Do you think the performance overhead of Quad HD displays is worth it?

Do you think the performance overhead of Quad HD displays is worth it?
Ever since LG introduced the first truly global Quad HD (1440 x 2560) resolution smartphone, the G3, the trend with super high-ends has been to gradually abandon the 1080p of old and transition to the even more pixel-dense emerging standard. Today, most handset makers have already completed said transition and have at least one Quad HD model—typically a flagship.

A display as rich in pixels doesn't come for free, though, as each individual pixel requires extra processing time and, subsequently, more battery. And even as Quad HD panels are continuously improved upon and get more and more efficient, it's unlikely that they'll ever surpass 1080p units, especially if those had continued getting the same kind of attention. So it's a trade-off. You get a sharper display, but take a hit in performance and battery life.

Given that, and keeping mind that 1080p is already close enough to maxing out your eyes' finite resolving power, an argument can be made that the relatively minor improvements in clarity are not worth the performance overhead entailed to get them. At least if you place a higher value on system performance and power efficiency, which isn't necessarily true for everyone. It really comes down to choice. And so we thought we'd ask directly, Do you think the performance overhead of Quad HD displays (in smartphones) is worth it?

Do you think the performance overhead of Quad HD displays is worth it?

Yes, regardless of screen size
Yes, but only with 5.5" displays and larger
No, regardless of screen size



1. xperiaZlover

Posts: 202; Member since: Nov 15, 2015

Having a 4k display is worth for 2017. When all flagships will have 4k displays.

18. torr310

Posts: 1698; Member since: Oct 27, 2011

No, totally waste my precious battery life and I don't even notice how the heck a 4k with 3000mah runs the same time as an 1080p with 2500mah.

73. techperson211

Posts: 1280; Member since: Feb 27, 2014

If the technology is there and supported by a great battery life then why not.

74. techperson211

Posts: 1280; Member since: Feb 27, 2014

If fruity will introduce this, they'll say it's worth it.

22. tedkord

Posts: 17463; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

That's not what they asked. They asked about QHD, or 2k screens.

27. Hexa-core

Posts: 2131; Member since: Aug 11, 2015

TedKord! Is it the first time you see someone make an off-the-topic complain on the site? Some people just want attention here.

67. sgodsell

Posts: 7573; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

4k is needed for VR, but for just using a smartphone phone display then 2k is just fine. But with VR users will get a resolution of 1920x2160 per eye with a 4k display. With a 1080p display users will only get 960x1080 per eye, which you can easily see the pixels.

72. almostdone

Posts: 449; Member since: Sep 25, 2012

This poll is already messed up as many are thinking 4K and not 2K screen.

31. Macready

Posts: 1830; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

The article falls flat on several assumptions. First, that the fill factor between 1080p and 1440p panels of the same generation differs beyond measurebating levels. The S5 vs S5 LTE-A disagree. Their panels use equal amounts of energy. Next, it assumes you don't have a choice of which resolution you want your phone to actually process. Samsung offers that choice as do third party apps for other brands. A typical poll that wants to work towards the outcome deemed "truth" by the author.

68. AlikMalix unregistered

he said "measurebating".... he he he... i'm so immature..

69. SprintGuy26

Posts: 229; Member since: Mar 21, 2011

i had to read that line 3 times cause i kept seeing masturbating....

71. maccess

Posts: 742; Member since: Jan 16, 2013

Lol.. poor my eyes and my mind.. i dont even realized if he actually said measurebating until i read your guys comments..

78. Nabil111

Posts: 105; Member since: Apr 14, 2014

But does it not require more backlight power to illuminate a higher resolution display? Aren't AMOLED displays also at a disadvantage, as you have more individual "pixel units" being illuminated? Sure, you may be telling 3 to show the same color when under-driving the display, but it's still outputting at its native resolution and performing hardware upscaling. I'm happy with a 1080p display(on devices under 8"), removable memory, and removable battery. Call me old school I guess.

2. GreenMan

Posts: 2698; Member since: Nov 09, 2015

It doesn't worth a dime, I'll tell you that... And unless we are jumping in the realm of tablets (i.e 6" & over) I don't see a point in a 4K Display, peroid... An 'Eastern Company' (whose name I won't dare to mention) is responsible for starting this SUPER PIXEL DENSITY craze... And may I stress the fact that it's yet another typical gimmick from the said brand...? So, unless battery technology see some major breakthrough; I'm more than happy with 1080p Displays...

17. joeytaylor

Posts: 957; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

Damn you Sony

23. tedkord

Posts: 17463; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Well, if you're more than happy with 1080p, then to hell with the rest of us. Wait! I just found a guy who said he's more than happy with 720p. That should be the new standard. Nope, here's a guy who says that wvga is plenty. He's got 20/50 eyesight, but it works for him. No smartphone should go above that. Seriously, since I know that a fact of human biology is the human eye can notice differences up to about 600ppi at typical smartphone viewing distances, and that the Note 5 clobbers every 1080p phone display, I'll stick with what I've got. I'll reserve judgement on 4k until I can see it in person. Settle if you like, for $700+, I want the best I can get.

28. Hexa-core

Posts: 2131; Member since: Aug 11, 2015

Right! But QHD LCD is very bad when it comes to power draw.

70. Tsoliades

Posts: 228; Member since: Dec 22, 2012

Completely agree. I think, as tech enthusiasts, we should all be more than capable of realizing the importance of the industry going above and beyond what we may deem as "good enough." We don't have to sacrifice between battery life or screen quality; we can ask for both. Look at devices like the Nexus 6P and the Moto X Force. Long battery life and high-resolution screen.

39. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

The article says QHD or Quad HD display. Not 4K displays. They are not the same. You're commenting on something that isn't even mentioned in the article. You do understand the different between QHD and UHD...right?

66. sgodsell

Posts: 7573; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

I guess you don't see a point in VR. Because you would definitely see the difference if you used a 4k vs a 1080p display. Remember the screen is divided into two. So for a 1920x1080 display, each eye gets a resolution of 960x1080. You can definitely see the pixels. Now with a 4k display, each eye gets a resolution of 1920x2160. That's 4 times the difference compared to lowly 1080p with VR. So for VR I want 4k.

3. WAusJackBauer

Posts: 456; Member since: Mar 22, 2015

To my understanding the whole point of 2k screens on phones was to use them has a VR headset.

16. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

I Thought It Was Just A Marketing Scheme LOL.

64. Plutonium239

Posts: 1244; Member since: Mar 17, 2015

No, ive tried the gear vr with an S6, it's resolution is far too low to work well for this. It would require 4k for each individual eye...

5. santoss2013

Posts: 82; Member since: Jan 16, 2015

For now 2k is somehow OK, but I hope for next 3-5 years 4k to be enough for a smartphone under 6 inch screen...

7. Awalker

Posts: 1986; Member since: Aug 15, 2013

In general it's not worth it but performance on the 6P is incredibly fast and smooth and battery life is great despite having such a high resolution display. That said performance and battery life would better with a FHD display.

9. srk_s_rao unregistered

Can't differentiate between 1080 and 1440 on my note 4 it looks same.

10. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

It Amazes Me How So Many People Complain About Battery Life, Yet They Still Want Phones With QHD And Beyond Displays, Makes Zero Sense.

25. tedkord

Posts: 17463; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

It's because, despite the whiners predictions, each generation of device that increased resolution kept equal battery life or increased it. We heard all these arguments when the first 720p display came out on devices. It'll kill battery. You don't notice the differences. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

32. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

They weren't wrong, It does impact the battery life and significantly at that. You don't notice it because A whole year passes before A successor to A device comes out, even If they up the resolution over the predecessor the battery life usually doesn't take a hit because more power efficient displays and socs have been released by then. And it pisses me off to think how much better my S6's battery life would be if the more efficient display and soc was paired with FHD instead of QHD. Here's The Proof They Weren't Wrong Then And Still Aren't Now. Even With Bigger Batteries Higher Resolution Displays Impact Battery Life Tremendously.

37. tedkord

Posts: 17463; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

They were wrong, because what they implied (and in many cases flat out stated) was that the higher res devices wouldn't last nearly as long. I remember comments like, "enjoy your 1 hour battery."

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.