to be better than the other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree completely. My uses is what got me into the device. However, a guy come on here saying he was going to use this like an e-reader (novels) first and foremost, webpage viewer in the house on wifi quite a bit, with the tiniest bit of PMP qualities. He was asking something specifically about what apps to get IIRC, I told him to buy a Kindle, iPad or iPhone 4 (I think I rated the iPhone 4 above the iPad because of the portability that he desired, but can't quite remember). If I wasn't into A/V (plus an Android fan) I might not have this device.
AllGamer said:
hmm... i like reading my webpages at full brighness
i hate dim LCD or any kind of screens
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's cool, to each their own. I can see webpages being a bit more brightness required than e-ink, but as I said just in my opinion, this device is just flat out bright. But I think it's both of our opposite tastes here that made Samsung put in an independent (I think that's how it works rather than in aggregate with, though perhaps there is some mix...don't really care as I leave both all the way down) brightness control into the web browser. So you won't have to adjust your brightness up when going to the web and if I happened to be walking around on a sunny day I wouldn't have to adjust it downwards.
TriC_101 said:
Samsung is a genious...
Many dumbasses would say "The Galaxy S" doesnt have Flash is a BAD THING..
But to me.. its a GOOD THING ... iPhone 4 uses Single LED flash... This type of flash doesnt even have enough power to make a difference in your picture quality.. its more like a BULL**** feature to trick noobs to buy it.
You need at least a Dual LED/Xenon Flash...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not true..i have an iphone 4 and a Galaxy S. the flash helped the iphone cam a LOT......not a gimmic...no its not the best flash..but its better than none for sure
Hi there,
got my GalaxyS for 3 days now, and been owning a Desire for 2.5 months.
I was perfectly happy with my Desire, the reason I still ordered the Galaxy was because all the talks about S-Amoled got me really excited, and the larger screen was too tempting because I'm an avid reader.
After 3 days, I must admit my feelings are a little mixed:
On the one hand, the screen of Galaxy IS gorgeous, color/contrast/sunlight readability all top. And the more app storage (which pained me a lot on the Desire) is also extremely welcome.
But, on the other hand, there are still things Desire does better - to my dismay, the text display on the Galaxy seems to be worse than on Desire?! At same level of zoom, Galaxy displays the fonts more pixelated, but this is only visible when the font is small, many other people seem to share this sentiment.
And also, even the lowest brightness setting on the Galaxy is too bright for me in the dark?! I do a lot of reading at night in bed, the lowest setting on Desire has a tinted color, but doesn't hurt my eyes. Galaxy on the other hand, I can't really stare at it for long without my eyes tiring...
So right now I'm really a bit unsure... Is there any chance getting software solution to set the brightness lower than low?;-) Also, would the display quality of small fonts improve with newer system/software, whatever?
If not, then I'm afraid I'll just stick to my Desire and send the Galaxy back
Thanks for any thoughts!
Billy
Would never recommend an amoled screen to a person who likes to use the device as an e-book reader(until they get rid of the pentile submatrix). You should get a Droid or HD2 if you want a decent display.
The reason why the pixels appear larger on the SGS is simply because of the fact that they are.
If you found the Desire to better suit your needs then I'd recommend you go back to it.
Just curious, how does the iPhone 4 fair in term of text display? Not that I'm considering getting THAT
I would recommend to keep Samsung Galaxy S for phone and very mobile use and then to wait and buy Samsung TAPE for reading and other stuff.
n3p3nth3 said:
Just curious, how does the iPhone 4 fair in term of text display? Not that I'm considering getting THAT
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4 display is geared towards text, it has a high pixel density as a result of high-res/small screen size and a regular grid pixel layout.
The Samsung screen is more targeted to graphics & video with faster refresh, massive contrast, larger display, oh and its 16:9 wide screen too
Thanks guys for the info and advices, guess in the end I'll just toss a coin to decide
i personally like s-amoled for one reason
it doesn't consume as much power. it matters when your screen is 4.0 inches
Seems there is no 'perfect' phone...
I've been strongly expecting to purchase the SGS (Captivate actually). But I've also been interested in using it as a reader some.
I've been reading the posts about Pentile topics.
Also I really want a phone that will be very viewable in sunlight.
I've been thinking the new MOTO X may be nice...but then I'd have to change carriers.
[SIGH] [/SIGH]
ewingr said:
I've been strongly expecting to purchase the SGS (Captivate actually). But I've also been interested in using it as a reader some.
I've been reading the posts about Pentile topics.
Also I really want a phone that will be very viewable in sunlight.
I've been thinking the new MOTO X may be nice...but then I'd have to change carriers.
[SIGH] [/SIGH]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The sgs is great to use in direct sunlight, even better than my hd2 was.
It also does pretty well when it comes to ebook reading as long as you don't zoom out too much(I'd only recommend it for light reading).
Why have you chosen the Galaxy or why will you be choosing the Galaxy rather than the Evo? Is the better screen tech your primary reason?
I ask this after being an Evo owner over the past month and now currently testing (playing with) the iPhone 4. I loved the Evo but my unit was defective and so I'm considering getting a new one at the end of July (hoping new batches ship out then) or one of the SGS versions; Verizon, At&t and then T-Mobile in that order is what I'm in favor of as far as which SGS.
AshMa said:
Why have you chosen the Galaxy or why will you be choosing the Galaxy rather than the Evo? Is the better screen tech your primary reason?
I ask this after being an Evo owner over the past month and now currently testing (playing with) the iPhone 4. I loved the Evo but my unit was defective and so I'm considering getting a new one at the end of July (hoping new batches ship out then) or one of the SGS versions; Verizon, At&t and then T-Mobile in that order is what I'm in favor of as far as which SGS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Evo 3D power sux, SGS is better eot.
