Hey Guys,
I know the prime packs a tegra 3 chip but how does the screen compare to the Samsung galaxy tab 10.1?
Thanks
From Engadget...
What you have here is a 10-inch, 1280 x 800 display that manages a stunning brightness maxing out at 600 nits, handily topping what you'll find on most laptop panels and more than 50 percent higher than your average tablet panel. The luminosity is quite noticeable, and the contrast too, with deep darks and vibrant brights. However, color reproduction seemed a bit flat, with whites tending toward yellow and brighter hues coming up short.
There is no comparison. It's the best display out there hands down.
"However, color reproduction seemed a bit flat, with whites tending toward yellow and brighter hues coming up short."
how is this be the best display out there?
unless its someone who had both device side by side, it wouldnt be trustworthy as I'm curious too
i played with both briefly at gamestop, and the TFP display is much nicer than the tab10.1's.
they have similar color reproduction, but the prime's display is much brighter and seems more crisp.
not to knock the tab's display, as it's quite nice too, the prime's is just nicer.
i've owned a TF101, a tab10.1, a gtab, and an ipad1, so i've had prolonged usage for multiple displays, but side by side, i've only looked at the two for maybe 20 mins, so it's just a gut reaction kind of thing, but suffice to say, you will not be dissapointed in the prime's panel.
Justin^Tan said:
"However, color reproduction seemed a bit flat, with whites tending toward yellow and brighter hues coming up short."
how is this be the best display out there?
unless its someone who had both device side by side, it wouldnt be trustworthy as I'm curious too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several major reviewers said so. Also said best Android tablet out there. Some even went as far to say better than ipad2. It has one of the highest resolutions out now and has brightest display of all tablets. Yes, most did side by side comparisons and prime won. Prime uses more natural realistic looking colors vs. saturated cartoon looking colors of ipad 2 or galaxy.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
I have heard only good things about the display on the Prime from most reviewers- Most said that it was the best screen yet, on any tablet. The only one which I found to be somewhat perplexing is from Techradar:
"The Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime is not as bright, colourful, or crisp as the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, so if you plan to watch movies and view photos routinely, the Samsung is the better tablet.
In comparing the exact same videos and photos on both devices, the Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime has a slightly dull and washed out look. The Apple iPad 2 looks marginally better than the Prime (they both use IPS displays) but not as vivid as the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Clearly, Asus decided to make functionality a higher priority than superior colour reproduction."
There is a french web site (www.lesnumeriques.com) which reviewed the Transformer prime last week.
What's to know about thoses guys is that they review every kind of displays with a lot of care. They have probes, sensors, benchmark and every tools needed to measure how good a display really is. In a preview article they reviewed every tablet display on the market. They said the Samsung galaxy tab 10.1 screen, despite having unrealistic colors (artificially brighter and over saturated, general consommers love it) was overall the best display.
This time their verdict is simple: The Transformer Prime take the crown of the best Tablet display to date.
The review can be found here : http://www.lesnumeriques.com/tablette-tactile/asus-eeepad-tranformer-prime-clavier-p12303/test.html
Of course it's in french but i can translate you some interesting fact about this display.
The contrast ratio is 1224:1 it's the best amount all tablet, the original transformer was 814:1 (wich is bad) and the ipad2 is around 950:1.
It means deeper blacks and brighter whites.
The color accuraty isn't the best: It scores a 7,6 compare to the 4 of the RIM playbook. 3 being and excellent score. It means color aren't exactly on part with reality (not a big deal for a tablet if you ask me)
On the other side, the color temperature is quite excellent (5467 Kelvin) you won't get a weird blue or red display.
The brightness is fantastic, In normal IPS mode at maximum brightness you get a score of 387 nits wich is already amoung the best of its kind, but once you get into Super IPS+ mode, you crank up the brightness to 619 nits ! Which is on part with what Asus advertissed (over 600 nits) making this display the brighter ever made. What it means is that despit having a glossy glass cover the TFP is actually usable in daylight (the TF101 isn't, belive me, I tried). Of course it won't be as good as a E-ink screen but it s still a great improvement.
The "response time" (I'm guessing the translation here) of the screen is so-so with a 23 ms response time. It's worse than the ipad2's 17 ms and it's still miles away from a classic desktop screen (which are around 4-2 ms).
But Asus is displaying a black frame every 3 frames to make it looks smoother to the user eyes. It's a commun trick which works. You can actually catch this black frame on some recorded movie of the display, (like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk7t5ux8xPE) But you won't see it with your naked eyes.
And finaly the viewing angle are okay. No loss untill around 75° and then less and less contrasted color.
So, Maybe the Transformer Prime's Super IPS+ display doesn't look as cool as the Samsung or ipad2 one, but it doesn't mean it's worse. It means Asus doesn't cheat like Samsung and Apple do by showing you more eye pleasing pictures. Don't be fooled by marketing technique, we all love AMOLED screens cause they're awesome, but we all know how wrong they are. Well same story here.
intolaomair said:
Hey Guys,
I know the prime packs a tegra 3 chip but how does the screen compare to the Samsung galaxy tab 10.1?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Somebody should have asked this earlier, but why do you want to know? If you're buying your first tablet now, it makes no sense to get a high-end single-core that costs as much as the Prime (unless you want 3/4G). You're better off getting the Prime and as the reviewers have said the display is fine and really excels at being used in daylight.
If you already have a G-Tab there's no burning need to replace it so you'd be better off waiting for the pre-order madness to end and comparing for yourself side-by-side in a store. But if displays are your thing you should wait a couple of weeks any way. Both Acer and Lenovo are expected to announce quad-core tablets with1900x1200 resolution displays at CES on January 11th and the Acer's going to have 3/4G (if you care). They're both supposed to be available Q1 according to leaks. They'll also have more RAM (2GB) and ship with ICS. If you can wait even longer, Samsung's expected to announce a next-gen Exynos tablet with a whopping 2560x1600 resolution to compete with the iPad3. Asus has no competitive advantage with display technology as they and everyone else buy panels from other manufacturers. Samsung and Toshiba are the only two tablet manufacturers that build their own panels. Until the war, Samsung was Apple's primary display provider (they're moving to Sharp).
The Galaxy tab does run Tegra 2 dual-core processor. I'm actually using one right now. Screen is much brighter then your Xoom or the original Transformer and Acer A500 imho.
Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
So are we pretty much saying that colors won't "pop"? I was really looking forward to a tablet with a nice screen where colors looked vibrant and would appear to come off the screen. I also don't want my fiance to rub it in that her ipad2 looks better. Man ....
eL_777 said:
So are we pretty much saying that colors won't "pop"?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The colors on all Samsung displays, SAMOLED and LCD, tend to be exaggerated which most people equate with "pop." Some people like it, some don't. They changed the display design on the 10.1 in October and actually toned the color down a bit to make it seem more natural.
eL_777 said:
So are we pretty much saying that colors won't "pop"? I was really looking forward to a tablet with a nice screen where colors looked vibrant and would appear to come off the screen. I also don't want my fiance to rub it in that her ipad2 looks better. Man ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
It will be a awesome display as we may believe the reviews, better then the iPad screen. When its out, go see it for youself and check it, nothing more to say about it untill its out.
Put a fancy colorfull wallpaper and a high brightness and the Prime screen will be more than enough to make a good impression. The IPS screen of the TF101 is already pretty good at that.
It's the same size
I've compared the following pretty closely in day-to-day use:
1. Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 to my OG Transformer
2. Samsung Epic 4G Touch to my Motorola Photon
My conclusion, at least based on these two devices, is that if you like blown-out, over-saturated colors then you'll like Samsung screens. If you like more natural colors, then you won't. I like the screens on the Transformer and Photon better for some things than the Samsung screens, including ebook reading (the Samsungs tend to have colder (i.e., more blue) "whites," which provide less contrast and therefore a worse reading experience).
Note that the E4GT does have much better video than the Photon, but the same isn't true regarding the GT 10.1 and the TF.
It is a gorgeous screen believe me. I had the Gtab and this is brighter definitely plus very pretty
BarryH_GEG said:
The colors on all Samsung displays, SAMOLED and LCD, tend to be exaggerated which most people equate with "pop." Some people like it, some don't. They changed the display design on the 10.1 in October and actually toned the color down a bit to make it seem more natural.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google "red push".
All Samsung display devices are notoriously guilty of this. All mfgs are guilty, but Samsung's guilt is egregious.
HTC Thunderbolt | Samsung Galaxy 10.1
Waiting on Prime | Motorola Droid Razr
Here's the review I was talking about but in english this time
(digital-versus is the english version of lesnumeriques )
http://www.digitalversus.com/tablet...pad-transformer-prime-best-screen-n22330.html
Related
While sitting around waiting on a prime to actually (maybe never?) arrive, I hesitate slightly at the thought of the full HD becoming the standard resolution on tablets soon. Partly this seems silly to me as the storage capacities on tablets hardly seem up to the task of holding files for that resolution, and streaming options for full hd stuff is pretty limited currently.
So a few thoughts:
Anyone with a prime even feel any lack in the current resolution? I read no indication of such, and wonder if it will even be very noticeable side by side with a full HD tab
If it was magically 1900x1200ish now, what use would that serve for you?
A lot of people's first inclination is to question how well a tablet would perform at that resolution, but I'm confident it will be decent or manufacturers wouldn't be jumping at the idea of doing it.
Please see these:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1411063
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=20842748&postcount=20
Higher resolution tablets probably perform much "worse" than the Prime at least not as good
The only case I would want higher resolution screen is for web browsing, especially in portrait orientation where 720 pixel wide is not enough to have a clear reading experience.
Other than that I could not care less. 1080p video is a non sense on a tablet right now cause if you want a full quality movie at this definition you need a files of 11gb wich is a pain to find and take wait to much space. Anything below that, or streamed, isn't better than the quality of a good 720p movie of 4gb.
In games I wish the extra power could be use to make games look good with bigger environnement rather than pushing more pixel.
3D game still looks awfull on mobile due to the lack of good lightning effect (Glowball on Tegra3 is promising in this regard compare to the A5 but I'm guessing A6 will provide those too)
johnchad14 said:
While sitting around waiting on a prime to actually (maybe never?) arrive, I hesitate slightly at the thought of the full HD becoming the standard resolution on tablets soon. Partly this seems silly to me as the storage capacities on tablets hardly seem up to the task of holding files for that resolution, and streaming options for full hd stuff is pretty limited currently.
So a few thoughts:
Anyone with a prime even feel any lack in the current resolution? I read no indication of such, and wonder if it will even be very noticeable side by side with a full HD tab
If it was magically 1900x1200ish now, what use would that serve for you?
A lot of people's first inclination is to question how well a tablet would perform at that resolution, but I'm confident it will be decent or manufacturers wouldn't be jumping at the idea of doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a heated debate. The higher the PPI, the clearer everything displayed will be - especially text. It would also be able to display full 1080P. So if that's something you consider either good or important then a higher res screen's for you.
Those saying what the Prime has is good enough use two arguments. 1) The higher res will mean a performance hit and, 2) it will mean poor battery life.
Tablets with higher res screens so far all have been leaked to have 2GB of RAM. For all we know, the extra GB could be intended for graphics acceleration. As for battery life, a leak came out today about the tech Sharp is using for the iPad3. It's IGZO and has over 300PPI plus it's 30% more energy efficient. Sharp just converted a huge TV panel factory to produce phone and tablet displays and they're already supplying screens to all the big manufacturers. So if the tech is production ready enough for the iPad3 you could see it on more devices in the near future. I'm sure there will be some announcements at CES.
So let the debate rage on...
http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-reportedly-using-new-display-tech-for-ipad-3/
https://www.semiconportal.com/en/archive/news/main-news/sharp-to-introduce-new-igzo-te.html
If I'm not mistaken, these high-res panels are also in short supply. If that's true, then their price will be much higher. Short supply + high demand = higher prices. Simple economics. I'm also pretty sure that the 2GB RAM on the Android tablets is to accommodate a larger frame buffer, and the iPad 3 will have to have 1GB RAM over its current 512MB.
All that means significantly higher prices. I don't expect any of these higher-res and higher-RAM tablets rumored to come out to be anywhere near the price of the Prime. I think the iPad 3 will be significantly more expensive and the iPad 2 will remain as a "lower-price" option (and won't go any lower in price than the Prime at 32GB, or the OG Transformer at 16GB). The Android tablets will be priced at $599 or more for 32GB, and there will remain Prime-equivalent devices at $499 or less. Hell, if Samsung/Motorola/HTC come out with high-res versions, they'll probably be $899.
For me, $499 is the max I want to spend on a tablet by itself, and I'm also not terribly sure that I'd want a tablet without the ASUS keyboard dock concept. I sure wouldn't pay $599 for a Tegra 3-based tablet with 1900X1200 pixels to push--SOMETHING has to give performance-wise. And I also like the extra brightness of the IPS+ screen more than I want higher resolution.
So, in short, the Prime's resolution is fine for me. And the screen is just luscious--bright and with uncanny viewing angles. Could it be a bit higher-res, to make text a little sharper maybe? Sure, but I wouldn't want it so badly that I'd be willing to put up with lower performance.
I'm completely satisfied with Prime display. I thought my Ipad had a great display but the Prime shows its display is clearly the best out of any tablet today in the market. major reviewers said so also like Engadget and Anandtech. Prime display is even better than ipad 2. prime has more PPI than it. plus prime has the highest contrast ratio of any tablet and the brightest. plus the viewing angles on this device is sick! lol. everything looks great to me on the display. especially when I recorded 1081p video using the rear camera. I was amazed at the quality and detail of video and display. I think Tegra3 has hit the sweet spot/optimal spot with the Prime and its resolution. we get great performance and a great display with atatanding battery life. Prime has set the new standard and set the bar high for next generation tablets to compete at.
My personal opinion on this:
Prime's screen is totally perfect
Higher resolution will have some impacts which are:
You need better/brighter backlights to compensate the additional pixels
You have heaver battery drain due to more pixels
You need a better GPU (not only more RAM) to push all those pixels (not to talk about those crazy 2K and 4K screens)
Text is easier to read on 720p/1080p displays
I wouldn't see a difference between a 720p and a 1080p display in that size playing a movie
In order to use those screens for 1080p movies you'll need more than 32GB of memory (an average Bluray 1080p rip has about 10-15GB )
Those are my initial thoughts on that topic...
Conclusion: In my opinion 1080p screens are not worth the effort yet.
I think the notion of Full HD 1080p on a 10.1" tablet is all marketing talk.
Not only is it a waste as far as video playback goes not being able to see the detail in the HD given the small screen, it will also tax the device's processor trying to render everything to 1920x1080, I can see a desktop PC dual core CPU having no problem with, but a low-powered ARM CPU.
Notice most 1080p laptops aren't smaller than 15".
To me its about app compatibility.
As it is Android already has WAY less tablet apps than iOS- Android tablets are a secondary development platform. That means that High-Res Android tablets will be (at best) the third tablet development platform, which means not great support.
I have the same issue with the GNex. Sure a 720p screen in a phone is nice, but MANY MANY Android apps are made for WXGA. Some don't even fill the full screen at 720p, or their interface breaks down. Due to how few phones have 720ps screens initially by the time the app market is full of apps ready for 720p the GNex will be obsolete hardware.
Whoever buys these high-res Android devices is taking the hit for all of us. By being an early adopter these people will literally feel every growing pain of the Android market as it catches up to high-res screens.
Meanwhile I am trying to get on what I call a "Low PPI Plateau." Between my SGS2 and a Transformer Prime I will have the two most common Android resolutions with hardware meant to maximize those resolutions.
By the time I am ready to leave my Low PPI Plateau not only will the hardware will have caught up to high-res needs, but also the market will be full of compatible apps.
