Here's what a 2560 x 1440 Quad HD phone screen looks like: first Vivo Xplay3S reviews appear
The phone in question is, of course, the China-made premium Vivo Xplay3S smartphone that should arrive in store shelves in Asia in around a week. It features a huge, 6-inch display with a thin bezel, so that the phone does not end up being too big. Pixel density comes at the impressive 490ppi, beating all other smartphones out there.
At first look, it also looks like a very well calibrated display with accurate colors that will please photography enthusiasts and pros. The Xplay 3S also makes a surprisingly strong appearance when compared against the Galaxy Note 3 and iPhone 5s, seemingly outdoing them in terms of brightness and sharpness. Right below you can examine the comparison images for yourself and get an up close look of the first Quad HD display out there. How does it look to you?
Here's what a 2560 x 1440 Quad HD phone screen looks like: Vivo Xplay3S reviews appear Fullscreen
More popular slideshows
LG G3 - 40 Tips & Tricks for LG's most powerful smartphone ever
25 Jul 2014, 01:36
iOS 7 release date and time are today (Sep 18), get ready to update!
18 Sep 2013, 04:00
5 Android L themes, launchers and icon packs to install while you wait
25 Jul 2014, 03:23
Here's what a 2560 x 1440 Quad HD phone screen looks like: Vivo Xplay3S reviews appear
3. Vivo Xplay 3S (above) vs Apple iPhone 5s (below)
4. Vivo Xplay 3S (above) vs Apple iPhone 5s (below)
5. Vivo Xplay 3S (above) vs Apple iPhone 5s (below)
6. Vivo Xplay 3S (above) vs Apple iPhone 5s (below)
source: PCPop, CNMO, MyDrivers
1. zuckerboy (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)
you need microscope to distinguish the difference
20. hurrycanger (Posts: 792; Member since: 01 Dec 2013)
You're not supposed to distinguish the difference. You're supposed to enjoy the sharp display, especially because you pay quite a large amount of money on it.
Same thing applied to 1080p phones. Guess what, they are doing just fine.
31. zuckerboy (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)
so you say, give your money and do what they wanted. bcuz they know best thing for me ?
40. hurrycanger (Posts: 792; Member since: 01 Dec 2013)
Nope. You are responsible for choosing what's best for you.
They do what they want. You give them your money if you want to. You don't have to buy this Vivo. There will sure be some 1080p phones in 2014 for you (or even 720p if that's what you want). Last year there was a Moto X, a flagship phone with flagship price but only 720p resolution.
43. nofear (Posts: 149; Member since: 22 Jun 2012)
Who care about display density?
All we wanted battery life, performance, best features..etc like best camera, video and support greater than 64g memory standard SD card slot.
52. shahrooz (Posts: 109; Member since: 17 Sep 2013)
too bad your battery wont give you time to enjoy it. personally I didn't notice a difference between them regarding pixel density except for the zoomed in pic which is not a real life scenario. vivo's display has better brightness and calibration +brightness but does it have anything to do with pixel density? if yes then it's a good thing if not, meh
42. SprintGuy26 (Posts: 66; Member since: 21 Mar 2011)
really,are we in the 3rd grade?
please dont talk about peoples family like that..what if shes no longer with him? don't be ignorant
36. joaolx (Posts: 351; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)
That's why I don't see the point of a screen with more than 300 or 360ppi. Right now the things that make a screen better than another is color reproduction and saturation and this one looks exactly like the iPhone 5S is that respect. I would prefer a 720p screen or slightly higher if it meant better performance and battery life.
12. Amir1 (Posts: 243; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)
they will find ways to preserve the same battery life, believe me. 2k will look very nice in real when you hold the phone. youre not suppose to notice the tiny pixels but the picture will be sharper. there is difference, not a huge one, but a difference. changes in this kind of things are subtle.
22. hurrycanger (Posts: 792; Member since: 01 Dec 2013)
Agree. The same thing happened with 1080p phones. Battery life of those phones are not so bad (and the Note 3 has longer battery life than the Note 2).
24. erikiksaz (Posts: 91; Member since: 22 Apr 2010)
So you're not supposed to notice the pixels, yet those exact same unnoticeably small pixels will make things sharper? Righhhtttt.
These QHD phones haven't even seen a mass release and you guys are already spouted BS left and right. Who needs advertisement when you folks will spread this misinformation for free.
28. Amw86 (Posts: 14; Member since: 14 Oct 2013)
It's noticable to me, has been for quite some time in all formats of displays.
27. kanagadeepan (Posts: 634; Member since: 24 Jan 2012)
Is it? Then phone cos should work for 200000000000k display as soon as possible, so that the picture will be slightly sharper than 1080p display...
32. Finalflash (Posts: 1456; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
Lol no it won't look sharper. For that matter it will get worse because there is no native content for that resolution. Everything up-scaled will not be that sharp and anything stretched will be even worse. Also, the battery life will remain subpar because all increases in battery life will be eaten up by the larger useless resolution. 1080p had a purpose because there was content for that resolution readily available. This resolution won't be relevant for another half a decade. Only thing that will benefit from this is video games but I don't want to play anything at that resolution for 30 mins on battery.
38. Amir1 (Posts: 243; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)
hehe, funny funny comments, just the same as from 720 to 1080. wait and see. in 2 years 2k will be standard and you all will bitch on phones 5+" and above not having 2k display. history WILL repeat itself. people have tendency to bitch about stuff. as usual. 2k display are here to stay and that's a fact. natural evolution.
39. ngo2dd (Posts: 779; Member since: 08 Jul 2011)
There is a different 720p phone where around 320 ppi. Once you have anything over 400 ppi you will not see a different and that is what happen with 1080p. 2K is not here to stay because media will be 1080p or 4k because 4k is the new standard for movie. So what is the point of 2K?
3. Professor (Posts: 127; Member since: 02 Aug 2013)
Looks good to me... Hoping this and other phones come to USA soon with this new screen resolution. Although I think that 5.5" screen is more than enough for a phone.
33. yadu004 (Posts: 62; Member since: 26 Apr 2013)
Dude, don't get me wrong but, how desperate is it that they have to zoom in and show the differences. A technology is an added advantage when you notice it, and not them pin pointing it to you.
There is a difference between Want and Need my friend, and this is not actually needed.
5. darkskoliro (Posts: 935; Member since: 07 May 2012)
Wow the screen on that Vivo is actually amazing.
6. Ezio2000 (Posts: 14; Member since: 11 Dec 2013)
there is no difference that we can feel in density but its color saturation and viewing angles is amazing i think companies should focus on this part
7. imMature (Posts: 75; Member since: 04 Sep 2013)
I think the Note 3 is a chinese clone. Its viewing angle is really bad in the pictures.
34. deewinc (Posts: 155; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
I second you. The sunset looks screwed on the note 3 china clone
44. hurrycanger (Posts: 792; Member since: 01 Dec 2013)
Maybe that's why it says "三星 Note 3" instead of "Samsung Galaxy Note 3". Even though "三星" (reads Sānxīng) has the same meaning as "Samsung", that's not how people around the world see it. Samsung is a brand name, so it shouldn't be translated or "chineserized" either. It also missed the word Galaxy.
In China there is the a clone called Android Note 3 or Android Galaxy Note 3, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a clone called 三星Note3.
At the end, Vivo didn't provide any false information about the Vivo Xplay3S beating the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 display. All this company showed us was that the Vivo Xplay3S beat the 三星Note 3 display, which is a cheap knock off. xD
8. Vanster (Posts: 124; Member since: 15 Jan 2014)
not sure if this about color density, or good tech and quality behind the screen
13. kabhijeet.16 (Posts: 628; Member since: 05 Dec 2012)
limit of stubbornness... how difficult is it to appreciate something new/development/better technology....!!!!!
Accept the truth...
25. AliNSiddiqui (Posts: 356; Member since: 19 Sep 2012)
Please enlighten us with the time as well
48. fireblade (Posts: 634; Member since: 27 Dec 2013)
Nah, today is February 4, 2014 and I live in Asia
15. pwnarena (Posts: 825; Member since: 15 Feb 2013)
what happened to the note 3? it's supposed to have the brightest amoled display from samsung. did they really bring the brightness setting to the max there?
19. nothingmuch (Posts: 155; Member since: 03 May 2013)
No, it's probably on half, I couldn't believe it either, I too have a note 3 and that photo is a piss poor representation.
35. wildfiregt (Posts: 88; Member since: 10 Jun 2013)
Sometimes is it on purpose. Product ad is awlays superior to the others They may not enable the outdoor mode on note 3
17. Amir1 (Posts: 243; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)
it OWNS iphone 5s and note 3 display. "2k bad" blah blah. nice vivo! "battery life" blah blah. battery life will be just fine.
41. ngo2dd (Posts: 779; Member since: 08 Jul 2011)
Are you paid? There is not different, what are you smoking?
21. mokhtar (Posts: 196; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)
who said there will be no difference .. of course there is a big difference you fools . qhd
26. darkvadervip (Posts: 290; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
What's the purpose? It's just a way to make more money and charge us more. I'm happy with my iPhone 5s and Lumia 1520.
29. Nabil2511 (Posts: 148; Member since: 27 Jan 2014)
stop messing around with the pixels already, just upgrade the smartphones in terms of specs.. we cant tell the difference between FHD and QHD anyway
37. taz89 (Posts: 2009; Member since: 03 May 2011)
Not bothered about 2k display on a 5"ish display but can see the need of it on larger phablets. I would rather have the current 1080p display with more efficient screen and better battery. Have to say though that screen does look nice in terms of brightness and vividness.
45. AfterShock (Posts: 2154; Member since: 02 Nov 2012)
At this point, it's nothing more then a flash in a pan.
47. k1ng617 (Posts: 239; Member since: 13 Oct 2009)
These photos are genuine crap. Just look at the Note 2 in the second picture; it looks like it is in 8bit. Let's get some real reviews before we jump to any conclusions.
50. XaErO (Posts: 134; Member since: 25 Sep 2012)
This is awesome !!
Just bring those displays to mobile devices with something that consumes even less power than the existing 1080p displays !!
51. shuaibhere (Posts: 1297; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Thats not the original note 3 for sure...it looks washed out....
54. outerlimitsurvey (Posts: 1; Member since: 05 Feb 2014)
Quad HD? Quad HD was originally defined as 3840x2160 or 2160p. Since when has 2560x1440 or 1440p been Quad HD? It is 4x the pixels in 720p and 720p is considered a HD resolution so I can see how marketers might want to call it Quad in a similar manner to the way hard disk makers call a kilobyte 1000 bytes instead of 1024. Using 720p as the unit of HDedness 1080p should be dual or double HD.
55. dmromero (Posts: 3; Member since: 24 Jun 2014)
Well now 2160p is Ultra HD or 4K. 1440p is Quad HD, 1080p is Full HD, and 720p is HD. Get it?