I can't use the EVO 4G because I'm in the UK and we don't have any CDMA networks. Otherwise, I would rather have the EVO 4G for its screen - the Galaxy S' has better contrast, but it has a PenTile matrix, meaning it doesn't have the full complement of the three RGB subpixels per pixel (it only has two), with consequences for sharpness.
For me, it's a decision between the Desire and the Galaxy S, both of which have AMOLED screens, so I can't avoid PenTile. The Galaxy S' screen is definitely better than the Desire's, though, and it also has a better GPU (and, it seems, CPU) and a proper multi-touch digitiser that doesn't get easily confused.
Mithent said:
I can't use the EVO 4G because I'm in the UK and we don't have any CDMA networks. Otherwise, I would rather have the EVO 4G for its screen - the Galaxy S' has better contrast, but it has a PenTile matrix, meaning it doesn't have the full complement of the three RGB subpixels per pixel (it only has two), with consequences for sharpness.
For me, it's a decision between the Desire and the Galaxy S, both of which have AMOLED screens, so I can't avoid PenTile. The Galaxy S' screen is definitely better than the Desire's, though, and it also has a better GPU (and, it seems, CPU) and a proper multi-touch digitiser that doesn't get easily confused.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your input guys! Since you mention the screens, how about the Evo only having 16bit 65K color?
I have yet to choose a new phone but I dumped the EVO after two weeks for three reasons. The 30fps cap, the purple tint, and most importantly the screen only displays 65k colors.
These three were together made me take the phone back.
Supermighty said:
I have yet to choose a new phone but I dumped the EVO after two weeks for three reasons. The 30fps cap, the purple tint, and most importantly the screen only displays 65k colors.
These three were together made me take the phone back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All a bit confusing about the Evo now that I look into it bit. Take a look at this post claiming that it's not 16bit: http://androidforums.com/htc-evo-4g...-million-both-phones-199-a-3.html#post1091681
I'm waiting to have my launch day Evo returned to Radio Shack (manager is trying to get me in past the 30 day mark with his Sprint rep). I thought the screen was beautiful and just had issues with the screen raising and a few others build issues.
I need to touch the Galaxy before I know for sure. The Droid X could have been good but the large bump on the back and that ugly 80's camera flash remind me of how ugly I thought the first Droid keyboard was. I'm sure we have a lot of slick devices coming out later this year but it's already a tough call for what to have right now.......
AshMa said:
... The Droid X could have been good but the large bump on the back and that ugly 80's camera flash remind me of how ugly I thought the first Droid keyboard was.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, I don't understand how Moto can keep making such butt-ugly phones. Between the ugly Moto design and the ugly Verizon branding, the Droid X is a phone only a true nerd can love
I had a google nexus, which hardware-wise is pretty simillar to the evo.
The snapdragon processor is pretty good, but samsung's hummingbird is better (and is produced at 45nm, less power consumption)
The real tie-breaker for me was the GPU.
The Adreno200 in the snapdragon SOC is pretty weak, if i need to put it in proportions, the SGX540 in the Galaxy S is around 3 times stronger, possibly even a bit more.
Screen- while the evo's screen is sharper (on paper), 65k colors and low contrast ratio wipe that advantage completely. The difference is just too big.
Now the most important point- the evo is a real battery -hogging monster, it can barely last for a day and a half in very moderate use, while the SGS can probably last for twice the time under the same use.
I'm not too a fan of dragging around chargers and backup batteries, don't know about you.
I'd turn my eyes over to the droid X, better hardware (TI OMAP 1GHZ+SGX530>Qualcomm Snapdragon, any day), better battery time, probably a better camera as well. Motorla made a nice comeback.
I'd make the prime options the Epic 4G or Droid X.
MacGuy2006 said:
the Droid X is a phone only a true nerd can love
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right!!!! When Moto made the Razor they got it all right in the looks dept.....now they keep bringing us boring/ugly styling one after another.
Pika007 said:
I had a google nexus, which hardware-wise is pretty simillar to the evo.
The snapdragon processor is pretty good, but samsung's hummingbird is better (and is produced at 45nm, less power consumption)
The real tie-breaker for me was the GPU.
The Adreno200 in the snapdragon SOC is pretty weak, if i need to put it in proportions, the SGX540 in the Galaxy S is around 3 times stronger, possibly even a bit more.
Screen- while the evo's screen is sharper (on paper), 65k colors and low contrast ratio wipe that advantage completely. The difference is just too big.
Now the most important point- the evo is a real battery -hogging monster, it can barely last for a day and a half in very moderate use, while the SGS can probably last for twice the time under the same use.
I'm not too a fan of dragging around chargers and backup batteries, don't know about you.
I'd turn my eyes over to the droid X, better hardware (TI OMAP 1GHZ+SGX530>Qualcomm Snapdragon, any day), better battery time, probably a better camera as well. Motorla made a nice comeback.
I'd make the prime options the Epic 4G or Droid X.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see your points seem valid to me. But personally I think the Epic is too thick with the keyboard (plus Swype is all the typing speed I need in my pocket). If the Epic came without the keyboard and if the screen really is that great; I'd be down to deciding between it and the iPhone because Sprint service with the Evo for me has been wonderful unlike this stupid At&t on the iPhone.
We all seem to get so focused on the specs that may not matter all that much? I mean these are phones and not desktops of say 15 years ago when we would research the heck out of a purchase because we knew we were going to keep it for at least 2, 3 or more years........
