x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Is HTC working on a 5-inch flagship smartphone?

Is HTC working on a 5-inch flagship smartphone?

Posted: , by Nick T.

Tags:

Is HTC working on a 5-inch flagship smartphone?
The HTC Proto is not the only smartphone that the Taiwanese manufacturer is rumored to be working on. According to DigiTimes, a 5-inch HTC flagship handset is being prepared for a launch later this year, supposedly in September or October. The device is said to be equipped with a high-resolution display  1794 by 1080 pixels, to be exact. We are guessing that if such a panel exists, its exact resolution would be 1920 by 1080 pixels, and the virtual Android buttons would make up for the missing 126 rows.

Now, this isn't the first time we hear about HTC working on a handset with such specs. Back in April, a leaked Verizon roadmap hinted that HTC was working on a 5-inch, 1080p smartphone. Furthermore, a mysterious HTC device with a 1080p screen and a Snapdragon S4 Pro processor was revealed on the GLBenchmark web site less than a month ago. Again, that beast of a smartphone was said to be bound for Verizon.

Could the pieces of the puzzle be slowly coming together? Is HTC really going to launch a 5-inch flagship this fall? It is all rumors and speculations for now, but if the company really has such a device on its agenda, it will definitely be facing some serious competition. Currently, the 5-inch market is dominated by Samsung with its 5.3-inch Galaxy Note, not to mention that a successor the Galaxy Note II, is to be announced later this month. On the other hand, if that HTC 5-incher really exists and if its specs are as mindblowing as it is rumored, we might be looking at a worthy competitor to Samsung's "phablet" offerings.

source: DigiTimes

92 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 06 Aug 2012, 05:57 5

1. wendygarett (unregistered)


I think HTC is going to launch three tablets... 9inch 7inch and 5inch... Just sayin...

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 06:41 11

2. jove39 (Posts: 1278; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


5" display with 1080p resolution...and S4 pro...HTC is readying their monster to lock horns with Galaxy Note :)

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:08 5

4. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


If that is LG display, 3000mAh will be not enough.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:10 3

5. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Why you think so? Ever heard about LG's NOVA display?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:52 3

16. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


Because of the poor battery usage of Nitro HD/Spectrum and Op4x (identical SoC T3, same RGB 720p screen, 2150mAh battery but still poorer than 1850mAh of OneX)
I know screen is not the only reason, but it still contributes a lot.

Just imagine: Note has 720p (or 800p) Amoled screen with 2500mAh but it's just enough. So "3000mAh is not enough for that 1080p screen" is reasonable, isn't it?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:06 1

19. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"Just imagine: Note has 720p (or 800p) Amoled screen with 2500mAh but it's just enough. So "3000mAh is not enough for that 1080p screen" is reasonable, isn't it?"

Energy consumption doesn't depend on resolution, it depends on screen size.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:10 1

21. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


Yeah! So the new ipad has 40% bigger battery due to the upgrade in GPU (PowerVR SGX543MP2 to MP4) only. And 5-inch 480x800 screen of Galaxy S Wifi music player has the identical power consumption as any 5-inch screen, even 1080p, so 2000mAh is enough.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:24

23. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


I agree that the same GPU will be eating more energy while be running on 1080p resolution than on 720p. But remember that we are talking only about display so, let's leave GPU and other hardware part away. It doesn't depend what resolution screen is showing, because it still use the same amount of pixels and its backlight still has to illuminate the same area of surface (talking about LCD). And that's mean energy consumption doesn't depend on resolution, it depends on screen size!

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 09:26 1

27. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


I didn't know that you couldn't understand what I said. So you really think that 40% increase of the battery in the new iPad due to the GPU only and no extra consumption from the screen because the size is exactly identical although having 4 times pixels? And remember that even having 40% bigger battery but the usage is still not as good as ipad 2

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 09:57 1

28. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


@ hung2900

I'm not talking about iPad or any other device, my reply was concreteness to your comment #16 and exactly to this part:

"Just imagine: Note has 720p (or 800p) Amoled screen with 2500mAh but it's just enough. So "3000mAh is not enough for that 1080p screen" is reasonable, isn't it?"