1080p and above screens on a panel that is ~10" will show modest improvements in clarity, moreso with text, but even then it's very marginal for the cost, battery, and performance hit those tablets are going to take.
hell, i have a 27" 1080p monitor and a second 1280x1024 17" secondary monitor and even that that size, the quality of the two screens are very similar.
i feel like 80% of the whole high res panel is just marketing and of course once apple increases their screen res, everyone and their mother NEEDS to have the highest resolution screen that can be pumped out and charged on to their credit cards.
kokusho said:
The only case I would want higher resolution screen is for web browsing, especially in portrait orientation where 720 pixel wide is not enough to have a clear reading experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 800, not 720. For me more problem is tiny letters than resolution while reading websites portrait on 800x1280 resolution.
Full HD resolution would be great for connecting to TV - you would have no rescaling then.
Best Resolution for Tablet
The TFP screen is about 1M pixels, and a full 1080p screen is over 2M pixels. So a processor would have to work 2x as hard to move the 1080p screen around as those in a 720p screen, roughly. That would show up as slowth, somewhere, or heat, or something. So you'd want to get some goodness out of that - it looked better,etc.
People are different. Some see like hawks, others with less resolution. Some people will have trouble seeing the difference between 720p and 1080p, at distance, whereas others will see a marked difference. I'm on the 720p is OK end of that spectrum.
I have noticed, that when lying in bed, that my tablet at viewing distance subtends about the same angle as the HD TV on the other side of the room. So, aside from focusing my eyes, 720p is pretty good for both.
As for the new Tegra3 tablets coming out, I'd rather have the power show up as frame rate, or image manipulation speed, or extra application processor cycles. I'm quite happy with the design center of the TFP, screenwise.
Goodness, this discussion again.
1) Let's hold off on making comments with an air of certitude about hypothetical products we know close to nothing about. OP, if you really want to know what the impact of a higher resolution screen is on the performance and battery life of a tablet, I suggest you wait until those products actually come into existence and feedback (from reviewers and consumers) on them actually exists. Sitting here making comments about how higher resolution is for sure going to kill performance and battery life is ridiculous. Tablet makers are not idiotic, of course they are going to bump up other specs in order to compensate; it's how tech always works. Companies always come out with some crazy spec and people wonder "can they really pull that off?" and a lot of times they do. It's the nature of tech. What would be appropriate to say is "I'm concerned about the challenge that higher resolution will present to battery life and performance". That's reasonable. It's not reasonable to instantly dismiss the challenge as impossible. I would suggest that these tablet makers are going to at least be aware of the challenges and try to meet them. See? I'm not going to guarantee one way or another what the ultimate outcome will be.
2) If 2nd gen tablets in 2012 manage to incorporate higher resolution without impacting battery life or performance, could that at all be a bad thing? The negativity in this thread about higher resolution is centered on the hypothetical side effects. But by itself, could higher resolution be possibly perceived as a bad thing? I'm not talking about the degree by which it is an improvement over what we already have (as everyone has their own opinion on how much of a difference a higher resolution display will have), I'm talking about purely if it's "better" or "worse". As to that, I don't understand how any logical person could say that higher resolution (in and of itself) is worse than what we currently have.
Cliffs notes: if you want to see how these high res tablets are going to be, wait till you can actually see what they actually will be. Sounds lame? Yeah. But true. Hypothetical discussions are fun and all, but they aren't anything you should make your decisions on. I would have gotten the Prime if I based my decision on the hypothetical discussions that I got myself all hyped over. For me, the real world Prime did not live up to the hypothetical Prime I really wanted. What it all boils down to is what the real world end product is, and that's what you should make a decision on.
The Janitor Mop said:
Goodness, this discussion again.
1) Let's hold off on making comments with an air of certitude about hypothetical products we know close to nothing about. OP, if you really want to know what the impact of a higher resolution screen is on the performance and battery life of a tablet, I suggest you wait until those products actually come into existence and feedback (from reviewers and consumers) on them actually exists. Sitting here making comments about how higher resolution is for sure going to kill performance and battery life is ridiculous. Tablet makers are not idiotic, of course they are going to bump up other specs in order to compensate; it's how tech always works. Companies always come out with some crazy spec and people wonder "can they really pull that off?" and a lot of times they do. It's the nature of tech. What would be appropriate to say is "I'm concerned about the challenge that higher resolution will present to battery life and performance". That's reasonable. It's not reasonable to instantly dismiss the challenge as impossible. I would suggest that these tablet makers are going to at least be aware of the challenges and try to meet them. See? I'm not going to guarantee one way or another what the ultimate outcome will be.
2) If 2nd gen tablets in 2012 manage to incorporate higher resolution without impacting battery life or performance, could that at all be a bad thing? The negativity in this thread about higher resolution is centered on the hypothetical side effects. But by itself, could higher resolution be possibly perceived as a bad thing? I'm not talking about the degree by which it is an improvement over what we already have (as everyone has their own opinion on how much of a difference a higher resolution display will have), I'm talking about purely if it's "better" or "worse". As to that, I don't understand how any logical person could say that higher resolution (in and of itself) is worse than what we currently have.
Cliffs notes: if you want to see how these high res tablets are going to be, wait till you can actually see what they actually will be. Sounds lame? Yeah. But true. Hypothetical discussions are fun and all, but they aren't anything you should make your decisions on. I would have gotten the Prime if I based my decision on the hypothetical discussions that I got myself all hyped over. For me, the real world Prime did not live up to the hypothetical Prime I really wanted. What it all boils down to is what the real world end product is, and that's what you should make a decision on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right. But it will going to be a huge impact for the processor, it is more then 2 times as much pixels the CPU/GPU will need to handle. It is just as with Windows; my old PC worked fine in games on a 1280x1024 screen but with 1920x1080 (around 1.7 as much pixels) it just couldn't handle it anymore. So i'm not sure if the Tegra3 is going to handle that, the GPU in it just isn't really good. It does its job at 1280x800, but I'm really concerned how that is gonna be on 1920x1200; are they gonna scale games back? If that would be the case they could just as well use the cheaper 1280x800 panel and let $100 off the price.
However this is all speculation I think it is gonna be this way.
Also I wouldn't want to have either a Acer or Lenovo product; Acer's build quality and support is just very bad (23,3% of their portable products are defect within 2 years in Europe) and for Lenovo I'm really wondering if they even going to give their tablets updates, also the price will be pretty high I guess, also pretty high defect rate as seen below.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Higher resolution tablets would be nice, provided that they have the hardware to push that many pixels without slowdown. I'm all for high DPI, and I'm disappointed that we rarely get high densities on desktop monitors.
However, I don't think that a display resolution higher than 1280x800 would really add to the use-case of a tablet. It's not going to allow you to do things you couldn't otherwise do, and the DPI is already acceptably high to display plenty of information on screen. Higher DPI would allow for crisper graphics and text, which I'd definitely like to have, but it's already good enough that it becomes a "nice to have" feature rather than any kind of "must-have" for me.
I don't imagine that these putative high-DPI tablets will have a keyboard dock accessory like the Prime, and, for me, that's a "must-have".
>If I'm not mistaken, these high-res panels are also in short supply. If that's true, then their price will be much higher.
As yields get better over time, price will come down. So cost is a function of time. You're probably right for the initial crop, although I'd quibble over the "much higher" amount. Pricing constraints exist.
Much depends on pricing of 2012 iPad(s), since iPad pricing is literally the reference price for the rest of the tablet market. Apple didn't raise pricing for the iPhone 4 or iPod Touch when those got the Retina Display. From this, the guess is that the iPad $500 benchmark price will still apply for base 2012 model.
If the iPad3 has 2048x1536 res and is $500, Android vendors can't sell their tablets for lower res (1920x1200) at a higher price.
Low-end 10" Android tablets in 2012 will be around USD$350. That's the current price for the Xoom Family (down-specced Xoom), and announced price for the Acer A200 (down-specced A500). Then, there's enough room ($150) to shoehorn in a hi-res display, even if you have to cut corners elsewhere.
That said, Acer & others probably don't care much about the Android tablet market, given its lackluster market reception thus far. PC vendors--Acers/Asus/Dell/HP/et al--will be concentrating on Win8 tablets, since that has a huge existing userbase. Secondly, Win8 tabs aren't as constrained by iPad pricing, as they can do more, eg content creation.