Anyhow, I really just don't see the bad in the Evo display I have and it's right here being matched up to my iPhone 4. I'm going to do something that no tech blogs ever seem to do. I'm going to load up both these phones, with the exact same high res images and then see how they look to me. Wish I could test the Galaxy along with these two phones, but I will have returned the Evo by the time I get my hands on a galaxy........
Because im not on sprint
And even if i were still on sprint i wouldnt take evo because of the poor battery life as well as the inferior screen quality.
Why are we focused on specs?
We want games to work on our newly-bought super-high-end phone. That's all.
At first there were the HTC devices with a qualcomm MSM7XXX. OK cpu, weak gpu.
Then came along the droid/milestone. ok cpu, ok+ gpu.
Then the wave of snapdragon devices- Very strong cpu, weak gpu.
We all waited for a balanced solution that will let us have a strong cpu and gpu, with android.
Untill the galaxy S, Droid X and Milestone XT720 come along, the iphone was the only balanced device.
About the displays- it's not that the evo display is bad. It's just that both the samsung and the galaxy s are way better. The first time i loaded a high-res video to my galaxy s side by side with my brother's milestone (which is regarded as a device with a very good screen by itself), my mind was blown. The difference is as clear as day.
I can say this with confidence-
Sharpness is overrated. We are talking about 3-4" screens here, not home 50" displays. As soon as 640X360 resolution over 3.5" was passed, the matter started to become pretty ridiculous. You need a 10X magnification to actually see pixels, i doubt your eyes have that.
On the other hand, be it a 1000" screen or a 1" screen, the difference in contrast/colors in general is always visible.
It might not be the "sharpest" screen around, but it is clearly the display with best colors around.
For someone who uses his phone as a media player a lot, this was VERY important to me.
BuddyLee said:
Because im not on sprint
And even if i were still on sprint i wouldnt take evo because of the poor battery life as well as the inferior screen quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I forgot in my last post; are you guys saying that the SGS has much better battery life than the Evo??? From all the comments on the thread here about first thoughts, it seems that folks aren't doing any better.
On the Evo board, I see all the same types of comments and the same range as I do here. Some Evo owners say they can't make it a day and some say they can make it a day and a half and even 3 days, after make half a dozen changes to the device. I know what my Evo battery life has been like and it's not anywhere near as good as this iPhone I'm trying out or even as good as my HD2 was. So I do have a feeling that I'll try the Galaxy and come right back to this board, asking about how to get better battery life.
I just love this device the screen is awesome!!
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Pika007 said:
Why are we focused on specs?
We want games to work on our newly-bought super-high-end phone. That's all.
At first there were the HTC devices with a qualcomm MSM7XXX. OK cpu, weak gpu.
Then came along the droid/milestone. ok cpu, ok+ gpu.
Then the wave of snapdragon devices- Very strong cpu, weak gpu.
We all waited for a balanced solution that will let us have a strong cpu and gpu, with android.
Untill the galaxy S, Droid X and Milestone XT720 come along, the iphone was the only balanced device.
About the displays- it's not that the evo display is bad. It's just that both the samsung and the galaxy s are way better. The first time i loaded a high-res video to my galaxy s side by side with my brother's milestone (which is regarded as a device with a very good screen by itself), my mind was blown. The difference is as clear as day.
I can say this with confidence-
Sharpness is overrated. We are talking about 3-4" screens here, not home 50" displays. As soon as 640X360 resolution over 3.5" was passed, the matter started to become pretty ridiculous. You need a 10X magnification to actually see pixels, i doubt your eyes have that.
On the other hand, be it a 1000" screen or a 1" screen, the difference in contrast/colors in general is always visible.
It might not be the "sharpest" screen around, but it is clearly the display with best colors around.
For someone who uses his phone as a media player a lot, this was VERY important to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see where you're coming from! I love games and I tried NOVA on the iPhone 4 two days ago and I was blown away. But I'm just not into gaming on phones and without real controls even if I had the time to play games as often as I'd like to, it just doesn't appeal to me much.
My HD2 came with transformers and I loaded it onto the Evo's sd card. I am a filmmaker and all I can say is that it looked and played perfectly on the Evo. I've heard people say that they watched films on the Evo with terrible results and all I have to say is that any device needs to have the right video format type and bitrate for a specific device (the right encoding app and settings makes all the difference).
I have no doubt the the SGS display is one of the very best if not the very best (it or the iPhone display). BTW' You might want to take a look at this smartphone display review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365915,00.asp
I had not thought of it until I started reading about it here. I'm talking about text not being as clear on the SGS screens. Again, I guess I won't know what these comments are about, until I get to try this phone myself. Some folks say it's a big deal and then others say it's not. Also I guess that has something to do with the "screen door" effect of the SGS display tech?
I guess what I meant about specs was that if any phone can do everything you want it to today and do it well, then that's about all that matters. rather than seeking out the best specs for some type of future proofing that just doesn't make much sense in regards to how quickly phone tech is advancing and how xda folks like us, are going to keep upgrading sooner rather than later. An Example would be people who worry about a phone not having 4G LTE radios now, even though by the time the towers are all in place, those same people, will be moving on to a new phone.
JosipR said:
I just love this device the screen is awesome!!
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you having any speed issues and how is your battery life treating you? Also would you say text is as sharp as on other high-end devices?