As I have said before, I'm not talking about any other hardware only about a screen and my point is that energy consumption doesn't depend on resolution, it depends on screen size (in case screens are using the same technologies)!

And here is what I have said before just in simple words:

1) For example you have two identic 24 inch LCD displays, one is running on 1080p resolution and another is running on 720p resolution.

Question: Which one will be eating more energy?
Answer: Both the same!

2) For example you have two LCD displays which are using identic technologies the only difference is that one display is 17 inch and another is 24 inch and both are running on 1080p resolution.

Question: Which one will be eating more energy?
Answer: 24 inch display will be eating more energy.

Conclusion: Energy consumption doesn't depend on resolution, it depends on screen size (in case screens are using the same technologies)!

It is just what I want to say. :)

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 10:09

29. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


The reason why I mentioned about Ipad is exactly the same as the reason why you mentioned about some LCD displays - to prove the relationship between the number of pixels and power consumption. The difference is that my argument can be proved easily from the reviews, but yours is unclear. Can you give me the evidence to prove it? And please read my previous comment carefully, ok?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 10:40

32. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"...relationship between the number of pixels and power consumption."

That's exactly what I want to say, there is relationship between the number of pixels and power consumption, but there is no difference between the resolution and power consumption if number of pixels is the same. That's why I disagree with your proposition:

"Just imagine: Note has 720p (or 800p) Amoled screen with 2500mAh but it's just enough. So "3000mAh is not enough for that 1080p screen" is reasonable, isn't it?"

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 10:49 1

33. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


So can you explain me why the new Ipad needs 40% more battery and 70% more power capacity than Ipad 2 but still has poorer battery usage?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 11:21

35. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"So can you explain me why the new Ipad needs 40% more battery and 70% more power capacity than Ipad 2 but still has poorer battery usage?"

I don't know and even not think about that, I'm just saying that there is relationship between the number of pixels and power consumption, but there is no relationship between the resolution and power consumption (talking only about screen power consumptions).

Here is another example for you:

A) You are playing PC game on 24 inch display and resolution is 1080p.

B) You are playing PC game on the same 24 inch display but now resolution is 720p.

In which situation power consumption is lower, A or B ???

(Remember that we are talking only about display power consumptions.)

My answer would be, A and B power consumptions are the same.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 11:44 1

36. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


@PhoneArena user

What you are saying about battery life not depending on screen resolution couldn't be further from the truth. ANYBODY knows that battery life depends on resolution.. I think you are under the impression that a back-light is the only part of the LCD screen(as a whole) that uses electricity. Remember, there are also the transistors that control the intensity of each sub-pixel, those take a considerable amount of power as well. Remember, a back-light isn't dynamic(other than when it is on or off), LCD displays use polarizing panels, then Liquid crystals to "twist" the light coming from the polarizing panel to the actual sub-pixels. Behind the liquid crystals are transistors that turn either on, off, or some way inbetween to control the intensity of electricity being delivered to the Liquid Crystals, and that, in turn, controls how much light is "twisted" through the crystals, and finally, the intensity of light being delivered to the sub-pixels.

(Don't attempt to understand LCDs from my rant because it was quite messy)
But what I'm trying to get across is that the back-light is a fraction of the electricity being pulled from the out-let, the transistors play a big role too. Because there are 3 sub-pixels in every pixel, and one transistor per sub-pixel, then, the amount of transistors equal to three times the amount of pixels (or 3X the resolution)

Anyway... yeah.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 12:18

37. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


For example you are playing PC game on 24 inch LCD display and it doesn't matter game is running on 720p or 1080p, because monitor still use the same amount of pixels and monitor still use the same amount of back-light. That's mean monitor's power consumption's ar still the same.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 12:52

38. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


You are still neglecting the Thin Film Transistors (why they call it TFT-LCD display)

Even assuming that you are using the same amount physical pixels, I can still see it being possible that more power is being consumed, because(this is purely my assumption) the monitor's on-board data controller will scale activity depending on the ratio of the two given resolution (i.e IF the ratio of the two resolutions is 2:1, it will give one color command to two pixels instead of one, making the picture appear blurrier than before). If this is true, transistors will not be switching as rapidly because fewer pixels will display distinct colors, and if fewer transistors are switching rapidly, then less electricity is being consumed.