>$499 is the max I want to spend on a tablet by itself
Yes, $500 has become the reference price for most consumers. That comes from the iPad pricing. I'd limit this mindset to "content-consumption" tablets, ie iOS and Android currently.
>Prime's screen is totally perfect
A widget is "perfect" until a better/faster widget comes along. As Jobs has succinctly stated, consumers don't know what they want until they see it.
>You need a better GPU
Teg3 can already run 1080p movies, which place a much higher demand on system resources than pushing around pixels on a UI. If the OS is sluggish, then it's an OS problem, which is the case for HC.
>You have heaver battery drain due to more pixels
This may be true. From the Russian rumor, the Acer A700 has a 10Ah battery, whereas the Prime's battery is 7.4V, 3.38Ah. I'm assuming the voltage for the Acer is 3.7V. Then, the A700 has a 37Wh vs the Prime's 25Wh batt, or roughly 50% more capacity.
>Notice most 1080p laptops aren't smaller than 15"
Tablets are held closer to your eyes, hence they can use higher res. Tablets are also used as e-readers; higher res = sharper text = less eye fatigue.
>To me its about app compatibility.
Android is already awashed with many different screen res. That's why the big emphasis in ICS for res-independent apps.
>The negativity in this thread about higher resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
JoeyLe said:
You're right. But it will going to be a huge impact for the processor, it is more then 2 times as much pixels the CPU/GPU will need to handle. It is just as with Windows; my old PC worked fine in games on a 1280x1024 screen but with 1920x1080 (around 1.7 as much pixels) it just couldn't handle it anymore. So i'm not sure if the Tegra3 is going to handle that, the GPU in it just isn't really good. It does its job at 1280x800, but I'm really concerned how that is gonna be on 1920x1200; are they gonna scale games back? If that would be the case they could just as well use the cheaper 1280x800 panel and let $100 off the price.
However this is all speculation I think it is gonna be this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're fine to say you're afraid it might be that way. It's the people saying with absolute certainty that it will be that way that are out of line.
Personally, I'm not too excited for this Acer or Lenovo tablet either. If they're rocking the same GPU the Prime has, I'm probably not buying either. My ultimate interest is in what Samsung comes out with in 2012. I just like their approach. And I have a feeling they are going to come out with killer specs based on early information. If anyone can pull off higher resolution (and the rumored resolution is VERY high), I think it would be a company with the size of Samsung. And as I said before, I'm going to wait to see how it actually performs before I judge it.
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
I think a lot of this discussion centers around people trying to justify their current Prime purchase, instead of waiting for the next greatest thing. The tablets that come out next year will probably be better than the Prime, in many aspects. Including beautiful high resolution screens where no pixel is discernable. Of course I would love one. But my Prime is suiting me well right now, and I don't *need* a higher resolution screen. And I don't want to play the waiting game for another tablet, because I needed one right now. That's that.
Guess we'll see!
tbns said:
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
I think a lot of this discussion centers around people trying to justify their current Prime purchase, instead of waiting for the next greatest thing. The tablets that come out next year will probably be better than the Prime, in many aspects. Including beautiful high resolution screens where no pixel is discernable. Of course I would love one. But my Prime is suiting me well right now, and I don't *need* a higher resolution screen. And I don't want to play the waiting game for another tablet, because I needed one right now. That's that.
Guess we'll see!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To see no pixel at 10.1" the average person would need far more then 1920x1200. This "only" gives a DPI of 224.17. 1280x800 gives 149.45. The iPad 1 and 2 have 131.96. (The higher the better). A average person can't see the pixels at a DPI of 320.
JoeyLe said:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love stats and don't consider myself either a fan or a detractor of Asus. But what you posted isn't relevant unless we're having a conversation specifically about laptops. Desktops, mobos, and tablet results could be very different and are most likely produced in different facilities. Also, there's no timeframe on your chart and one or two bad product launches (Asus' or others) can skew the results tremendously. Nice chart though.
---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------
tbns said:
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's human nature to defend your choices and purchases. Right up until the time you don't.
So I was at CES Thursday and Friday and tried to visit most of the tablet boots and have played with several tablets with qualcomm snapdragon s4, Intel atom, Omap and I few other chinese branded ones. And by far the smoothest and fastest out of all of them was the tegra 3 devices. In particular the Acer a510. TFP IMO comes in 2nd. Acer is super smooth did not lag nor stutter. TFP I do see some stutter from time to time and flicking through home screen is faster and but not as butter smooth as the a510. I'm not sure how to explain it better. It seems to be better hardware accelerated.
Iconia A510 (charges though some micro usb I havent seen before that you can plug the regular charger or micro usb. The charging adapter had a rating of 12v output.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
They were demoing a game at the qualcomm booth running snapdragon s4 and I was surprised at how it stuttered and was not very smooth via HDMI. I recorded this since this was the processor I was looking forward to being one of the best out there.
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jhiyYIfu7Y&list=UUHqepxR6_suYYKySqKxymDg&index=2&feature=plcp
I didnt record the TFP showing Shadowgun via HDMI since most of us know how super smooth that is. I'll see if I have a video of the a510 though. I did record however this ZTE 7 (7inch tablet) by ZTE with Tegra 3. I assume this is how the 7 inch prime is going to be as far as performance (I never found the asus 7 prime anywhere).
ZTE 7
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIFnjHkGCY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Fujitsu tablets were water proof but wow it is laggy as heck. I didn't spend a lot of time there and kinda made fun of a staff who didn't even know what OS it was running. lol. She was damn hot though. Didnt get a pic of her unfortunately.
Also checked out the Archos tablets. I was a fan of archos before and had own an a70t. But even with ICS their new tablets are really awful slow IMO.
So anyway just thought I'd share this with you guys and be happy that we have tegra 3 devices.
I've always said 2012 will be the year of The Prime & Tegra3. That new Acer looks kinda bulky. not as sexy looking as the prime. Thanks for the info. I wish you would've pulled the apk for that BladeSlinger demo..lol. what was the name of that fighting game that was playing on Snapdragon devices? Qualcimm trying to copy Nvidia Tegrazone and coming with a gaming site app for their chips also.
So if you said the snapdragons were laggy, then new 7 in. Memo from Asus may not be a good buy. its going tl have the same snapdragon chips in them I believe. it will be dual core in the memo. plus memo will only have a regular Tft Ips screen. not Super IPS + like in the prime. plus memo will be 3g.
edit: your video links aren't working. it goes to YouTube then says sorry Malformed video ID or something
The acer is slightly thicker but not by much. it only looks like it cause of the edges is not as tapered as the Prime. But center thickness is almost the same to me. I do like that it was more comfortable to hold since the edges didnt feel sharp on your palms. But yea definitely prime is slicker looking. As far as the Demo game it crashed on me a lot and wasnt playable after the video intro. So prob wasnt worth grabbing.
I'm not sure what that game was on the snapdragon device. The also had mc3 on the other side via HDMI and it was laggy too. With the Asus 7 inch prime I'm pretty sure its tegra 3 (every Nvidia rep told me that anyway) so we dont have to worry about it being laggy. If its anything like that zte 7 then it should be pretty fast.
Ill recheck the videos...
There are two memo models coming. One with Tegra3
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Well thinner isn't always better. For me anyways. I kinda like a little meat
on the tab. Feels solid. For that size though you would think they would have
a full size USB port?? Or did they do away with that? I seen they had the
A700 out as well. Looks like some nice hardware.
Specs on the 7in. Asus Memo pad that has Dual Core 1.2Ghz Snapdragon
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2938&c=asus_eee_pad_memo_3d_me370t_32gb
demandarin said:
Specs on the 7in. Asus Memo pad that has Dual Core 1.2Ghz Snapdragon
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2938&c=asus_eee_pad_memo_3d_me370t_32gb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I shouldve been more clear with my post. I was referring to this one.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/asus-eee-pad-memo-370t/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398672,00.asp
I"m on the market for a tablet and am definitely considering the Transformer as I can take the keyboard to school and use it to take notes easier.