We being non US does not have the EVO 4G to play with but I have been using a Desire for the last 2 months. The reason why I swapped to the SGS is mainly because of the multitouch screen issue with HTC. Typing with SGS is even better than the iphone which, love it or hate it, were the best in terms of virtual keyboard. However I am disappointed with the speed so far, especially with emails. Hopefully the next firmware address those issues.
veej said:
We being non US does not have the EVO 4G to play with but I have been using a Desire for the last 2 months. The reason why I swapped to the SGS is mainly because of the multitouch screen issue with HTC. Typing with SGS is even better than the iphone which, love it or hate it, were the best in terms of virtual keyboard. However I am disappointed with the speed so far, especially with emails. Hopefully the next firmware address those issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After using the iPhone 4 keyboard a lot in the last few days I would have to say yes it is the best tap type touch keyboard. Something about it and I assume the screen tech, make it very good. But the hands down best touch keyboard is Swype hands down which is not on iOS yet. Also the HTC keyboard is also very nice on it's own but also having the voice button on the keyboard is really nice (not sure if the SGS has that as well).
Oh and thanks; I was forgetting about the fact that the rest of the world got the SGS first but no Evo. Sometimes we silly Americans behave as if we are the world.
Pika007 said:
It might not be the "sharpest" screen around, but it is clearly the display with best colors around.
For someone who uses his phone as a media player a lot, this was VERY important to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a matter of different priorities, yes: the great majority of what I do on my phone is read or write text, so having nice crisp text is important to me. I remember being amazed by how great the text looked on my first 640x480 PDA with ClearType. Conversely, I rarely watch video or look at photos on my phone.
The decision's pretty much taken out of my hands if I want a high-end Android phone in the UK. I would love the iPhone 4's display though.
I just got back from the ATT store and did a head to head with the Captivate and my EVO. I had briefly looked at the Vibrant earlier this week but didn't have time to really put it through it's paces. I have a couple more weeks before I have to decide if I keep my EVO and I have been on the fence about keeping it or bringing it back to wait for the Epic.
I figured that I may not be the only one on the fence so here are some of my observations.
For reference, I am fully rooted, running Fresh 1.0.1 and Netarchy's over clocking, under volt, 55 FPS kernel 3.6.4. I was overclocked at 1.152 ghz (on demand 128mhz min) for the duration of the comparison.
SIZE:
I was surprised that the EVO and the Captivate (Galaxy S) were about the same size width and height. I thought the Galaxy S would feel much smaller. Even though the Galaxy was a couple mils thinner and and a couple oz lighter. The way the EVO is tapered at the edges makes me feel that the actual volume of these devices were similar. I would say they are in the same ballpark size wise. The larger screen of the EVO was very obvious. The Evo's screen has 15% larger surface on a device that was about the same size and I liked that.
PERFORMANCE:
1. MENU NAVIGATION: scrolling fluidity appeared to be more or less on par. There were a few times the Galaxy was perhaps slightly smoother with scrolling through menus, but both seemed to stutter occasionally. DRAW
2. BENCHMARKS: Linpack scores were about 7.9 on the EVO and 8.3 on the Galaxy. Obviously the Hummingbird is faster and with Netarchy's custom kernel you can assume that the Snapdragon is optimized for the best possible performance and battery consumption. I imagine once custom kernels come out for the Galaxy, the performance gap will widen. For now, they are pretty close.
Quadrant scores on the EVO was about 560 and the Galaxy was 850. I have gotten higher scores on quadrant with previous kernels. My EVO's previous scores were about 610 on 3.5.1. Netarchy might have dialed back the performance a bit or I might have been on "performance" in Set CPU. Obviously 3D rendering was vastly superior on the Galaxy S, no surprises here.
4. BATTERY LIFE: I ran parallel applications on both devices, running benchmarks, playing games, surfing the web and watching online videos etc etc. I would constitute this as heavy usage. Both displays were set to auto brightness and I would say that the brightness on the screen looked equal to me. Durring this time, the battery on the Galaxy S decreased by 10% and the EVO by 12%. This is not exactly scientific but leads me to believe that the Galaxy has a 20% advantage in power effiency over the EVO. This is despite the fact that the Galaxy is not running an under volted custom kernel. However I was overclocking the EVO. I am not sure if they would be closer if I was running at stock speeds.
I can't wait for the day where I can watch video's and surf for 10-12 hours nonstop so I don't have to think about conserving power.
SCREEN
1. Resolution: The Galaxy was clearly inferior. I discussed this in a previous post. Pentile screen technology deployed n the Galaxy means that true addressable resolution is actually 392x653 not 480x800. This was very noticeable to me in graphics, photos, video and especially text. I hate to say it but Steve Jobs was on to something with his choice of a high resolution TFT. EVO really wins for readability.
2. Saturation and contrast: The Galaxy is superior. It is a matter of preference if you think it looks natural or not but benifits of S-AMOLED were very obvious. Everything was clearly more saturated on the Galaxy.
3. Viewing angle: Galaxy wins again. Deviations from face on viewing produced lower contrast ratios on the EVO's TFT and a kind of greying effect. Viewing angles on the Galaxy were almost 180 degrees with no loss of saturation. Amazing.
4. Brightness: The Maximum brighness setting on the EVO was brighter and more vibrant than the Galaxy S. On minimum brightness the Galaxy was far brighter. I am not sure how these settings relate to power consumption but on Max I prefer the EVO. On minimum the galaxy was still useable in the brightly lit store, the EVO's min setting looked washed out and I wanted to turn it up.
5. White balance: EVO's whites look much better. The Galaxy S' whites look grey or blue this made it feel dirty or dingy to me.
Watching you tube on standard (not HQ) was much more watchable on the EVO than on the Galaxy. This might be a network thing, but resolution, size and even colors looked better on the EVO. I was surprised. HQ on the EVO blew the Galaxy away.