Now, of course, I have no actual sources to cite that, and I could be completely wrong, but it does follow a logical path. Either way, I can see many scenarios in which a higher resolution would consume more power. The reason (Android) tablets with different resolutions use the same amount of batteries can be attributed to more efficient CPU usage due to expert optimization, screen technology, parts that conduct less heat, it can be spread a bit evenly across the board, but I think it would be a erroneous to claim that screen res has nothing to do with it.

Remember that the Infinity had lower battery life than the prime, however, even though they had the same amount of battery.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 14:26

40. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"... it will give one color command to two pixels instead of one..."

Remember that count of pixels can be changed only in software level (when you change resolution), but count of physical screen pixels never changes it is always the same and monitor's controller on redraw always have to apply command for each physical pixel doesn't matter what software resolution is.
So, according to that, there is relationship between the number of physical pixels and power consumption, but there is no difference between the resolution and power consumption if number of physical pixels is the same (and number of physical pixels is always the same).

P.S.
I like how you deep think, you have technical logic. :)
Also sorry my english isn't really good and I may make a mistakes or sometimes it can be hard to understand what I want to say.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 15:48 2

42. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


I still dont know why you cannot understand that Apple even made the battery of the new iPad much bigger (40%) but the battery usage is still worse than iPad because the power hunger from the 2048x1536 sscree.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:07

45. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Now I understand you. Maybe because of bigger number of physical pixels on the screen?

I agree that screen with bigger number of physical pixels will be eating more energy than the same screen with less physical pixels, but I don't want to agree that resolution changed by software can change power consumptions. And anyway, talking about LCD screens, physical pixels eats not so much power, back-light eats much, much more power.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:00 1

54. hung2900 (Posts: 793; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)


Anyone mentioned about the resolution changed by software? The power consumption has no relation to that resolution. The new iPad stil has worse time usage than iPad 2 when playing the same video.

http://blog.gsmarena.com/new-ipad-battery-test-complete-see-how-it-did/

So now do you agree with my first argument - 3000 mAh is not enough for that 1080p screen?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:12

57. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


You cannot base your arguement of this article. The new iPad's battery drains quickly for so many reasons...

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:03

43. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Before I say anything, I commend you as well ! It's always nice to see someone who is able to present their debate in a smart, plausible manner, and is able to cut through fanboy-ism, to treat a topic at it's heart. If I were talking to some other hot-headed fanboy( *cough* King Kurogii *cough*), we surely would've been spewing obscenities by now =P

Anyhow, I understand what you are saying about how the number of pixels being powered doesn't change even though the software resolution does. But like I said in my last post, you must also consider the transistors that allow electricity to the Liquid crystals. I know every physical pixel is being coded to, but if you were running at a resolution lower that that of the monitor, some pixels would recieve the same command, because even though they are each being individually powered, the software picture being processed would have bigger individual pixels than the hardware pixels, because the resolution would be smaller, but would have to fit the same size screen, hence "stretching" the software pixels out the extra hardware pixels.
Where my argument lies is in the individual transistors powering each sub-pixel.

If the picture was a native resolution, each hardware pixel would be accomodated by a software pixel, therefore each transistor would have to switch to a different position, requiring a certain amount of energy per transistor switch. If you were to slightly change the image (i.e move your reticule slightly to the right, revealing a smaller portion of the mao), most hardware pixels would change color to accommodate each new software pixel it must mirror (assuming the scene has many different colors) -- once again, transistors switch, power consumed per transistor switch.