However, I do like the look, and price of the transformer prime and would prefer a smoother UI than the 1080p screen of the Prime 700t (unless the HD screen look THAT amazing)
Did tegra 3 run smoothly on the 1080p tablets? And also are the wireless issues THAT bad on the tf201 that would encourage me to buy the 700t?
mikeymop said:
Did tegra 3 run smoothly on the 1080p tablets? And also are the wireless issues THAT bad on the tf201 that would encourage me to buy the 700t?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not so sure about the 1080p ones as they didn't have any of them out for display. It mightve been in one of the rooms but didn't get a chance to find them. I was really looking for the asus 7 inch 370t with tegra 3. My first time at CES so I really didnt know where to go.
Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO. Its gonna be mostly bragging rights and to the naked eye its probably gonna be hard to dicern the difference. And its most likely going to use more processing hence use more battery power. Then you have to worry about app compatibility and either wait for app to catch up or some cases apps might not ever be updated. There are already several threads about prime vs t700 so maybe you may want to give those threads a visit if you want others opinions between the 2 devices.
Re: Acer Iconia A510 - Did you check with an Acer rep and find out why they only showed it in the Nvidia booth? Don't Acer have their own booth?
Re: Asus 370T - Ditto. Should've buttonholed an Asus rep and get the low-down on it.
Anyway, both should be out in Q2 as announced, unless something happens.
>Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO.
One can say the same thing about the Tegra 3. Should you need a quadcore just to have a smooth UI?
I mainly read texts in portrait mode on a 1024x600 7". ePubs are OK, but PDFs suck, as is web browsing. Resolution (169 dpi) is too low for the size. Was gonna give up on 7", but the upcoming 1280x800 (215 dpi) should make 7" viable again for my use.
I think that's what it boils down to. For text, 1080p on 10.1" (also 215 dpi) is better. For graphics/games, 720p is better. Regardless, 1080p will become the standard res once supply ramps up, one, because everybody needs to keep up with the iPad, and two, like you said, it's "nice to have" even though you don't actually need it (like you don't actually need a quadcore).
e.mote said:
Re: Acer Iconia A510 - Did you check with an Acer rep and find out why they only showed it in the Nvidia booth? Don't Acer have their own booth?
Re: Asus 370T - Ditto. Should've buttonholed an Asus rep and get the low-down on it.
Anyway, both should be out in Q2 as announced, unless something happens.
>Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO.
One can say the same thing about the Tegra 3. Should you need a quadcore just to have a smooth UI?
I mainly read texts in portrait mode on a 1024x600 7". ePubs are OK, but PDFs suck, as is web browsing. Resolution (169 dpi) is too low for the size. Was gonna give up on 7", but the upcoming 1280x800 (215 dpi) should make 7" viable again for my use.
I think that's what it boils down to. For text, 1080p on 10.1" (also 215 dpi) is better. For graphics/games, 720p is better. Regardless, 1080p will become the standard res once supply ramps up, one, because everybody needs to keep up with the iPad, and two, like you said, it's "nice to have" even though you don't actually need it (like you don't actually need a quadcore).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't really check with Acer (not sure if they had a booth). All the Halls were so massive that it got very cumbersome trying to walk back and forth. So whatever I remembered I visited. Didn't dawn on me to look for Acer.
Asus 370t - went back on friday to hunt Acer booth down. They had a very tiny booth but no one was in it. Just display of a prime, processors, and forgot what else (no 370t for sure) but whatever they had were behind glass. I was new to CES so I didn't know where to go from there. I really wanted to see this thing in person too. After CES was over then I thought maybe theyre in one of the rooms. But it was too late...CES was over....
Nvidia reps had no ETA on when Acer a510 nor the 370t will be released. Makes sense since theyre just the processor manufacturer.
Screen res IMO only matters with screen 32 inches and up. How clear do you really need a text to be. My laptop is 15 inch and is 1280x800 and its perfect for when I surf or play some games on it. But I remember when I used to have a celeron processor and hated it. I couldnt run alot of games and it was slow. I'm a gamer so for me Id rather have faster processor than higher res screen unless ofcouse were talking tvs that are 40" and up. Also advantage of quadcore is HDMI out to your TV. I have a Tegra2 acer a100 and its choppy on my TV. It's like watching a low frame rate movie. Compared the prime which barely lags at all. Not only when scrolling and such but opening/closing apps and even watching movies over HDMI. Everything just runs as it should with quad core. Now the real question is, do we really need anything higher than quadcore?
First, thanks for the report and the pics & vids.
>Screen res IMO only matters with screen 32 inches and up.
Discernible resolution depends on viewing distance. TVs' are 6-10' typical; desktop monitors about 2-3'; laptops probably 18-24"; tablets 12-18"; phones 12" or less.
It also depends on what's displayed. TVs display movies--moving graphics--and the eyes have a harder time discerning fine details, as comparing to, say, static black text on white background.
As said, 1080p-on-10" matters more for readers than gamers. But if display is migrated (via HDMI) to a large-screen TV, then 1080p is desirable for everyone. Low-framerate concern should be resolved with faster SoCs--and they're progressing at a pretty fast pace, thanks to competition.
One can say HDMI-connection is a small part of tablet use, which is true for now. But there are upcoming techs that will allow wireless connections to TVs (Intel WiDi, or even 802.11ac), so TV connections will be much more convenient, therefore more popular in the near future. (The TF700 will not have high-speed wireless, so this argument is more about "future tablets" than the TF700 specifically.)
Really, there is no dispute that a higher res is desirable for everyone. While you may not see a use for higher res currently, we're only scratching the surface of the tablet's potential functionality. Recall Gate's "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote. If there's a point to argue, it'll be how much a 1080p tab is worth. Asus says it's +$100. I think the final say will lie with the iPad 3. It will determine pricing for the rest of the market.
>My laptop is 15 inch and is 1280x800
This brings up another point, which is that all of the above is about functionality. But whether a product gets feature X is more about increased SELLABILITY, rather than about increased functionality. Increased resolution is a very good selling point for tablets, as it's simple to understand. Most all TVs now are 1080p, even on small sets where one can't see the difference. Vendors can't sell 720p sets any more.
Laptops could have better res. One reason that they don't is that screen res was never a selling point, for whatever reason. It's mainly CPU.
It's different for tablets, because Apple is the standard bearer. Other vendors are trying to beat it on specs, since they can't (yet) compete on ecosystem. Once iPad goes to QXGA as expected, every vendor will have to follow, or risk being perceived as inferior (even more than they are now). This is regardless of whatever functionality the higher res offers. In short, Apple sets the standard.
To reiterate, there is a real functionality benefit for 1080p-on-10" now--for reading. Sharper text = less eye strain. (BTW, one casualty of the increased res will be e-ink, which is already suffering in sales relative to color Nooks and Kindle Fire.) I think e-reading will be an increasingly more popular use, given the ongoing migration to e-books. Apple's e-textbook announcement today underlines this sea change.
smoothness > resolution. Thats how it is for me.
High dpi surely is nice for text, but one of the biggest advantages over paper is that you can adjust the size of the text to you liking. And i like big letters. Smaller text profits much more from higher resolutions than when you zoom in anyway. Another point where i dont need 1080p on 10.1".
I played 320x240 software rendered games on my PC with a 17" CRT back in the days. I can take 1280x800 on 10.1" anytime
Retina display is just a marketing thing imho. Yeah you can hold the thing directly in front of your eye and dont see pixels. But you will never do that while actually using the device.
Smoothness is something that you notice everytime as soon as you start the device. But in my opinion smoothness has much more to do with good software optimization than with hardware. I have used a lot of different roms on my DesireHD with 1ghz singlecore cpu. I used some roms that were very minimalistic and still totally laggy. Right now i have a bloated sense 3.5 port on it and its iphone-ish smooth all the time. Only because of tweaks and software optimization from the rom chefs.
Prime will have bootloader unlock tool -> it will have custom roms -> win.
I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does. Snapdragon SoC's are the only reason why I'm not pulling the trigger on any LTE phones.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
xAnimal5 said:
I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does. Snapdragon SoC's are the only reason why I'm not pulling the trigger on any LTE phones.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good move. If you haven't heard the government actually trying to shut down LTE/4g networks. It interferes too much with other frequencies. It really interferes with BT. The companies were supposed to come up with a solution but all of the so called solutions have been disapproved so far by government.