Anyway those are my impressions. I am surprisingly no closer to making a decision. With all the buzz surrounding the S-AMOLED screens I was expecting to be blown away by the Galaxy's display but in reality it was more of a draw. In many ways I felt the EVO's display was superior. If power consumption and processing power were equal I would say EVO. I guess what remains to be seen is how the developer community will embrace these Galaxy S devices and what kinds of perfomance/power enhancements can be applied to the Hummingbird with 45nm. Clearly the EVO has been embraced my the developer community and if Gingerbread can be shoehorned on to the EVO, it will, regardless of HTC's support (Cyanogen for example). I don't want to be left in the cold when Gingerbread arrives.
I will say one thing. The iphone 4's display looks amazing. I have no intrest in owning an iphone because of the limitations of the platform but they really nailed it. I want a device with a 4.3 inch screen, 330 pixel density, TFT white balance and S-AMOLED viewing angles and contrast running android please.
good write-up - seems neutral as far as opinion and also like you took your time. Was looking for a writeup like this, thanks.
violinbf said:
I just got back from the ATT store and did a head to head with the Captivate and my EVO. I had briefly looked at the Vibrant earlier this week but didn't have time to really put it through it's paces. I have a couple more weeks before I have to decide if I keep my EVO and I have been on the fence about keeping it or bringing it back to wait for the Epic.
I figured that I may not be the only one on the fence so here are some of my observations.
For reference, I am fully rooted, running Fresh 1.0.1 and Netarchy's over clocking, under volt, 55 FPS kernel 3.6.4. I was overclocked at 1.152 ghz (on demand 128mhz min) for the duration of the comparison.
SIZE:
I was surprised that the EVO and the Captivate (Galaxy S) were about the same size width and height. I thought the Galaxy S would feel much smaller. Even though the Galaxy was a couple mils thinner and and a couple oz lighter. The way the EVO is tapered at the edges makes me feel that the actual volume of these devices were similar. I would say they are in the same ballpark size wise. The larger screen of the EVO was very obvious. The Evo's screen has 15% larger surface on a device that was about the same size and I liked that.
PERFORMANCE:
1. MENU NAVIGATION: scrolling fluidity appeared to be more or less on par. There were a few times the Galaxy was perhaps slightly smoother with scrolling through menus, but both seemed to stutter occasionally. DRAW
2. BENCHMARKS: Linpack scores were about 7.9 on the EVO and 8.3 on the Galaxy. Obviously the Hummingbird is faster and with Netarchy's custom kernel you can assume that the Snapdragon is optimized for the best possible performance and battery consumption. I imagine once custom kernels come out for the Galaxy, the performance gap will widen. For now, they are pretty close.
Quadrant scores on the EVO was about 560 and the Galaxy was 850. I have gotten higher scores on quadrant with previous kernels. My EVO's previous scores were about 610 on 3.5.1. Netarchy might have dialed back the performance a bit or I might have been on "performance" in Set CPU. Obviously 3D rendering was vastly superior on the Galaxy S, no surprises here.
4. BATTERY LIFE: I ran parallel applications on both devices, running benchmarks playing games, surfing the web and watching online videos etc etc. I would constitute this as heavy usage. Both displays were set to auto brightness and I would say that the brightness on the screen looked equal to me. Durring this time, the battery on the Galaxy S decreased by 10% and the EVO by 12%. This is not exactly scientific but leads me to believe that the Galaxy has a 20% advantage in power effiency over the EVO. This is despite the fact that the Galaxy is not running an under volted custom kernel. However I was overclocking the EVO. I am not sure if they would be closer if I was running at stock speeds.
I can't wait for the day where I can watch video's and surf for 10-12 hours nonstop so I don't have to think about conserving power.
SCREEN
1. Resolution: The Galaxy was clearly inferior. I discussed this in a previous post. Pentile screen technology deployed n the Galaxy means that true addressable resolution is actually 392x653 not 480x800. This was very noticeable to me in graphics, photos, video and especially text. I hate to say it but Steve Jobs was on to something with his choice of a high resolution TFT. EVO really wins for readability.
2. Saturation and contrast: The Galaxy is superior. It is a matter of preference if you think it looks natural or not but benifits of S-AMOLED were very obvious. Everything was clearly more saturated on the Galaxy.
3. Viewing angle: Galaxy wins again. Deviations from face on viewing produced lower contrast ratios on the EVO's TFT and a kind of greying effect. Viewing angles on the Galaxy were almost 180 degrees with no loss of saturation. Amazing.
4. Brightness: The Maximum brighness setting on the EVO was brighter and more vibrant than the Galaxy S. On minimum brightness the Galaxy was far brighter. I am not sure how these settings relate to power consumption but on Max I prefer the EVO. On minimum the galaxy was still useable in the brightly lit store, the EVO's min setting looked washed out and I wanted to turn it up.
5. White balance: EVO's whites look much better. The Galaxy S' whites look grey or blue this made it feel dirty or dingy to me.
Watching you tube on standard (not HQ) was much more watchable on the EVO than on the Galaxy. This might be a network thing, but resolution and colors and size looked better on the EVO. I was surprised. HQ on the EVO blew the Galaxy away.
Anyway those are my impressions. I am surprisingly no closer to making a decision. With all the buzz surrounding the S-AMOLED screens I was expecting to be blown away by the Galaxy's display but in reality it was more of a draw. In many ways I felt the EVO's display was superior. If power consumption and processing power were equal I would say EVO. I guess what remains to be seen is how the developer community will embrace these Galaxy S devices and what kinds of perfomance/power enhancements can be applied to the Hummingbird with 45nm. I don't want to be left in the cold when Gingerbread arrives.