However, if the software resolution was lower than the native resolution(one-half smaller, like in my previous example), not the same amount of pixels would change color, because not every hardware pixel is given a distinctly colored software pixel -- 2 pixels would show the same color "blurring effect". Therefore, if two pixels were to show the same color even after the image were change slightly, fewer colors would be changed, fewer transistors would switch, therefore, less power would be required.

Of course, there is a base amount of power you need to actually refresh each transistor, but if a transistor doesn't move, it doesn't require any extra power.

Kinda complicated to visualize, but hopefully you can see what I'm saying =P

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:18 1

58. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


I also 100% know hat each physical pixel is always on load because activated LCD pixels do not flash on/off between frames, that's mean liquid crystals have to be always on certain load because they have to keep certain angle to be able refract light coming from back-light through diffuser and provide right colour. (Basically there should be three different angles, one for Red, one for Green and one for Blue.) and If it is true, then transistors shold move only when liquid crystals change angle in other words physical pixels changes colours and this theory should prove your assumptions about transistors.

So, according to this theory, your assumption is right. But now in my head just have arised new theory which can break this previous theory and I'm a bit confused. LOL! :D

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:26

59. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Well remember, the transistors dictate the angle at which the helix twists from it's native 90 degree angle -- zero value being no electricity is passed through the LC(sub-pixel receives no light) one value being all the electricity passes through the LC, (causing the sub-pixel to run at full brightness), and the medians in between representing a partial amount of light being allowed through the helix. My guess is that full power is always being issued to the transistor itself, irregardless of whether or not it is letting light to the helix.

But yes you were right.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:36

60. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"But yes you were right."

Right that software based resolution doesn't affect power consumptions or right because of my comment #58.

Because at the momen in my head, there is some different theories and few of them says that software based resolution changes power consumptions and few of them says that software based resolution doesn't change power consumptions. I'm a bit confused now. :D

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:43

62. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


When I said you were right, I was goin goff that fact that you said my assumptions were right.

I'm confused now to.. Wait you said that every pixel is always on "load". How so? LCD sub-pixels are always "on" but not at an equal intensity, if that were the case, then the screen would be white all the time, because that is the color you get when you blast all subpixels.

And remember, the transistors come before the LC, which come before the sub-pixels.

Remember, sub-pixels have their own transistors and liquid crystals to tinker with.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:50

64. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"I'm confused now to.. Wait you said that every pixel is always on "load". How so?"

Ok, I will try to explain why I think so, just wait, at the moment I'm typing a bit slow.

"And remember, the transistors come before the LC, which come before the sub-pixels."

Yes I know that.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 18:10

66. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"I'm confused now to.. Wait you said that every pixel is always on "load". How so?"

If you want to keep liquid crystal "rotated" to certain angle, you should keep liquid crystal "loaded" on certain voltage.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 18:30

68. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Remember, the amount of voltage that enters the liquid crystal is dependant of how much voltage is allowed by the transistor. The transistor itself either switches to a zero values to represent no voltage going through the LC, therefore no light on the Sub-pixel ( though this is only true when there is no power, as LCD pixels do not turn off sub-pixels to display blacks), there is a one value, which represents all the voltage going through the transistor to the LC, and thus, the sub-pixel is at full-blast, and the transistor can partially turn on to represent partial amounts of light to enter the LC, which is how the color spectrums are formed.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 18:42

72. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"Remember, the amount of voltage that enters the liquid crystal is dependant of how much voltage is allowed by the transistor."

But wait, does that doesn't prove that transistors works all the time? If they are working all the time, then it doesn't matter what is software resolution, the power consumptions still be the same?

I'm a bit confused again. :/

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:46

63. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


But there still may be something about what we didn't thinked, something about transistors and refresh frequency (Hz). :/

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:51

65. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Refresh rate is how many times the image on the screen refreshes per second, and yes, that complicates this whole thing. But refresh rates are lower on phones that on conventional monitors.