>I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does.
What current games or apps are there that can't be run acceptably on a Krait, as versus, say, a Tegra 3? When you say underperform, are you talking about strictly benchmark differences?
>smoothness > resolution
With current Android, smoothness isn't so much a function of resolution as it is a function of the OS maturity. Many of the things you mentioned are UI-related, and it shouldn't take a quadcore to get a smooth UI.
>you can adjust the size of the text to you liking. And i like big letters.
By reading, I'm referring to long-form reading, eg books & periodicals. If you adjust font size for larger, many hard-layout texts will need larger than the display size, which in turn would need panning. You can't do the zoom/pan thing for every page of a book, as opposed to a web page.
As you said, that's where higher res has the most benefit in allowing smaller texts to still be legible, and not requiring panning.
In thinking about it, Apple's push into e-textbooks makes more sense, in that confirms the iPad3's higher resolution. E-textbooks with hard layouts would be a poor experience with the iPad's current 1024x768 res.
>Retina display is just a marketing thing imho.
Many aspects are marketing influenced, and have little to do with functionality--eg the Prime's aluminum shell. It looks and feels "more quality" than plastic, hence marketing dictates it will sell better. But it functions worse than plastic. In that sense, arguing about functionality is somewhat academic and not reflective of how product decisions are made.
I'm feeling somewhat disappointed on Asus's decision to move the transformer towards the direction the ipad is taking by making slight hardware changes and massively bumping up the display.
I remember when apple invented the 'retina display' buzzword for ips panels a few years ago - marketing them as having the most pixels your eyes can see from a holding distance. Now apple is keeping the tablet the same size and bumping up the pixel density 4 times with suspected plans of marketing that as being better. How? They've already stated more pixels would be redundant.
At this point the tablet to buy isn't looking like the ipad 3 or the tf700, lenovo is sweeping in with the ideapad k2 to offer more hardware changes (usb on the tablet, 1.7ghz t3, fingerprint scanner, possible keyboard dock) as well as a high def display.
What kind of change will these displays provide? Drastic?
Cons
decreased battery life slight
slightly decreased performance..
more screen defects ( however you would never notice a dead pixel! being so small)
higher cost of the tablet most high resolution tablets will start at 599 including the iPad3
most people will not be able to tell the difference
Media in that format (2k) would fill your 32gbs so quickly!
Less vivid colors/contrast ratio/refresh rate? (correct me if I am wrong)
Pro's
about Twice the amount of pixels! (4x the pixels in the case of the iPad3)
sharper text!
better looking movies if you can fit them on the tablet!
Bragging rights?
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Can you actually see the pixel difference on a 1920x1200 screen over the primes?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've counted them (the pixels) and the difference is that the count took two times as long!
But seriously, there is a point when it would be hard to see a difference, where more pixels would NOT really make a clearer screen.
I was offered a full refund on my prime and dock and am thinking about taking it... and seeing what MWC has to offer... maybe the samsung galaxy note 10.1 or something else lenovo maybe.....
maybe they will pull something off and release a Nexus tab
or windows 8......
idk what to do but I want this things headaches gone.....
Wordlywisewiz said:
I was offered a full refund on my prime and dock and am thinking about taking it... and seeing what MWC has to offer... maybe the samsung galaxy note 10.1 or something else lenovo maybe.....
maybe they will pull something off and release a Nexus tab
or windows 8......
idk what to do but I want this things headaches gone.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Useless post...
Sent from my ROOTED Transformer Prime
Yes
10char
Wordlywisewiz said:
I was offered a full refund on my prime and dock and am thinking about taking it... and seeing what MWC has to offer... maybe the samsung galaxy note 10.1 or something else lenovo maybe.....
maybe they will pull something off and release a Nexus tab
or windows 8......
idk what to do but I want this things headaches gone.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am sorry that you are having problems with the Prime. However nothing you have said is actually relevant to the conversation that this thread was started with. Please try to keep on-topic, there are plenty of other threads where you can discus your tablet problems.
With regards to pixel density... it very much depends on how you use your Prime. If you read a lot on the Prime and have noticed pixelation in small text, then yes, upping the pixel density would improve your tablet experience. If you mainly watch videos then you probably won't notice the extra pixels on the size of screen that the Prime has.
The exact same debate took place when 1080P TV's came out. People that already bought 720P used the same defenses as to why 1080P TV's are overkill. 80% of high-def TV's sold last year were 1080P. Does anyone not think Apple's going to spend a gazillion dollars convincing the world life as we know will end if you don't have a retina (HD) display? Asus, Acer, and Samsung aren't introducing HD displays because it's practical, it's to combat Apple. How many of you expect your next phone to be qHD or 720P? And its only got a 4-5" display. Whether you personally care or not, tablets with HD displays are going to become the norm (potentially impacting the resale value of those that don't have it).
Wordlywisewiz said:
Cons
decreased battery life slight
slightly decreased performance..
more screen defects ( however you would never notice a dead pixel! being so small)
higher cost of the tablet most high resolution tablets will start at 599 including the iPad3
most people will not be able to tell the difference
Media in that format (2k) would fill your 32gbs so quickly!
Less vivid colors/contrast ratio/refresh rate? (correct me if I am wrong)
Pro's
about Twice the amount of pixels! (4x the pixels in the case of the iPad3)
sharper text!
better looking movies if you can fit them on the tablet!
Bragging rights?
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is 1920x1200 = 2k?
And because the prime has that resolution doesn't mean there will be a lot of content using the extra 120 pixels lol.
it will be 1080p content with black bars on top and bottom, no difference in file sizes at all.
I guess it depends. In my opinion its all about what you're used to. For example, i'm used to gaming on a PC. There you use Anti-Aliasing on the games in 1080p, so i'm used to perfectly sharp images without any jagged edges. If I see the same games on a Xbox i always think the graphics are horrible, while most people think there are some amazing looking games on the xbox...
And i used to play Tomb Raider 1 on my old PC in 320x240 on a 15" CRT monitor. That was bad dpi. I still enjoyed it very much
So atm i have a 27" PC/TV combo monitor with 1080p. Thats what my eyes are used to. So my prime looks sharper to me than my PC monitor, and i think my PC monitor is more than sharp enough i hope you see now where i'm getting. I also cant tell the difference in dpi from my 800x480 4.3" phone to the iphone display...
What i'm trying to say, no one needs that kind of resolution. Its just nice to have, and once you got used to it, you probably dont wanna go back. All things aside, I think the Prime's screen is absolutely beautiful.
So if I had to compare 2 devices with different resolution the one very sharp, the other very very sharp I would look on all the other features first.
For example if the TF700T would have like 1 hour less battery life and would be heavier i'd still go for the Prime.
If we're talking RUMOURED ipad 3 resolution, well just think about this. Watching movies in that resolution (you first had to get them somehow, as far as i know all movies are max 1920x1080 today?) would be pretty sharp right. But because of a screen format that hasnt been used anymore since 10 years you will only be using a very small part of that screen to actually watch that movie.
Now everyone has to decide for themselfs, but for me there are FAR FAR more important features than resolution (especially if the difference is barely visable for me).
But people have spent huge amount of money on unuseful tech for lesser reasons
Off course yu can see the difference. Just take a look at your phone display(800*480 or higher), you'll notice that it's much sharper than any tablet screen.
The biggest "problem" of resolutions that high is that the graphics processor has to deal with much more pixels(in our case 2304000(1920*1200)/10024000(1280*800)=2,25 times).
In the case of games this could mean games running at less than half the speed(FPS), assuming it has the same CPU/GPU combination.
YoMarK said:
Off course yu can see the difference. Just take a look at your phone display(800*480 or higher), you'll notice that it's much sharper than any tablet screen.
The biggest "problem" of resolutions that high is that the graphics processor has to deal with much more pixels(in our case 2304000(1920*1200)/10024000(1280*800)=2,25 times).
In the case of games this could mean games running at less than half the speed(FPS), assuming it has the same CPU/GPU combination.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it won't have the exact same GPU, and the iPad 2 has a pretty ridiculously powerful PowerVR GPU. However I question Apple's choice to use GPUs that tend to focus on polygon performance instead of fill rate performance particularly when they're looking to dramatically increase screen resolution.
Apple is running out of things to say is best with the iPad / iPhone short of gimmicks like Siri and "retina" displays. They're going to pay for it in other areas though, they're going to need to have a GPU with a killer fill rate, and though the current SGX543MP2 can probably manage, doubtless they'll cram something that eats even more power into the iPad 3.
The thing that most Apple users don't know is that most of the tablet apps they'll be buying off the market won't make use of the high resolution or the processor, as the majority will have been built to run on the now-comparatively-pathetic iPad 1. At least we're seeing THD apps that make use of the additional processing power our tablets have to offer. I've yet to hear of Apple app developers doing the same, though I assume it'll have to happen at some point.
And finally, to answer the question of the OP, I highly doubt there will be any noticeable difference at the distance most of us hold a tablet. It's a little different for the iPhone; with a 3.5 inch screen you have to hold it a lot closer if you're reading text because it's that much smaller. Comparing smartphone display resolution to tablet display resolution is rather pointless as we hold them at different distances from our face depending upon the size of the display and the text / images on the screen.
Holding my TFP at its general 2-foot viewing distance, I'm hard pressed to make out any individual pixels, and my vision is 20/20. I won't be trading in my TFP for an iPad because of of difference in pixel density I may never even notice!
ickkii said:
I'm feeling somewhat disappointed on Asus's decision to move the transformer towards the direction the ipad is taking by making slight hardware changes and massively bumping up the display.
I remember when apple invented the 'retina display' buzzword for ips panels a few years ago - marketing them as having the most pixels your eyes can see from a holding distance. Now apple is keeping the tablet the same size and bumping up the pixel density 4 times with suspected plans of marketing that as being better. How? They've already stated more pixels would be redundant.
At this point the tablet to buy isn't looking like the ipad 3 or the tf700, lenovo is sweeping in with the ideapad k2 to offer more hardware changes (usb on the tablet, 1.7ghz t3, fingerprint scanner, possible keyboard dock) as well as a high def display.
What kind of change will these displays provide? Drastic?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I personally think that for most people these super high resolutions on small screens are pretty pointless. Maybe it's because I'm 35 and don't have the same vision I did 15 years ago
All I know is I'm perfectly happy with 1920 x 1080 on my 70 inch TV
Of course you can... but who cares?
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
pdanders said:
All I know is I'm perfectly happy with 1920 x 1080 on my 70 inch TV
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think from what distance you look at your TV. And then think from what distance you look at your tablet. Compare the relative sizes of the devices in your field of view. I use 23 inch screen for movies but I look at it from 50cm - it's bigger then than typical cinema screen (I'm nearsighted so I like it that way).
pdanders said:
I personally think that for most people these super high resolutions on small screens are pretty pointless. Maybe it's because I'm 35 and don't have the same vision I did 15 years ago
All I know is I'm perfectly happy with 1920 x 1080 on my 70 inch TV
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man you have the 70 lol? I was happy as hell when i got my 60" Samsung Smart TV a few months ago. Then they had to go and introduce the 70" & 80" Sharp LED's! Damn you Sharp hahaha!
I told my GF 60" is the biggest ill ever have to go. WRONG!
Wordlywisewiz said:
Cons
decreased battery life slight
slightly heavily decreased performance (compared to smaller displays)
more screen defects ( however you would never notice a dead pixel! being so small)
higher cost of the tablet most high resolution tablets will start at 599 including the iPad3
most people will not be able to tell the difference
Media in that format (2k) would fill your 32gbs so quickly! I think there is not even any 2K media (like cinema films) for end users available.
Less vivid colors/contrast ratio/refresh rate? (correct me if I am wrong)
Pro's
about Twice the amount of pixels! (4x the pixels in the case of the iPad3)
sharper text!
better looking movies if you can fit them on the tablet! You won't see that at "movie-distance"
Bragging rights?
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Corrected for you
Vcolassi said:
Man you have the 70 lol? I was happy as hell when i got my 60" Samsung Smart TV a few months ago. Then they had to go and introduce the 70" & 80" Sharp LED's! Damn you Sharp hahaha!
I told my GF 60" is the biggest ill ever have to go. WRONG!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now imagine if a TV of those size existed in the 1990s. It would weigh nearly a ton, resolution would be 640x480, and would probably cost about $3,999 dollars since anything over 36 inches was unheard of.
removed
10characters
The difference will be noticeable, but it's up to you whether you care enough to pay another 100 [insert currency here]. Was actually slightly disappointed with the display quality when viewing text on the TFP, but perhaps I'm just being ultra-picky. Can't be bothered to wait another 6 months at this point though.
I'd like to hear from people who currently own the SIII or have compared it directly to a HTC One X and iPhone 4 or 4S.
Specifically what I'd really like to know is how the screens of these devices compare to each other. From personal experience, I find the screen of the iPhone 4 and 4S to be a bluish hue whereas the One X has a wonderfully white display. (When both devices are at full brightness with auto brightness disabed.)
I'd like to know if anyone has experience comparing the SIII screen to the 4/4S and/or the One X. What I can tell from comparision videos so far is that the SIII has a bluish screen (a la the iPhone) compared to the One X.
Also, the issue the One X has with multitasking is well documented by now. Does the SIII share this issue?
Thank you in advance for any answers. After seeing the leaked next gen iPhone pics, I'm seriously contemplating getting the SIII when it comes to AT&T.
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
lamenramen said:
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As someone who has compared the iPhone 4 and One X screens side by side, I agree entirely with your assessment. (I do think the One X has a definitive edge overall compared to the iPhone 4 screen.) However I think you'd need to see the SIII in person before making any assessments regarding it's quality. The impression I'm getting from HD YouTube videos is that the SIII screen possess a bluish hue, a la iPhone 4/4S, however the pentile display does not seem to produce a great deal of pixelation as I originally feared.
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
plisk3n said:
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Screen aside, I don't like the One X. Multitasking issues. Camera bump on the back. Prefer the hardware home buttons of the iPhone and SIII.
Htc one x screen is awful. Is clean yes but colors r not natural. White is not clear white whilr black is grey.
I own both and I will say this:
The One X screen is amazing. It is pin sharp. Fonts looks amazing. Colours are very natural and look good. (Sorry Totòòò, I disagree with you, perhaps your screen was faulty)
But, the Galaxy is better in 9/10 ways. It's near impossible to notice the pentile matrix. You have to zoom in on a font to even notice, beyond regular reading levels. The One X screen is just that bit more sharp, where in the above scenario, you still cannot make out any dots. EDIT: Although I have found that different fonts yield different results. For example, the font used in the stock browser looks really good, even when zoomed in a fair bit. The font used in Chrome Beta, does not. I notice the pentile matrix a lot more when using this font.
The galaxy S3 screen has deeper colours (if you've seen AMOLED before you know what I mean), and I find it more pleasurable to look at.
The only detractor with the S3, is that when scrolling text on white backgrounds (e..g web pages), and scrolling it fast, the fonts tend to blur a little bit due to the pentile matrix. When you stop scrolling, the fonts are pin sharp. The One X did not suffer from this.
Overall (and believe me I am picky about my screens) I find the S3 screen to *just* have the edge over the One X screen, due to the fact the colours being that little bit more pleasurable to look at.
Of course, this is all subjective. YMMV. At the end of the day they are both very good screens.
One X shty multi is the same as Sensations, totally a disaster. Plus closed case, cannot change acu, no microsd and huge slowness. Seriously this phone sucks. SGS3 on the other hand, like SGS2 do not have such problems.
Damn, i want my gs3 what is going on with Samsung,is there anyone who got the pepple blue in EU delivered.
Sorry guys,of topic i know
No there's noone, because Samsung stopped deliverys of blue one for around three weeks! Get a white one, it's hot!
Wysyłane z mojego GT-I9300 za pomocą Tapatalk 2
Hi All,
I'm currently using Tab S4, but I want to switch to S7 11 inches. As we all know there is a LCD display.
Generally AMOLED is better, but do I see big difference between these two? I could order S7+, but it is just too big for me.