I will say one thing. The iphone 4's display looks amazing. I have no intrest in owning an iphone because of the limitations of the platform but they really nailed it. I want a device with a 4.3 inch screen, 330 pixel density, TFT white balance and S-AMOLED viewing angles and contrast running android please.
OK, well, if you actually made it through all that...do you have any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for that detailed comparison post, you'll have to be patient for those specs but no doubt better devices are coming..
The iPhone 4's display is indeed amazing but personally left me wanting a bigger screen (even more so than on the 3gs) & then you would have to accept its platform-network..
I still would like to check out the upcoming Samsung Beam (although I wish it had a faster processor & larger screen, I'm quite curious to see its built-in projector in person).
If you can wait until the end of the year you'll likely have a better idea of the best near-future devices otherwise the EVO with 2.2 is the most appealing to me at present.
BTW, anyone still think official Froyo 2.2 on EVO is going to happen in July?
SMARTPHONEPC said:
Thanks for that detailed comparison post, you'll have to be patient for those specs but no doubt better devices are coming..
The iPhone 4's display is indeed amazing but personally left me wanting a bigger screen (even more so than on the 3gs) & then you would have to accept its platform-network..
I still would like to check out the upcoming Samsung Beam (although I wish it had a faster processor & larger screen, I'm quite curious to see its built-in projector in person).
If you can wait until the end of the year you'll likely have a better idea of the best near-future devices otherwise the EVO with 2.2 is the most appealing to me at present.
BTW, anyone still think official Froyo 2.2 on EVO is going to happen in July?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, they did release the source fairly quickly (about a month or two after launch, idk exactly since I got my evo a week before the launch), and both sprint and htc said we should have it in july. I guess I'll wait until the 31st to make any solid predictions, but to me the release date is still up in the air.
btw- Great review. Was interested in the galaxy because of its performance but i'd rather have better looking movies than games so the evo's still on top...for now lol.
SMARTPHONEPC said:
Thanks for that detailed comparison post, you'll have to be patient for those specs but no doubt better devices are coming..
The iPhone 4's display is indeed amazing but personally left me wanting a bigger screen (even more so than on the 3gs) & then you would have to accept its platform-network..
I still would like to check out the upcoming Samsung Beam (although I wish it had a faster processor & larger screen, I'm quite curious to see its built-in projector in person).
If you can wait until the end of the year you'll likely have a better idea of the best near-future devices otherwise the EVO with 2.2 is the most appealing to me at present.
BTW, anyone still think official Froyo 2.2 on EVO is going to happen in July?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree about the iphone's screen size. It is just a little too small for 2010. The clarity however is really compelling. It is the first time I have been able to read text on web pages without zooming. Browsing and reading text is probably what I do the most on my phone, even more than making calls.
The Beam looks cool! I haven't seen that yet. The projector could be really useful for business presentations and also movie watching. No need for a TV or HDMI out when you can just project Avatar on the wall! Contrast and brightness seems a bit low.
I don't now about official Froyo in July. HTC has said before the end of the year. Sense integration will take some time since it permeates Andoid extensively. I have this feeling that the Epic might be released with Froyo in late August early September. Samsung's Touch Wiz seems less pervasive than Sense and Samung seems hellbent on taking down HTC. Samsung has said Froyo will be available on Galaxy S phones in Korea in early August. I will be happy with Cyanogen 6 which should be any day now.
violinbf said:
I agree about the iphone's screen size. It is just a little too small for 2010. The clarity however is really compelling. It is the first time I have been able to read text on web pages without zooming. Browsing and reading text is probably what I do the most on my phone, even more than making calls.
The Beam looks cool! I haven't seen that yet. The projector could be really useful for business presentations and also movie watching. No need for a TV or HDMI out when you can just project Avatar on the wall! Contrast and brightness seems a bit low.
I don't now about official Froyo in July. HTC has said before the end of the year. Sense integration will take some time since it permeates Andoid extensively. I have this feeling that the Epic might be released with Froyo in late August early September. Samsung's Touch Wiz seems less pervasive than Sense and Samung seems hellbent on taking down HTC. Samsung has said Froyo will be available on Galaxy S phones in Korea in early August. I will be happy with Cyanogen 6 which should be any day now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I hope the iPhone 4 screen will motivate competitors to raise their bar but its awesome text clarity still seems tiny sans zooming regardless of its legibility so I'm hoping for larger screens. I was also disappointed with how weak the iPhone 4 speaker seemed. Didn't seem to compare to the EVO's speaker. The Samsung Beam apparently has "65 decibel" stereo speakers..
Here is a much longer (11 min) Samsung Beam video & I've seen other videos showing off annotated powerpoint slideshows & projection capabilities. Here is the Samsung link for its Beam model. Again I wish they put in a faster processor & larger screen but they claim up to 50" projected (a viewing size of five to 50 [email protected] meters) !
I prefer Launcher Pro or even stock 2.2. to Sense or Touchwiz & I hope Cyanogen 6 delivers (EVO has all that inspired dev support that new Samsung devices have yet to materialize which is a significant selling point ATM)
- Let us know what you decide
If I was aware of the Captivate, I would have waited for it instead of switching to spring. It's too late now.
Captivate
+faster cpu and gpu
+better battery life
+much lighter
+thinner
+screen is better in some ways
+16gb internal storage
+AT&T network (what I came from) is better around here
+Might end up selling more Galaxy S phones and hence have better all around support
+bluetooth 3.0
Evo
+4g (although 3g on other carriers is often just as fast)
+kickstand
+better front and rear cameras (but probably not by much)
+great user support community
+larger screen for the real estate
I'd like to see some solid reviews but I would call the Captivate a winner. I mainly bought the evo because it was the first android phone with supposedly a quality camera. Unfortunately, that hasn't proven true. If the camera isn't going to be all that good, I would prefer to have something that is better in most other ways.
Minjin said:
If I was aware of the Captivate, I would have waited for it instead of switching to spring. It's too late now.
Evo
+4g (although 3g on other carriers is often just as fast)
+kickstand
+better front and rear cameras (but probably not by much)
+great user support community
+larger screen for the real estate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please show me a carrier that gets 4 Mbps on 3G.
Even so, that won't be a plus once the Epic is out.... but then that phone alone has its own set of pros and cons.
deleted...............
Every single one Ive seen has been way way way to blue tint
hydralisk said:
Please show me a carrier that gets 4 Mbps on 3G.
Even so, that won't be a plus once the Epic is out.... but then that phone alone has its own set of pros and cons.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've pulled 4-4.4 Mbps on AT&T 3G on a 3GS (Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area in PA). T-Mobile's 3G can also pull those speeds in certain areas (ones upgraded to 21Mbps).
These Galaxy S phones look like great devices. But I keep saying, I'm gonna have to wait for the next Galaxy S generation to see if Samsung actually starts supporting their devices (and see how big the community for their devices grows) before I jump from an HTC android device.
I'm gonna head to T-Mobile tomorrow just to play around with a Vibrant though. I'm really looking forward to it! The new TouchWiz (though kind of an eyesore) has some really cool features that I wish HTC would come stock on Android (or be added into Sense).
The lower resolution is a bit of a bummer but does the S-AMOLED screen make up for it even the slightest? After playing with my cousin's iPhone 4, I noticed that even though the screen is very sharp and crisp, it's only noticeable when it's up close right in your face. When held at regular viewing length, the screen really looks no different than my EVO. In fact, my cousin even admitted that he preferred the EVO at regular viewing length because the screen was bigger and easier to read.
Hopefully other companies do what Apple decided not to do and put that high resolution to good use on a large 4 inch+ screen.
hydralisk said:
Please show me a carrier that gets 4 Mbps on 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mobile: 6.10 down / 1.29 up using Speedtest.net's Android app on the Samsung Vibrant yesterday (7/26) in Brooklyn, NY.
4.82 and 5.00 down speeds achieved within the same 5 minutes in the same spot (in case the 6.10 was a fluke).
A few things:
The screens on the different galaxy s models look different when compared side by side so you will have to wait for the epic too actually see what it will look like.
Nand on the other devices is partitioned in a ****ty way so speed can be an issue with the s in some ways. The epic should not have those issues with only 1gb.
The evo, hacked, is at their peak of its power so comparing it to a stock unit isn't fair.
SMARTPHONEPC said:
Yeah I hope the iPhone 4 screen will motivate competitors to raise their bar but its awesome text clarity still seems tiny sans zooming regardless of its legibility so I'm hoping for larger screens. I was also disappointed with how weak the iPhone 4 speaker seemed. Didn't seem to compare to the EVO's speaker. The Samsung Beam apparently has "65 decibel" stereo speakers..
Here is a much longer (11 min) Samsung Beam video & I've seen other videos showing off annotated powerpoint slideshows & projection capabilities. Here is the Samsung link for its Beam model. Again I wish they put in a faster processor & larger screen but they claim up to 50" projected (a viewing size of five to 50 [email protected] meters) !
I prefer Launcher Pro or even stock 2.2. to Sense or Touchwiz & I hope Cyanogen 6 delivers (EVO has all that inspired dev support that new Samsung devices have yet to materialize which is a significant selling point ATM)
- Let us know what you decide
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not trying to threadjack, but the beam... the projector is niche, but it kinda makes me feel funny in my pants. not for sprint though, so we'll have to wait for at least a year for something like that in the u.s.
I really only want a powervgx gpu because those phones are going to have the best gaming experience. Adreno's hardware is nothing to turn your nose up at, and they can draw like 22M triangles/second but their fillrate leaves something to be desired.
The bottom line is to get games to run optimally on any gpu, they have to be configured to run with your gpu. The fact that the iphone has a powervgx, means that the droidx, samsung galaxy, and any other phone with a powervgx will by default have a smoother, more compatible gaming experience out of the box.
That and qualcomm won't give us any decent drivers for the adreno. I wish they would just OS their userland drivers and let the community show off the muscle of the adreno.
ohmyggg said:
T-Mobile: 6.10 down / 1.29 up using Speedtest.net's Android app on the Samsung Vibrant yesterday (7/26) in Brooklyn, NY.
4.82 and 5.00 down speeds achieved within the same 5 minutes in the same spot (in case the 6.10 was a fluke).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Proof with screen shots then, cause I don't believe that.
Sent from my EVO using XDA App
deprydation said:
Proof with screen shots then, cause I don't believe that.
Sent from my EVO using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
T-Mo really can get those speeds.
To the person who said 4mbps on AT&T, you're either reading (holding? ) it wrong, or you're a troll. Unless you're in Chicago (their only 7.2 market so far) you physically can't get above 3.2mbps. The best I ever got on AT&T is 2.8mbps
deprydation said:
Proof with screen shots then, cause I don't believe that.
Sent from my EVO using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See 7/26 results from 9:04, 9:08, and 9:09am.
View attachment 368815
leaked specs from MWC, big surprise no orion on the samsung.
http://www.droiddog.com/android-blo...-2/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Last I heard, Samsung was going to Tegra chips, not Qualcomm. If those specs are true, I'll likely go elsewhere for my next phone.
This makes no sense... Adreno 205 is actually a downgrade from what we have.
