I much prefer QHD to 1080P. I don't know how apple gets away with the crap they put in the iphone 6, like 720P, right?
You can tell it's Quad HD if you look up close, but I wouldn't say that it's all that noticeable at typical viewing distances. It's more of a nice-to-have feature than anything... and I think Samsung felt compelled to do it lest people think the GS6 was just more of the same. A bit of a shame, really, since 1080p would have probably led to better battery life.
Better battery life based on what? That the GPU would have less work for non intensive tasks like 2D Web browsing? Outside of gaming at native res (which doesn't happen today at 2K), I doubt the GPU is stressed much. The screen itself draws less power which I'd guess may balance out. I prefer the sharper, brighter, and more accurate screen. It's not a given that the same advances would exist staying at 1080p as the screen tech works so differently.
I think the bigger culprit is the smaller battery for the sake of thinness and possibly the less efficient modem. I would have preferred a slightly thicker phone with better battery life.
Does anyone actually prefer having a QHD display rather than better battery life?
What would you rather have? Also exactly why do we need QHD on mobile phone displays anyway?
It's more the screen energy (fewer pixels in an OLED should mean less energy draw) than anything. I should stress that this isn't a deal breaker, just a what-might-have-been idea. It'd be great if you could always get through a full day on a charge rather than be a bit judicious (or just charge up in mid-day).
Average Display Power
S5 1080P = 0.82 watts
S6 1440P = 0.65 watts
Maximum Display Power
S5 = 1.5 watts
S6 = 1.2 watts
It's not just QHD but the entire panel itself is built from the ground up to be superior. QHD is just a bonus.
"The Galaxy S6 has more than double the resolution and more than 4 times the number of pixels as the iPhone 6. It also has significantly higher peak Brightness, significantly higher Contrast Ratio in both low and high Ambient Light, significantly higher Absolute Color Accuracy, significantly better Viewing Angel performance, and has 4 selectable screen modes instead of a single fixed one on the iPhones."
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S6_ShootOut_1.htm
I've seen quite a few uninformed comments about 1080P screens using less power than a QHD. Can anyone in this thread point to a 1080P screen of any type that is as good as Samsung's QHD SuperAMOLED in terms of IQ while beating it or even matching it in perf/watt? I am not aware of any such display and no such display tech is found in the iPhone 6 or Samsung S5 or HTC One M9. So what exactly do you propose that would have been better exactly than Samsung's engineers used for the S6?
Display Power
"The Galaxy S6 is in fact 23 percent more power efficient than the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus for mixed image content (that includes text together with photos, videos, and movies, for example) with a typical 50 percent Average Picture Level, APL. OLEDs have been rapidly improving in their power efficiency. The balance point has now moved all the way up to 65 percent APL: the OLED Galaxy S6 is more power efficient for all APLs from zero up through 65 percent, and the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus LCDs are more power efficient for APLs above 65 percent."
Average Display Power
S5 1080P = 0.82 watts
S6 1440P = 0.65 watts
Maximum Display Power
S5 = 1.5 watts
S6 = 1.2 watts
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S6_ShootOut_1.htm
So in fact, the modern SuperAMOLED QHD is more power efficient and has superior IQ than any 4.7-5.1" 1080P display in the world, including the S5's.
More so, real world testing of the production version of the S6 shows that it beats the iPhone 6 in battery life in all categories, despite using a 2560x1440 + more accurate and brighter panel!
HTC's One M9's S810 + 1080P LCD combination is a total disaster when it comes to WiFi/video playback battery life and the screen itself is worse in every way too.
Samsung S6 also has superior sunlight visibility outdoors than the iPhone 5/5S/6 and is world's apart from that horrid 1080P LCD of the HTC One M9:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s6_vs_htc_one_m9-review-1233p3.php
Instead of opinions, it would be nice if members of a site such as AT actually used credible testing data to back up what they say. There is a reason Samsung's engineers chose a SuperAMOLED QHD instead of keeping the 1080P screen. In conclusion, it would not be better if S6 shipped with a 1080P display.
QHD is the new benchmark set by Samsung. Now everyone will try to get QHD displays.
You must have forgotten about the LG G3 .
Viral video:
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge vs iPhone 6 Speed Test 4K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHb6IlmmV2o
Those are not display power but whole system power under idle.
Well I am just going by what that testing methodology is.
"Display Power Consumption The display power was measured using a Linear Regression between Luminance and AC Power with a fully charged battery. Since the displays all have different screen sizes and maximum brightness, the values were also scaled to the same screen brightness (Luminance) and same screen area in order to compare their Relative Power Efficiencies.
Below we compare the Relative Display Power Efficiencies of the Galaxy S6 with the Galaxy S5 and iPhone 6 Smartphones."
In any case, the S6 is easily class leading when it comes to not only performance but also power efficiency. Since we can't separate the Exynos 7420 from the QHD SuperAMOLED screen, it's a moot point because there is no other phone in this class is as fast and brings as much overall battery life and all the other features. Just imagine how impressive the Note 5 will be in the battery department.
Now let's take into account the battery life & relative charging time. Things look even worse for the competitors.
Battery Life / Charging Time as per Phone Arena
Sony Z3 = 9 hours 29 min / 235 minutes
Samsung S6 = 7 hours 14 min / 78 minutes
iPhone 6 Plus = 6 hours 32 min / 171 minutes
HTC One M9 = 6 hours 25 min / 106 minutes
iPhone 6 = 5 hours 22 min / 147 minutes
http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Samsung-Galaxy-S6-Review_id3965/page/4
Granted, a lot of phone users charge their phone at work or overnight. However, they don't even have the 4 hours charge in 10 min or 50% charge in 30 min features. Overall, as you can see the competitors are getting absolutely destroyed when it comes to the balance of battery life + charging time. When you look at things from that perspective, it's not even close in terms of real world convenience. The iPhone 6, the #1 competitor, looks absolutely terrible in comparison (2.45 hours of charging time to get less than 5.5 hours of on screen battery life) and yet millions of people bought it....
Homeboy Chris36 minutes ago
Even an iphone 6 will take 80 measley pounds of pressure. If they fuck off the note like this too, I'm done with samsung for a while. I'll go to BLU and just pay cash when they come out with an LTE vivo air type device.
Didn't the media that reported this already extracted its claim as Samsung officially denied it?Here's another jewel.
I've noticed some very specific forum activity on multiple forums too
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150405000006&cid=1102
Didn't the media that reported this already extracted its claim as Samsung officially denied it?
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/04/sa...id-people-to-attend-galaxy-s6-event-in-china/
http://www.itproportal.com/2015/04/06/samsung-didnt-pay-galaxy-s6-fans-attend-press-event/Mind you, was Samsung going to admit this even if true? Heck, the company wouldn't even admit to astroturfing in Taiwan after being fined... it's definitely not going to acknowledge something that's deceptive but legal.
In case you think this is just Samsungs word against the media outlet, well, Want China Times is said to have agreed with Samsungs findings in this case, and has retracted the story. Whether or not Samsung will pursue the issue and ask for a formal apology is something the company is still mulling over
You're saying that there might be something dodgy about new members that register to post primarily about one item very positively?Here's another jewel.
I've noticed some very specific forum activity on multiple forums too
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150405000006&cid=1102
That's... not a very scientific test. He lets cumulative errors (mis-taps, pauses before pressing things) add up, so you're not actually getting the performance of the system so much as the time it takes the author to complete tasks. It'd be wiser to sync each test, get the completion times for each, and compare the totals.
You're saying that there might be something dodgy about new members that register to post primarily about one item very positively?
:sneaky: