Related
I want to buy my wife a 7" tablet for Christmas. Desired specs are: Android 2.2+, easily rooted and market install(I have rooted and installed market on a Pandigital Novel 7" table and a Viewsonic Gtab with a lot of help from members). She primarily uses it for crossword puzzles(shortz) and web surfing. I would like for it to be able to access a ad-hoc wifi, the Pandigital(hers) can not do this. I do not think she would need a lot of storage(memory?). Would 512mb of ram and 1ghz processor be over-kill? And it needs to be in the $150.00-$200.00 range. Could go slightly higher for an exceptional deal. Thanks
Amazon Fire easy. Dual-Core, best deal available, root should be available soon, maybe even a Honeycomb port!
Maybe look for a Dell Streak deal. Waaaay underrated. The resolution is criticized as being limited, but that's a little silly. It's a 7 inch screen so you can only REALLY use so much resolution before the letters get to small to read. The real problems with it are (I have one) poor battery life and poor viewing angles. Neither are big issues for many users. If you are sharing your 7 inch tablet with many viewers and have to watch from a wide angle, you may be unhappy if you are viewing from 50 degrees off-angle. In reality, it's never been a problem. Battery life really does suck...6-8 hours of "on time" and 4-5 or a little less with constant use. If that's not enough (it's not always for me), then just be aware. Ergonomically, it's among the best I've used. There's nothing on the market today in the 7 inch size compelling enough to make me change.
Sent from my Touchpad (with Android) using Tapatalk
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.
Hi all,
I know this article has been floating around here for some time, but this I found rather interesting:
Some have raised points along the lines of Samsung Galaxy S2 phones already having a smoother UI and indicating that they are doing something different vs. the Galaxy Nexus. When comparing individual devices though you really need to look at all of the factors. For example, the S2's screen is 480x800 vs. the Galaxy Nexus at 720x1280. If the Nexus S could already do 60fps for simple UIs on its 480x800, the CPU in the S2's is even better off.
The real important difference between these two screens is just that the Galaxy Nexus has 2.4x as many pixels that need to be drawn as the S2. This means that to achieve the same efficiency at drawing the screen, you need a CPU that can run a single core at 2.4x the speed (and rendering a UI for a single app is essentially not parallelizable, so multiple cores isn't going to save you).
This is where hardware accelerated rendering really becomes important: as the number of pixels goes up, GPUs can generally scale much better to handle them, since they are more specialized at their task. In fact this was the primary incentive for implementing hardware accelerated drawing in Android -- at 720x1280 we are well beyond the point where current ARM CPUs can provide 60fps. (And this is a reason to be careful about making comparisons between the Galaxy Nexus and other devices like the S2 -- if you are running third party apps, there is a good chance today that the app is not enabling hardware acceleration, so your comparison is doing CPU rendering on the Galaxy Nexus which means you almost certainly aren't going to get 60fps out of it, because it needs to hit 2.4x as many pixels as the S2 does.)
To be complete, there is another big advantage that the GPU gives you -- many more drawing effects become feasible. For example, if you are drawing a bitmap in software, you basically can't do anything to it except apply an offset. Just trying to scale it is going to make rendering significantly slower. On a GPU, applying transformations well beyond simple scales is basically free. This is why in the new default Holo themes in Android we have background images -- with hardware accelerated drawing, we can afford to draw (and scale) them. In fact, if the hardware path is not enabled by the app, these background images will be turned off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is kinda the same as with the Prime and the T700/other high-resolution tablets, isn't it? I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty obviously since the Tegra3 GPU isn't very good (yes, it is fine but I'm not sure for those high-res screens?). However I could be completely wrong..
I agree. It's the same with a gaming computer. Just because ur monitor has 1080p doesn't mean u can play all games in that rez. U will need a much more powerful gpu. I am certain though the tegra3 can support 1080p but it won't be smooth as 720p like our device. Unless u lower the rez but how would u on an android. Furthermore how ugly games would look who aren't optimize for 1080p.
Nvidia always!
The question isn't whether there's going to be a performance hit, it's what the performance hit looks like. If it's invisible in everything but gaming, I'd bet a lot of people will go for the HD display and gamers will stick to the lower res. If it's obvious in UI performance and transitions, it makes the benefit of the HD screen a little more questionable. The new chip in the iPad3 and Samsung's new Exynos chip won't make you choose (on paper). Benchmarks are useless except for bragging rights.
I have been saying this since people were trying to compare the new acer and samsung back in Dec. The higher the resolution, the more power and resources it takes. Also you have to look at the app market right now. What app's are out that will use that 1080p display...NONE as of now. Once they (1080p tablets) are released, it will be a few months before most apps will adapt to the new higher displays.
I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display- there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish. Just bumping up the resolution while not working on improving the true render process (in case of games or animations) does not make any sense to me.
A retina display just for the heck of it is not a great idea, at least to me.
For what it's worth, ICS is supposed to be fully hardware accelerated, so the Tegra 3 could be enough to power the higher resolution for everything but games.
Anandtech (who I probably trust the most when it comes to hardware evaluations) seemed to suggest in an early preview that the higher resolution *may* perform ok:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5348/...-with-asus-1920-x-1200-tablet-running-ics-403
That said, there are still questions as to the benefit of such a high resolution on a 10" form factor designed to be held only 1-2' away from your face. They didn't bump up to 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors until 24" LCDs and up.
The real issue is that games on Android don't let you pick a resolution for them to run at. Almost all run at the full Res of the screen, which means slideshow on a 1080p Prime.
avinash60 said:
I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display- there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish. Just bumping up the resolution while not working on improving the true render process (in case of games or animations) does not make any sense to me.
A retina display just for the heck of it is not a great idea, at least to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, there is just no point..... there is more important things to improve than pixel count....
Thanks, at least I am not alone on this idea. It seems like when the news came that the iPad 3 is going to have a retina desiplay all the manufacturers didn't care anymore and just were thinking "We also need that!". I am comparision the text from thread with my HTC Sensation which should have a better DPI:
Transformer Prime: 149
The new Prime: 218
HTC Sensation: 260
and from NORMAL viewing distance both look great. However, when i come closer the pixels on the Transformer Prime are a little visible where the Sensation stays sharp. However the phone has a better DPI then the new res. panel so I'm not sure how that is.
I'm sure it will look some better, but I am not sure if it is worth the wait (again) and also the possibilty of the new Prime itself can't keep up with its own resolution..
Oh, again not trying to defend the Prime here.. I have to return it anyway because of backlight bleeding and am not sure if I want a new one or my money back, however if I see this result I think the resolution is just pure marketing.. I mean who is going to sit with its prime 5 cm from their heads.. lol.
http://androidandme.com/2012/01/news/hands-on-with-the-acer-iconia-tab-a510-and-zte-7-tablets/
Watch the video on Acer Iconia a510 (unannounced tablet). 1080p that comes with this tablet... does look a bit sluggish.
Just to add my galaxy nexus is 316 dpi..... unless your 2in from the screen...there really isn't much difference.
Also, I love how laptop and desktop DPI is half what most phone/tabs are and people are having a fit......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#ASUS
Seems to run pretty good since it is still a pre-production model, however not as smooth as the Prime with ICS yes..
Danny80y said:
Just to add my galaxy nexus is 316 dpi..... unless your 2in from the screen...there really isn't much difference.
Also, I love how laptop and desktop DPI is half what most phone/tabs are and people are having a fit......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#ASUS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, exactly what I mean.. you can see it if your very close to the screen, but why would you do that, lol.
Oh, btw.. for the iPad 1&2 it still is 132, which is much lower then our Transformers (149,5), never heard real complaints about that.
>What app's are out that will use that 1080p display...NONE as of now
eBooks & PDFs. Sharper texts. More texts. One can conceivably view 2 pages side-by-side (16:10 / 2 = 8:10, or close to the 8.5:11 printed page).
With display mirroring, you get 1:1 pixel ratio when plugged into a HDTV via HDMI. This makes above use-case (high-density text consumption) much more feasible. Ditto for remote access.
Gaming perf will take a hit. Then again, gaming isn't exactly an Android forte right now, or for mobiles in general. The bulk of games are casual stuff, geared for handset resolution.
One can argue that hardcore Android gaming will prosper over time, and FPS perf will matter more. There are problems with this line of thought. First, is simply the assumption that Android will prosper on tablets, which given current sales is hardly a forgone conclusion. Second, are the fast advances in hardware and their correspondingly short lifespan. GPU-wise, the Teg3 isn't the fastest even now. By the time we get to see enough hardcore games, we'd be on Teg 5 or 6, or their equivalent. Teg3 will be old news.
But sure, if shooters and frame count are your thing, then 720p sounds like a plan, at least for the Teg3.
>I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display
Some don't see the need for GPS in tabs either. Some don't use the cams. Different people have different uses. You shouldn't generalize your use to be everyone else's.
Rest assured that when it comes to marketing, toys with lo-res display will be viewed as inferior. Bigger is better. It's the same thing with quadcore vs dualcore vs single-core. Do you actually need a quadcore?
>there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish
This argument has been bouncing around ever since Apple's Retina Display. Per this PPI calculator, 1920x1200 is 224ppi on a 10.1". Reportedly, people can discern 300ppi at 12" distance, given 20/20 vision. The real test is simpler and much less theoretical: walk into a store and compare the TF201 and TF700 side-by-side, and see if you can discern the difference.
>Anandtech (who I probably trust the most when it comes to hardware evaluations) seemed to suggest in an early preview that the higher resolution *may* perform ok:
Anandtech is good for chip-level analysis. For (mobile) system hardware and use-case analysis, he's just as green as many other tech blogs. Note the gaffs on the Prime testing wrt GPS and BT/wifi coexistence. I do see signs of improvement, however. They came out with a new Mobile Benchmark suite, whatever that means.
>The real issue is that games on Android don't let you pick a resolution for them to run at.
The real issue is that Android is still a nascent OS for tablets. HC was a beta which never took off. ICS was just released. The bulk of Android apps & games are still for handsets.
I have been concerned about this as well. Tegra 3's GPU is fine enough for a 1200x800 tablet, but it's going to be stretched at 1080p (this is nearly the resolution that my desktop runs at!).
I'd love a higher-resolution display, but it's a luxury (well, a tablet itself kinda is already, but even more so). It's not as if 1280x800 is cramped and blocky. I'm happy to wait a bit longer for 1080p tablets to mature and come down in price.
(I'd rather have 2GB RAM, actually.)
Well, perhaps this new release will coincide with a bump in the specs of Tegra 3. By the time the new tablet comes out, I would assume that's been almost half a year.... That's usually about the time span that nvidia would come out with a refresh of a chip design (well, they do this with their desktop GPUs, so not a great comparison, but it's possible?). So in the end perhaps the question of performance will be moot because there will be a faster Tegra 3 and more RAM in the new higher resolution tablets.
Just a thought.
Don't underestimate.
Let's wait a review or test.
Probably the Tegra 3 is more than capable of handling this kind of resolution in terms of playing HD movie, high profile compression, etc.
I saw several tests on current prime, and it has no problem with HD videos.
My only concern is battery life ... that's all.
I expect the 1920x1200 will result worse battery life, unless ASUS pump up the battery capacity or any other improvement.
JoeyLe said:
Hi all,
I know this article has been floating around here for some time, but this I found rather interesting:
This is kinda the same as with the Prime and the T700/other high-resolution tablets, isn't it? I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty obviously since the Tegra3 GPU isn't very good (yes, it is fine but I'm not sure for those high-res screens?). However I could be completely wrong..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gogol said:
Don't underestimate.
Let's wait a review or test.
Probably the Tegra 3 is more than capable of handling this kind of resolution in terms of playing HD movie, high profile compression, etc.
I saw several tests on current prime, and it has no problem with HD videos.
My only concern is battery life ... that's all.
I expect the 1920x1200 will result worse battery life, unless ASUS pump up the battery capacity or any other improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Asus has already stated that battery life will be pretty much the same as the current Prime...So that should equal shorter battery life.I'll stick with my Prime for now.No Need in buying another tablet right now IMO.I'm waiting to see what Samsung brings to the table.
hyunsyng said:
Well, perhaps this new release will coincide with a bump in the specs of Tegra 3. By the time the new tablet comes out, I would assume that's been almost half a year.... That's usually about the time span that nvidia would come out with a refresh of a chip design (well, they do this with their desktop GPUs, so not a great comparison, but it's possible?). So in the end perhaps the question of performance will be moot because there will be a faster Tegra 3 and more RAM in the new higher resolution tablets.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think they can bump the specs within the generation of a chip. The only thing that can happen till then is that Asus finds an economical way to add 2GB memory to the device, Nvidia improves the production capabilities of Tegra 3 and we get a better yield of the chips. The spec increase can only happen from one generation to the next.
I think the performance will be fine. Even the battery life.
Most of the battery usage screen-wise is from the backlight, which will be the same.
Also, not much more power may be used necessarily either, especially if it doesn't end up taxing the Tegra 3 as much as we think it will. As far as we know, our 1200x800 displays may not even be taxing the Tegra 3 that much. If anything, the article shows that the Tegra 3 may be more qualified to handle that high a resolution with little to no performance degradation. There are demos on youtube of a tegra 3 device playing 1440p movies just fine, all while driving a second screen at the same time.
Of course I too don't feel the need for something that high of a resolution on a 10 inch screen, but I'll never really know until I see one in person.
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 bought a Pipo S1 tablet that is supposed to be running at 800x480.
Problem is, it appears to stretch everything as though it isn't actually running it's native resolution. So it's actual resolution must be slightly higher or lower in one of the axis for it to be stretched I imagine.
I've attached a photo perspective corrected in photoshop next to a screenshot:
Any thoughts on how I might fix this problem? Even if it means rooting and editing some files. I suppose it would be handy to know the true resolution of the display to begin with!
Thanks,
Mark.