Doesn't matter, never again am I getting a Samsung phone (I do however love the developers for putting such effort into being the software updaters of the Fascinate). Next phone is a Bionic, guaranteed.
s44 said:
This makes no sense... Adreno 205 is actually a downgrade from what we have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, at best, it'd be on par with what we have. The only thing that combo has going for it is multi-core.
TheSonicEmerald said:
Doesn't matter, never again am I getting a Samsung phone (I do however love the developers for putting such effort into being the software updaters of the Fascinate). Next phone is a Bionic, guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? If they leave the phone completely open as they have done with this, devs will come on board and fix whatever issues there are. You can always fix the software side, but you can't fix hardware.
Unless Samsung makes their phones out of something a little more solid than plastic, and improves theirs GPS, call quality, and signal, Motorola is doing to have the edge in all these areas. Themes and custom roms are good enough for me, and Tegra 2 is speedy enough to last for a pretty long time.
Different specs posted on Android Central that look more believable to me, see here
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/10/samsung-dubs-its-mobile-processors-exynos-dual-core-4210-forme/
Looks like they will be using their own processors
Many different specs on many retailers sites, the confusion persists...
For me, if it keeps being 800x480, then better wait for qHD devices...
BGR has a review of the Atrix. Here is what they say about the qHD screen:
"The 4-inch display on the ATRIX packs a whopping 960 x 540 pixels into what Motorola is calling a qHD display. While the resolution is quite high, the display to us still looked pretty pixelated. It’s a little odd that the display on the Motorola DROID X actually looks better than the qHD display, in terms of clarity. Colors, however, look great and the panel is very bright and evenly lit. The screen on the ATRIX also fares very well in the touch sensitivity department with a solid and reliable capacitative touch screen."
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/09/motorola-atrix-4g-review/
More pixels doesn't mean better. The Droid X screen isn't very good to begin with, and they say it looks worse than that. The youtube videos of the Atrix from CES don't flatter the screen either. Unless Google optimizes everything for the qHD display, it only has limited uses and with this screen at least, many visual drawbacks. qHD on the Atrix, another numbers game with little gain.
I can't get enough of sammies super amoleds...
silverwolf0 said:
"The 4-inch display on the ATRIX packs a whopping 960 x 540 pixels into what Motorola is calling a qHD display. While the resolution is quite high, the display to us still looked pretty pixelated. It’s a little odd that the display on the Motorola DROID X actually looks better than the qHD display, in terms of clarity.
...
More pixels doesn't mean better... qHD on the Atrix, another numbers game with little gain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many thanks for these info
Thought it was really better with higher res
If it were a "revolutionary" retina display it would be good.
silverwolf0 said:
BGR has a review of the Atrix. Here is what they say about the qHD screen:
"The 4-inch display on the ATRIX packs a whopping 960 x 540 pixels into what Motorola is calling a qHD display. While the resolution is quite high, the display to us still looked pretty pixelated. It’s a little odd that the display on the Motorola DROID X actually looks better than the qHD display, in terms of clarity. Colors, however, look great and the panel is very bright and evenly lit. The screen on the ATRIX also fares very well in the touch sensitivity department with a solid and reliable capacitative touch screen."
http://www.bgr.com/2011/02/09/motorola-atrix-4g-review/
More pixels doesn't mean better. The Droid X screen isn't very good to begin with, and they say it looks worse than that. The youtube videos of the Atrix from CES don't flatter the screen either. Unless Google optimizes everything for the qHD display, it only has limited uses and with this screen at least, many visual drawbacks. qHD on the Atrix, another numbers game with little gain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A display is only as good as the media its displaying. If Moto doesn't beef up their icons, then the extra res wont matter. That being said, the phone is capable of much better resolution than any phone, bested only by the iPhone, however, the SF has us all spoiled in the color depth and clarity dept.
Isn't the sub pixel density much higher on the new samsung screens? If so, count me in. This phone is pretty good as is, has a great dev community and with a better screen and faster internals, what's not to like? Please don't say "lack of froyo on the fascinate," because it did take a long time, but we have it now.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Its not the "lack" of froyo, my friends refuse to mod their phone and they dont have it. Its the lack of support, I really used to like samsung, but in overall product I was really let down by this product.
I am taking it as far as I might not get one of their TVs now, I have a friend who had to get his replaced, and my dads 3D wont work. Just feels like samsung is falling down all around me.
To be released this month
What a slap in the face -- I just got my fascinate a week ago. lol.
Looks like the only way I'll ever see 2.3 (or anything official beyond 2.1) will be by buying up a GS2
nmyeti said:
Isn't the sub pixel density much higher on the new samsung screens? If so, count me in. This phone is pretty good as is, has a great dev community and with a better screen and faster internals, what's not to like? Please don't say "lack of froyo on the fascinate," because it did take a long time, but we have it now.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pixel density is claimed to be higher, but there was a side by side done with those screens, and it wasn't that much of a difference to the naked eye. I wouldn't get my hopes up....just sayin'
And you have to realize, we have it, and its floating around the internet now, but most users neither have the time or the know-how/balls to install something like that. Those are the people I truly feel sorry for, they're getting duped.
khanable said:
To be released this month
What a slap in the face -- I just got my fascinate a week ago. lol.
Looks like the only way I'll ever see 2.3 (or anything official beyond 2.1) will be by buying up a GS2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should have ~15 days to return the phone if you "don't like it", if you really want the second one that badly.
KitsuneKnight said:
You should have ~15 days to return the phone if you "don't like it", if you really want the second one that badly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm more than content with the phone.. esp with all the XDA dev love
I just have a horrible habit of buying tech and then a >month later a new version releases. lol.