EDIT: This is pretty hard to confuse with Frames per Second and one thing I've been trying to figure out is : If the refresh rate of a monitor is 60Hz (60 times a second), then wouldn't any increase in frames past 60 on a 60hz produce a negligible effect because the actual monitor won't keep up with the pictures being outputted to it?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 18:34

69. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"I'm confused now to.. Wait you said that every pixel is always on "load". How so?"

If you want to keep liquid crystal "rotated" to certain angle, you should keep liquid crystal "loaded" on certain voltage all the time.
And there is proof, not only CRT, PLASMA and OLED based monitors can get Burn-In effet, but LCD monitors also can get it (the difference is that on LCD monitor Burn-In effect is not permanent). Burn-In effect happens on LCD monitors because liquid crystal over certain time (on static image) tend to get static load. When liquid crystals gets static load they are unable to change angle and we see Burn-In effect on the monitor.
Why liquid crystals gets static load? Because when monitor shows an image (static image), all (each) liquid crystals are set on certain voltage and if we long time keep the same voltage, liquid crystals gets static load and freezes on certain angle.

Sorry it is a bit hard to explain, because my English isn't perfect. :)

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 18:39

70. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Yes, what you are saying makes sense, but how about a scenario when the sub-pixel must display a certain color, and the transistor much adjust the switch. Because there is a constant voltage being applied without anything being done, extra voltage would be required for the transistor to swtich (even though it would be a little amount of voltage, the number adds up as you scale it across the board to all pixels).

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 19:05

75. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


I just have reconsidered everything again, and I agree that if there is two displays with different numbers of pixels, then yes, power consumptions will be different.

But if there is two monitors with the same number of pixels just running on the different software rezolutions, power consumptions will be the same for both because doesn't matter what is software resolution, working number of pixels is still the same.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:06

44. 305Bucko (Posts: 506; Member since: 07 Aug 2011)


Resolution is a bigger factor than the screen size because you need a powerhouse of a graphics chip to render video on each and every pixel.

However, I agree that 3000mAh is not enough. Perhaps 3500-4500.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:11

46. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Yes, I agree, but we were talking only about screen departament without any GPU or any other hardware.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:11 1

47. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


Reply to Bucko =P

You are right here, but he was arguing on the basis of how much power the ONLY the screen itself consumes.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:23 1

49. 305Bucko (Posts: 506; Member since: 07 Aug 2011)


True, but I dont think its fair to conclude that resolution does not affect power consumption. I was replying to an earlier post where PhoneArenaUser said it was irrelevant.

A higher resolution will always be acompanied by additional hardware and software that can actually push it. So you have to factor that in regardless.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:28 1

50. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


True !

+1

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 16:45 1

52. 305Bucko (Posts: 506; Member since: 07 Aug 2011)


BTW I too want to commend YOU in particular Objectivism. Its rare to find comments that are unbiased. Most people that comment ARE in fact fanboys that are emotionally attached to a brand, and it is rather difficult to have a discussion since they mistake discussing with fighting. Just as their opinons are based on emotion, so are their responses when questioned.

Your comments are pretty long but I can sit though and read the whole thing since your actually speaking through knowledge and not trying to bash others or brands.

thumbsup

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 17:07 1

56. ObjectivismFTW (Posts: 211; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)


You as well ! I really don't like fanboys(hence my name, lol) But yeah like I said to PhoneArenaUser, Fanboys argue off an emotional basis almost all the time, so when you critique their favored brand, they take it as if you are insulting them personally lol! Not to talk trash or anything, but King Kurogii is the biggest example of this, me and him have gotten into it so many times now but what never changes is his emotional connections to Motorola products lol.. Anyhow, I love tech talk, I hate fanboys haha =P

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 19:13

76. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


I'm not a fan boy, I just don't like Apple as a company but that doesn't make me a fan boy of any other company or brand, I just don't like Apple as a company because of Apples politics and morality. How they achieve their objectives and goals.