Can you please advise? I don't want to be disappointed every time I look on my new tablet.
Thanks
personally i would go amoled anyday. lcd the blacks will look dark grey.
Accustomed to the AMOLED display now going back to a LCD... eeh. Since i like having most of my stuff in dark mode anyways, the AMOLED will be considerably better on battery life for me. Even it being slightly bigger (1" x .5" roughly) vs the S4.... 12.4" screen imo would be worth it. I'm looking forward to the S7+ myself!
Going from tab s4 to the s7 plus screen is seriously impressive.
The screen with 120hz is the best I have ever seen.
I use my S4 as a huge google maps / waze GPS when in the car, is the S7+ screen outside the legal limits if you get pulled over? I think 11 inches is the largest screen you are allowed to have ( United States)
I have both the Tab S 7 and the S7+.
Avoid the S7 as the screen looks terrible, dull and pixelated. It doesn't even hold a candle to the screen of the Tab S3.
In contrast the S7+ screen looks glorious.
I had the tab s4, s5e and recently picked up the regular tab s7. During regular use, I would say there's not a huge difference, but the viewing angles are a little better on the amoled screens. If you watch content in low light, you will notice that the blacks aren't as inky black....but on my amoled screens, I get a bit of black crush/banding when displaying greys at low brightnesses.
I would say that using it is a much better experience than the tab S4, if you include the keyboard case. It makes it much closer to an actual 2-1 device compared to the prior generatios.
No comparison s7 lcd is crap compared to s4 and s6 ambled. S7 plus screen is fantastic. If you want lcd buy an ipad
I have not used other tablets but own the note 9. I didn't expect the LCD to look great after all the reviews. Thankfully I have been surprised by how much I like it. I am drawing, gaming and content and the only thing I wish it included was the keyboard and the themes store. I will get the keyboard later. 11" 120Hz screen is very nice. Having the 5g version this will be a really fun tablet.
Have you people actually used the S7? I have the S7+ but I've used the 11" S7 and it's a really really nice screen. I can't imagine the S4 looks better. Do not be afraid to buy the S7 if it's the form factor you want.
Please stop telling people the S7 screen looks good compared to amoled. If it were true samsung would have put the new LCD on both models and we wouldn't see every flagship phone even from apple starting to use OLED. If you don't care about vibrance and aren't using for media then the s7 is probably fine for you, but that does not mean the screen is as good as OLED, it just means you don't care. There simply are no LCDs that compare to OLED, phone, tablet or TV. The s7 has a well made "nice" looking LCD, the s7+(and S6, S4, S3, S2) have beautiful AMOLED displays and samsung should be ashamed.
gottahavit said:
Please stop telling people the S7 screen looks good compared to amoled.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the point is to compare the Tab S4 screen to the Tab S7. The S7 has a higher resolution than the S4 and is a really really good screen for not being AMOLED.
Lucas155 said:
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the point is to compare the Tab S4 screen to the Tab S7. The S7 has a higher resolution than the S4 and is a really really good screen for not being AMOLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yup
The next marketing victim.
Simply go to wikipedia or ask s.o. with knowledge. But avoid sponsored reviewers on YouTube living from the stuff they present.
OLED are great for average usage. Biggest advantage: pitch dark blacks and strong contrasts as well as saturation.
Biggest down-side: uneven decay by color over lifetime. -> strongest color shift, burn-in effect...
LCD can be much brighter, have the highest color accuracy and stability, but lack the OLED high saturation and contrasts. Hence, blacks are not really dark.
It always come to the use case.
You wanna play, watch movies, use many apps. Great: OLED is for you. Most people even do not keep their devices longer than 2 years, so burn- in will not appear. Even my 3.5 years old s8 phone have not a really notable burn-in. And for the color shift I care by adjustments the rgb levels.
You want a working device, showing all day long office, use it as a display mount on a wall, showing static areas: OLED will have burn-in within less of a year.
That is the reason you will not find OLEDs in offices, not to talk from company's relying in color accuracy.
There's a reason, companies like Samsung spend billions in developing new techniques like Q-\Micro-LED.
Finally: the s7 has a really great LCD, superior to most others LCD devices. In contrast to OLEDs, it lacks perfect blacks and oversatturation. Does it fall behind professional monitors? Not really - but every OLED will.
If color accuracy is a thing for you? Go for the s7, especially you do not like the bigger size of the s7+. If perfect black and strong contrast is your thing, take the s7+, but remember the mentioned draw backs of OLEDs.
Of course LCD can be brighter, they just put in brighter edge or back lighting at which point your color accuracy and consistency across the device goes to crap. This is one reason why anyone who calibrates an LCD TV set's base brightness quite low.
Either way I'm done arguing, the one thing that was said that is correct is "go see them for yourself" don't believe anyone here(including me) which screen is better for you.
Everyone sees differently. I don't see any colors the same as others do so the S7 screen looks great. Not better and certainly not any less then any OLED I have looked at.
I barely touch my note 9 these days. Love the screen size etc for gaming and watching movies in bed.
I don't know where people learnt that AMOLEDs are better, they are worse than LCD: Amoleds has little more details in black with blacker blacks at the cost of having less dynamic range with burned highlights (false high contrast illusion, for a high contrast to be high you need details in shadow and highlights), and the worse thing you will find in any Amoled is PWM that is not present in the S7 LCD (point your cell camera in super slow motion to an Amoled screen and see what you get in any Amoled/Oled brand...), there is a reason why the specs of high end monitors says NO PWM, thus for a tablet is important not to have AMOLED if you don't want eye strain or other health issues as the time pass.
When I bought my Tab S7 was because of the LCD display, speed and audio output, last week I used it to sign a contract very well in the place of my turtle Onyx Boox Note (I don't use often the pen but is very responsive, the Onyx feels more like a paper but the screen is prone to scratches); I had Amoleds before in tablets and were horrible for my eyes and I don't like the burned highlights. I have been using the S7 for a month and I'm very happy with my choice and I use much less my S10+ (I hope Samsung will release smartphones with LCD and not curved screens...)
I don't see any reason why in a tablet someone should use Amoled.
gottahavit said:
Please stop telling people the S7 screen looks good compared to amoled. If it were true samsung would have put the new LCD on both models and we wouldn't see every flagship phone even from apple starting to use OLED. If you don't care about vibrance and aren't using for media then the s7 is probably fine for you, but that does not mean the screen is as good as OLED, it just means you don't care. There simply are no LCDs that compare to OLED, phone, tablet or TV. The s7 has a well made "nice" looking LCD, the s7+(and S6, S4, S3, S2) have beautiful AMOLED displays and samsung should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please stop telling people that amoled is god made. S6 screens are full of wobble. S4 and lower were oversaturated and settings couldn't be really changed. All "benifit" of amoled was there in saturation and non existent accuracy. Once saturation removed there was no real difference between lcd aside high propensity to burn depending on usage and blinking individual pixels. I am not saying that lcd is better but definitely not as much worse as you kije trying to shill about godlike amoled, but sung is always doesn't know what the hell they are doing. They doing whatever without understanding, everytime new variety of terrible obviously stupid decision.
Extreemator said:
I am not saying that lcd is better but definitely not as much worse as you kije trying to shill about godlike amoled
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If someone should consider color accuracy at all levels of brightness (Amoleds as the brighness goes up, the colors are totally off), dynamic range and health, LCDs with no PWM are by long much better than Oleds, the only advantage of Oleds are the deep blacks, lets wait for the minileds if they will have PWM or not.
By the way, all of my phones are and were amoled, my televisions are Oled and all have the nefarious PWM (LG say they don't but is a lie, I checked them with my camera) but I rarely watch them.
What about your laptop?... did you checked PWM before buying it or did you only check battery life, CPU and memory? Most of the laptops has tremendous PWM that is really bad to your eyes, but nobody is talking about this...
Why Apple and other brands put Amoled in their phones? because of consumerism, Samsung marketing (LG for Oled TVs) tried to convince hard the public for lot of years that the deep blacks is the way to go but they didn't explain at what cost including your health.
Tab s7 also has PWM according to notebookcheck review