I'm fan of technologies and when I'm choosing device, I pay attention to specifications and other technical things, quality and so on.

posted on 07 Aug 2012, 01:00

83. 305Bucko (Posts: 506; Member since: 07 Aug 2011)


LOL YOUVE GOTTEN INTO IT WITH KINGKUROGIII TOO?!?!?! LOL

I swear he must work for Motorola. I have mad respect for Motorola especially now that theyre acquired by Google but, cmon... with all the phones theyve put out in the market the RAZR line are the only ones that are outstanding. The rest have been mediocre including the Atrix.

He tried to argue with me that the Photon from Sprint was an awesome phone... I'VE OWNED IT AND IT WAS TERRIBLE.

I look up to people like "The Woz" that although he co-founded Apple, owns a RAZR, and says he wants to buy a Surface. THAT man is NOT a Fanboy. Hes the real deal.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 19:19

77. Hunt3rj2 (Posts: 396; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)


You must not know about HTC, because their two suppliers for screens have always been Samsung/Sony and AUO Optronics.

Anyways, LCD uses far less power than AMOLED, especially at high pixel densities. More likely than not though a 5 inch screen only needs 340 ppi.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:04 2

3. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


5-inch, I'm not not interested, but good luck for HTC. :)

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:47 7

13. ajac09 (Posts: 1367; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)


your not so why post? alot of other people are.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:49 2

14. wendygarett (unregistered)


Mind as well buy a nexus... Cheaper and bigger screen...

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:52 2

15. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"your not so why post?"

Why not? Or I'm not free to express my opinion?

"alot of other people are."

And I don't deny that.

What is your problem?

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 13:11 1

39. andro. (Posts: 1944; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)


Don't judge too soon as it sounds like this device does not have physical menu buttons. The screen maybe 5 inch but if bezel is minimised the device maybe the same size as the one x

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 15:38

41. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5478; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Agree it may, but something forces me to think taht it won't. Just a feeling. :D

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:11 3

6. TylerGrunter (Posts: 905; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)


I doubt it will be 5 inches, 1080p would give a 440 of pixel density. That's way more than needed, as in nomral conditions you can't really see any pixel over 300 dpi.
I would assumer it's a 9 or 10 inches tablet.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:15 10

7. OpTiMuS_BlAcK (Posts: 411; Member since: 04 May 2012)


Overkilling specs are what attracts tech savvy customers.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 07:41 3

11. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4000; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)


Well yes, but most tech savvy people would know that 1080p on a display that size would be way overkill, and wouldn't want to waste power on pushing pixels they can't even see for the most part.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:01 1

17. OpTiMuS_BlAcK (Posts: 411; Member since: 04 May 2012)


Just the curiousity of wanting to try out a full HD phone is reason enough for them to get one.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:04 2

18. g2a5b0e (Posts: 2165; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)


I disagree with that, Berzerk000. I consider myself very tech savvy & I understand everything about diminishing returns on ppi, but we're talking about egos here. If one of my friends picks this up, I don't want him to have any reason to say his phone is better than mine. I'm gonna want that 1080p screen, too even though I know it's superfluous. It's all about the bragging rights.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:15 5

22. Berzerk000 (Posts: 4000; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)


Bragging rights are nice, but I usually try to keep away from them. I'll take any screen thats over 300 ppi, and if someone brags that they have a 1080p screen vs. mine, I can just explain to them that the human eye can't detect pixels over 300 ppi, so having that many more pixels just wastes your battery and puts extra strain on your GPU.

2 things might happen then, they either agree with me and stop bragging; or just they just keep bragging and I don't want anything to do with them anyways. I get some people aren't very tech savvy, but I think they can understand that some things are just useless and actually do more harm than good for a device.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:40 1

25. g2a5b0e (Posts: 2165; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)


Fair enough. Can't disagree with that.

posted on 06 Aug 2012, 08:52

26. TylerGrunter (Posts: 905; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)


And that was exactly my point :)

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories